Contributors

Saturday, January 08, 2011

A Complete Disgrace

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Gabrielle Giffords (US Rep, D) said in an interview with MSNBC.

United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D) has just been shot in the head by Jared Loughner, a "pot smoking loner who wanted to make new US currency." He also complained about the illiteracy rate in his district (translation: I don't like Spics). Take a look at the photo (left) from his MySpace page. Look familiar at all? Second amendment remedies indeed.

Giffords was the lucky one. The death toll included a 9-year-old girl, a federal judge, and a staffer for the Democratic congresswoman. Giffords's office was also vandalized repeatedly during the health care debate.

But I guess I'm just reaching, right? There's no way in hell that anyone would take Palin's crosshairs seriously. People in this country are much better than that, aren't they?

What a great place Arizona must be these days. Papers please, Jew...fuck you and your transplant (the subject of Nikto's post tomorrow)...and a nine year old girl dead. What a disgrace.

27 comments:

juris imprudent said...

I would've thought the Andrew Joseph Stack incident might have taught you a little more caution - after all, he had as much in common with you as he did with the loony right. But, you just can't control yourself when it comes to leaping to a conclusion, can you M?

Haplo9 said...

Actually, this makes sense in Mark-land. If your self control is so poor that you immediately go to McD's when you see a hamburger, and you assume that everyone else is as weak-willed as you, then of course you'd believe that the picture of a crosshair is all it takes to cause a muderous rampage.

exe said...

Pima Sheriff Dopnik on Rep. Giffords shooting: All the vitriole we hear enflaming the American public ... that may be free speech, but it's not without consequences

Santa said...

Now it will become who will win the argument. I've already seen how they are describing him as an angry loner with no real affiliation with anyone. It won't be long before someone ties him to the left somehow when it's so obvious where he stands!

exe said...

Bomb squad called in to investigate package found outside Rep. Giffords office in Tucson...related to the burning packages that have been popping up in Maryland and DC?

juris imprudent said...

It won't be long before someone ties him to the left somehow when it's so obvious where he stands!

Well, M's immediate reaction to Stack was to tie him to the right (which didn't hold up very well). That may or may not be the case with this guy - it isn't like he shot one of the most liberal members of Congress. Giffords is one of the Blue Dog Dems - the kind the left wants purged from the Party.

Seriously, I don't think this is a partisan thing. The guy is apparently totally nuts (if you saw the YouTube about "new currency" this isn't in doubt). But, people who see everything as partisan - well I suppose they will see this as partisan. That is sad too.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Funny how Daily Kos suddenly pulled the article about Gabrielle Giffords titled, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

...and the article saying they needed to "put a bullseye" on moderate Democrats, specifically including Gabrielle Giffords.

And of course, the DLC's "Targeting Strategy" map, the one labeled "Behind the Lines"... well that's completely different, of course. It must be, I never heard a peep out of you about it.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

And naturally it's all Sarah Palin's fault.

Once again, you demonstrate why it's hard not to consider "an inability to think critically" to be a badge of honor, like being the one guy who didn't fall for the con game.

exe said...

Pima County Sheriff Dupnik said that Arizona has "become a mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Santa said...

Like I said, Damn Teabaggers, it won't be long before someone makes this about liberals too. Will you ever be able to admit the gross fault with your side?

jeff c. said...

I just posted two questions on Kevin Baker's site to see if anyone over there can make any sort of connections. Giffords' office was targeted last March. Someone shot it up. Another interesting piece of information: Giffords' GOP opponent in the election last November held an event in which you could fire a M-16 if you showed up.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php

Get on target. Awesome.

exe said...

Police are hunting a second person.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-gabrielle-giffords-shot-grocery-store-event/story?id=12571452

Santa said...

The full quote from Dupnik

"The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately Arizona I think is the capital. We are the Mecca for prejudice for prejudice and bigotry,"

blk said...

What message is he trying to send by placing a pistol on a book that has a picture of the White House on the cover?

exe said...

Here's one of the myspace postings by Loughner.

If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.
I define terrorist.
Thus a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.
If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.
You call me a terrorist.
Thus the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

Isn't that a logical fallacy that the peanut gallery bitches about constantly on here? Chillingly familiar.

Damn Teabaggers said...

I call bullshit, Santa.

I wasn't making it about liberals, nor trying to. I was pointing out, factually, how the exact same rhetoric exists on both sides, and is used to mean the same things for the same purposes.

Therefore to claim that it's the influence of a particular political view is about as valid as claiming Satanism is due to the influence of D&D. It's asinine.

Santa said...

Well you are right about both sides. The left was idealistic to a fault and turned violent in the 1960s and 1970s. Now the right is idealistic to a fault and violent today.

Haplo9 said...

>Now the right is idealistic to a fault and violent today.

Whew! Good thing you are on the right side of things huh Santa?

Haplo9 said...

I should say *correct* side of things. :)

GuardDuck said...

Ah yes, rhetoric....


Perhaps we can liken a similar rhetoric that is much closer to home.


Notes from the front.

The front? Front of what? As in the front lines? Like a war? Wars have battles. People die in battles.

Does Mark advocate killing people in his war?

rld said...

Mark, get a life. Dancing on the graves of those people who just died. You didn't have anything to say on here about the muslim who tried to blow up times square last year. Was that because there was nothing in that incident for you to exploit for political gain?

Speaking Truth said...

Way to stay classy there Minions, NOT!

Way to wait for the truth to come out before jumping to your "facts."

http://bit.ly/dGq43X

exe said...

Uh, dude? That site you just linked looks about as freaky as Loughner's MySpace page. Santa called it.

"It won't be long before someone ties him to the left"

As usual, Santa knows all.

Haplo9 said...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Man, look at the graphic down at the bottom. Clearly an incitement to murder. Those Republicans sure do nasty things. .. Wait. What? You mean that's from Democrats? WTF? How can this possibly be?? Mark, you should point out the post where you told the DLC to cut this sort of thing out, because I am certain that your copious amounts of intellectual integrity would have compelled you to do so. Right?

Speaking Truth said...

> Uh, dude? That site you just linked looks about as freaky as Loughner's MySpace page.

Really? When it says stuff like this?

> All reports, everywhere, are that Congresswoman Giffords is an exceptional woman and a wonderful public servant, so clearly she still has a lot of work left to do.

Ohhhh… scaaaarrrrryyyy.

Your reaction reminds me of a bumper sticker:

> Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.

Damn Teabaggers said...

Well you are right about both sides. The left was idealistic to a fault and turned violent in the 1960s and 1970s. Now the right is idealistic to a fault and violent today.

That's priceless, an instant classic. First you agree with me that it's asinine, on both sides... but then you decide to do it anyway.

Priceless.

juris imprudent said...

Well folks what can you expect - these are people that can't control themselves.

Damn Teabaggers said...

If some angry left winger had attacked Sarah Palin, I would seriously question how responsible I was in continuing to foment that mindset.

Would you? Have you ever considered "how responsible you are" for the G20 riots, which have gone on year after year?

I think people on the right need to own up to the same path the left took in the 1960s and 1970s. The idealistic radicals at that time turned violent and were clearly wrong in what they did.

Except for William Ayers, of course.

Do you have any evidence for the assumption of "the same path"?

CNN says you don't:
"But the question is, is there any evidence that the suspected shooter in this particular case was a Sarah Palin fan, read Sarah Palin's website, was a member on Facebook, watched her tweets, or anything like that?"

"None at all. And there is no evidence that this was even inspired by rage over health care, broadly."
- Wolf Blitzer and Jessica Yellin, Jan. 8 2011

Of course, that didn't stop them from speculating about it themselves for several minutes.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte

And of course, while you are assuming that there must be a connection to "the violent, hateful rhetoric of the right", you likewise assume that there cannot possibly be any connection to the identical rhetoric of the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdJWNA65oY

If JD Hayworth gets killed, is it "Obviously Harry Mitchell's fault"?

"Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis."

"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."

- Daily Kos, June 25, 2008, "2010 Will Be Primary Season"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

Is Rep. Giffords' shooting Markos Moulitsas "fault" any more or less than Sarah Palin's? Why or why not? He "put a bullseye" on her, did he not?

What role does the "hateful, violent rhetoric" of Barack Obama play in all this?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

If I tried to assign blame based on any of that, you'd probably be diplomatic and call me "ridiculous" rather than "insane", wouldn't you? And you'd be right. So what makes Sarah Palin's (or anyone else's) connection to this "obvious" and someone else's "ridiculous"?