"The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!
Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws."
These are quotes from Jared Loughner, the suspect in the shooting in Arizona. It sounds awfully familiar to me.
People have already starting bitching that I have made this political...blah blah blah. I'm really sick and tired of these same people deflecting responsibility for starting all of this. If some angry left winger had attacked Sarah Palin, I would seriously question how responsible I was in continuing to foment that mindset. Apparently, this has been lost on Alex Jones.
"Toning Down the Rhetoric Means Obeying Big Government."
This came up in comments...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. We are seeing the same thing today...idealism of the right is turning violent. This is not the first incident although it is certainly the most violent. The guy on his way to blow up the Tides Foundation was inspired by Glenn Beck We've seen several incidents like this in the last two years including several in Arizona with other Congress people. The simple fact is that the left doesn't do this anymore. The right does now.
This came up in comments...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. We are seeing the same thing today...idealism of the right is turning violent. This is not the first incident although it is certainly the most violent. The guy on his way to blow up the Tides Foundation was inspired by Glenn Beck We've seen several incidents like this in the last two years including several in Arizona with other Congress people. The simple fact is that the left doesn't do this anymore. The right does now.
Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo had this to say last night on MSNBC.
"When there is a virus it always attacks the weak and elderly first. The anger and hate out there in cable news, talk radio, and the blogsphere has become like this virus and Loughner, a mentally ill person, is the weak and infirm elderly person who has succumbed to it."
Indeed.
Meanwhile, they are still looking for that second person. I wonder what that bit of the story will bring?
Oh, and our new Speaker of the House had this to say regarding the shooting.
"An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society."
"An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society."
Does that include the list of people below, Mr. Boehner?
25 comments:
It sounds awfully familiar to me.
I'm going to laugh my ass off at you when the other shoe drops - the one where he is anti-corporate as you. Just like with Stack.
I can't believe you are in such a rush to make a fool of yourself.
A fool and a ghoul.
So other than the snippet you highlighted, is there something else that sounds familiar?
implying mind control and brainwash
Whoa - just like corporate advertising controls you. Shit, we didn't even have to wait!
Seriously, are we going to argue over the politics of anyone who rants about mind control? Really?
deflecting responsibility for starting all of this
Starting what? There have been lunatics that shot politicians for ages. There have been mass murderers. What is so new - other than your brazen and lame attempt to affix responsibility on people other than the shooter.
Loughner, a mentally ill person, is the weak and infirm elderly person who has succumbed to it.
Did Josh not get the memo that Loughner is 22? Does Josh have one iota of evidence that this guy was a Savage/Beck/etc fan-boy?
Shooting a moderate Dem, and a bunch of strangers is an attack against the liberal machine, how?
Wow, Mark. I get why you stopped posting over at The Smallest Minority. The willful ignorance with those people is blinding. I posted a simple question to get them to think and reflect. They immediately blamed the Daily Kos and attacked me. I think you are right about the virus idea. This is how it happens.
It's not an attack against the liberal machine, per se, but an anti government one. Check out this link from Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/09/arizona-suspected-gunman-no-stranger-to-trouble/
"New details emerging about the suspected shooter behind Saturday's deadly rampage reveal a 22-year-old man with a troubled past who law enforcement say may have been influenced by American Renaissance, a pro-white publication."
That doesn't sound like another shoe dropping to me. Juris, you don't seriously think that the incidents of the last two years are just a series lone liberal nuts, do you?
*Whew*
But have you read about the gunman? He's one of these "we went wrong when we went off the gold standard" nutbags. I've been talking to these people a lot lately. They struck me as scary people: much like the Birthers. Now I know for sure.
>Wow, Mark. I get why you stopped posting over at The Smallest Minority.
Heh, you made one post that said "hey, don't you guys see how the right caused this?" and then bravely ran away from any and all responses. You sure showed them jeff.
.. Though, you are emulating Mark to a tee. I'll give you that.
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:
"...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"?
They immediately blamed the Daily Kos and attacked me.
That is a flat-out, deliberate lie.
No one "blamed" Daily Kos. They pointed out, as I just did yet again, that the exact same rhetoric is used by both sides, in the same way, for the same purposes. They linked to Daily Kos as an example of such, just as I did.
Or do you consider anything less than subservient agreement "an attack"?
The dude listed among his favorite books the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf', not Sarah Palin's 'Going Rogue'.
You are really, really going to have to put together a much more detailed profile of his 'right sided-ness' to pin this guy down to either right or left rather than just nut.
Violence has been perpetrated by the right far more than the left in the last 20 years. Oklahoma City, the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, the abortion clinic bombings, the bombing of a lesbian bar, the shooting of several doctors, and on and on. And 9/11 is the best example of conservative outrage we have -- not an American conservative, but a conservative nonetheless.
The right and its media enablers swim in a pool of outrage, fury, deceptions, half-truths and outright lies. The birthers keep insisting Obama isn't an American. Fox keeps egging them on, doing anything they can to make Obama seem illegitimate. The right claims he's a socialist and a communist and a fascist (all at the same time). They scream lies about about death panels, and tout "second amendment" remedies. Fox management issues memos requiring reporters to refer to the public option in health care as "a government takeover" or the "so-called" public option.
The entire conceit of the Tea Party is based on falsehood. They compare themselves to the original tea party in Boston. The modern tea partiers claim they were being taxed without representation. This was an outright lie: the modern Tea Partiers have the right to vote for the president and their representatives, unlike Colonial Americans who were taxed by a foreign king and a Parliament they had part in choosing. In the recent election many Tea Party candidates won, which shows exactly how deceptive and mendacious their entire platform was and still is.
When you spew that much hatred and claim the mantle of the Founding Fathers, you provide a justification for the less balanced to take the same actions that the Founding Fathers took: armed rebellion against a tyrant. Beck exaggerated every imagined slight, comparing the president to Hitler and Stalin at every juncture. All of it distortion, half-truths, and lies.
This is exactly the same thing the radical imams are doing in Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia when they condemn America from the minbar. The only real difference is that the radical imams take the extra half step and advocate murder, while Beck et al. evoke the symbolism of the Founding Fathers, who fomented armed rebellion against a tyrant.
Are Beck and Limbaugh intentionally inciting assassinations? Like Fox News, I'll just ask the question without offering an opinion, thereby condemning them without actually saying so.
But the mood of the country is like a thermostat. Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Brewer and far too many other Republicans are cranking it way up. And when the nuts at the far right end get too hot they start to pop.
Santa, the president of that group has no idea who Jared L is. Quit spreading lies.
Did you all know that Fred Phelps (from the Westboro Baptist Church) ran for governor 3 times as a Democrat?
Headline of the day - Constitution hating, flag burning, anti-religion, Karl Marx devotee murders Bush-appointed judge - Must be Palins fault!
9/11 is the best example of conservative outrage we have -- not an American conservative, but a conservative nonetheless.
Really? The Republicans are part of the same international conservative movement as Islamic terrorists?
Are you a member of the same insane nutbag movement as this shooter?
When you spew that much hatred
You mean like you're doing in that very comment?
and claim the mantle of the Founding Fathers, you provide a justification for the less balanced to take the same actions that the Founding Fathers took: armed rebellion against a tyrant.
Does that include those who burned Bush in effigy and carried posters of him being shot, while screaming (literally, not figuratively) "Dissent is patriotic"?
Does that include those who spent millions on the "General Betray Us" ad?
Of course not, that's silly, right?
In short, you're saying is "It doesn't matter what the subject is, it's patriotic when we do it and treasonous when you do it.
And that's before we even begin with the utter tastelessness of you all dancing on these people's graves for political propaganda purposes.
Well put, blk, I couldn't have said it better myself. Until the right comes to grips with these simple truths, we won't get anywhere. I'll be right here reminding them and they'll keep living in denial while playing the both sides game.
Hah, case in point DT's last comment...just can't see the difference...
I'll be right here reminding them
How can you remind people who aren't part of the conversation here? Who here fits your definition of that kind of right winger - me, last, rld, haplo, who? Oh, that's right - you don't have any real right-wingnuts, but anyone who doesn't toe your liberal line must be one of them. Name me one person who has stood up on this site and proclaimed their respect and admiration for Sarah Palin. Someone who said that is the best possible nominee for high office the Republicans could have.
'W' couldn't have said it any better.
Santa brings up American Renaissance, which I've never heard of. Must be one of those mainstream right-wing rags, huh? Or would I find that on the same shelf as some neo-nazi crap? Santa also asks about series lone liberal nuts?
I don't know dude, what is more important to you - that someone is nuts and wants to kill, or what his politics are?
If you want to play tar-and-feather with the lunatic fringe, we can bring up all the insanity from ELF/ALF/SHAC and hang that around your neck. Do you think we'd achieve anything by doing that? Is that the kind of game you want to play?
jeff c. sez I posted a simple question to get them to think and reflect.
Which translates to, I threw a stinkbomb and ran away. You did get some thoughtful responses - not that you care to engage with them.
Hah, case in point DT's last comment...just can't see the difference...
You're right, I can't see the difference between Daily Kos "putting a bullseye" on Rep. Giffords and SarahPAC or whoever doing it. I can't see the difference between Daily Kos "targeting" her and SarahPAC or whoever doing that either, other than one's on your side and one isn't.
I mean sure, you can claim that when conservatives say it, it results in violence and when liberals say it, it doesn't.... but only if you're willing to ignore or dismiss a whole lot of recent events, which of course you do as a matter of routine.
Beyond that, it's just a typical example of "it's not the same when we do it," coupled with a truly classless Danse Macabre to make cheap political points.
This one's worthy of Keith Olbermann, Mark. And in case you're wondering, no, I don't mean that as a compliment.
DailyKOS has vainly attempted to cover their own nastiness by deleting the article by one of her constituents saying she is dead to him. Unfortunately for Markos and his fellow 'tards, the Internet doesn't forget so easily.
The right claims he's a socialist and a communist and a fascist (all at the same time).
Which of course begs the question, why is it "a slur" or "offensive" or "a lie" or maybe even "hate speech" if, for example, Glenn Beck calls a member of Obama's team a "communist", but it is not a slur, etc. if a member of Obama's team refers to himself as a communist?
Why is that? Is it like the N-word, that it's automatically a slur unless the person saying it is a member of the group it's normally applied to (or maybe someone high enough up the food chain to get a waiver, like Bill Maher)? Is "communism" going to have to become "the C-word" now?
"You are dead to me" is, in no manner, shape or form, a death threat. It is Old English vernacular meaning to be disowned or forgotten. For anyone to ascribe to it any other meaning is to expose their horrible ignorance of the English language.
"You are dead to me" is, in no manner, shape or form, a death threat.
PRECISELY. Give the man a prize. Now for bonus points, is "Get on target for victory in November. Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" a death threat?
@Damn Teabaggers: Actually, the proper phrasing would be "get on board" (e.g. get on board the bandwagon) because people do not "get on target." (Cite another example of "get on target" if you can find one used outside of AZ.) So, yes, when a phrase like that is also accompanied by a slew of gun-toting images, I would question the use and intent of the phrase as this person did back in July:
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/06/jesse-kelly-event-is-this-wording-intentional.html
The misuse of language, by mismatching metaphors, using poor spelling, etc., is something that makes me grind my teeth.
"You are dead to me" is, in no manner, shape or form, a death threat.
And yet KOS has deleted it from their website.
But does ' get on board' imply we are all going to be playing some musical instruments?
I'm okay with you being annoyed as a grammatical or literary critic. But when you claim it as incitement to violence, I can't help wondering why a Democrat literally putting his opponent in crosshairs, using targeting imagery, saying "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun" and "putting a bullseye" on someone is greeted with nothing but a yawn.
If your answer is that drawing such conclusions is speculative at best and slanderous at worst, quite aside from the complete callousness and tastelessness of dancing on the graves of the victims as an opportunity to indulge in it, and that therefore they don't rate such serious consideration, well I agree.
But the same is true of the conservatives. If such metaphors are inconsequential and those who demonize people over their use are overreacting (and indulging in antisocial behavior), then they are, regardless of their politics. If they aren't, they aren't, regardless of their politics.
Post a Comment