Congresswoman Shot
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Story Update:
Details of suspect in Ariz rampage slowly emerge
AMANDA LEE MYERS,Associated Press
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — The suspect accused of killing six people and wounding Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was decribed as a disturbed young man who was rejected by the military and frequently disrupted his college class.
The Tucson neighbors of 22-year-old suspect Jared Loughner said he often kept to himself — not hostile to anyone but certainly not warming up to anyone, either.
"He was a guy in high school who definitely had his opinions on stuff and didn't seem to care what people thought of him," said Grant Wiens, 22, who told The Associated Press he went to high school and had a class at Pima Community College with Loughner.
Loughner was in custody after authorities said he opened fire outside a grocery store as Giffords, a Democrat, met with voters. The rampage killed six people including Arizona's chief federal judge. Giffords was among 13 people wounded.
Authorities said the accused gunman targeted the three-term congresswoman, but an exact motivation was not immediately known. Many questioned whether the nation's polarized political climate had played a role, even as Loughner's political views remained unclear late Saturday.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described the gunman as mentally unstable and said he possibly acted with an accomplice.
Lynda Sorenson said she took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College's Northwest campus and told the Arizona Daily Star he was "obviously very disturbed."
"He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts," she said.
In a Dec. 15 YouTube video, Loughner describes himself as a U.S. military recruit.
Federal law enforcement officials poured over versions of a MySpace page that belonged to Loughner and over a YouTube video published weeks ago under an account "Classitup10" and linked to him. The MySpace page, which was removed within minutes of the gunman being identified by officials, included a mysterious "Goodbye friends" message published hours before the shooting and exhorted his friends to "Please don't be mad at me."
On his MySpace page, Loughner spoke of how he liked to read and he also wrote repeatedly about literacy, complaining that the rate was especially low in the congressional district where he lived.
"The majority of people, who reside in District-8 are illiterate hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure," he said.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Wiens also said Loughner used to speak critically about religion. He also talked about how he liked to smoke pot.
"He wasn't really too keen on religion it seemed like," Grant Wiens, 22, told The Associated Press. "I don't know if floating through life is the right term or whatever, but he was really just into doing his own thing."
Loughner's MySpace profile indicated he attended and graduated from school in northwest Tucson and had taken college classes. He did not say if he was employed.
Tamara Crawley, director of the Marana Unified School District in Tucson, said Loughner attended Mountain View High School in Tucson for three years but withdrew after completing his junior year in 2006. Crawley did not know why Loughner had withdrawn from Mountain View High and it was not clear if he had transferred to another school in the area.
The Army released a statement indicating Loughner was not accepted.
In October 2007, Loughner was cited in Pima County for possession of drug paraphernalia, which was dismissed after he completed a diversion program, according to online records.
A year later he was charged with an unknown "local charge" in Marana near Tucson. That charge was also dismissed following the completion of a diversion program in March 2009, the Daily Star reported.
Ryan Miller, 19, was a sophomore at Mountain View when Loughner was a senior. He said Loughner was seemed like a normal kid.
"I was in shock," he said, describing his reaction to the shooting. "I didn't know what possessed someone our age to do something like this."
Posted Saturday:
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head Saturday and an unknown number of others were wounded when an assailant opened fire in an area where the lawmaker was meeting with constituents, officials said.
There were varying accounts on Giffords' condition, but a hospital spokesman said the Democrat was in critical condition. An aide to the Democrat was killed. An unknown number of others was injured, officials officials said, including additional aides to the lawmaker.
Congressional officials said one of the victims died soon after the attack, and others were taken to a nearby hospital. The officials said the wounded included some of Gifford's aides who were with her at the time.
One official added the attack was carried out with an automatic weapon. The officials who described the events did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to comment publicly.
"I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff," newly elected House Speaker John Boehner said. "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. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country."
They said the FBI and local law enforcement were investigating the attack, which took place while Giffords was greeting constituents outside a grocery store.
Giffords, 40, was re-elected to her third term last November. She was a member of the Arizona House and Senate before coming to Washington.
Giffords was elected to Congress amid a wave of Democratic victories in the 2006 election. The former state lawmaker won a narrow victory against a tea party favorite in the 2010 election.
The shooting comes amid a highly charged political environment that has seen several dangerous threats against lawmakers but nothing that reached the point of actual violence.
A San Francisco man upset with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support of health care reform pleaded guilty to threatening the Democratic congresswoman and her family, calling her directly on March 25 and threatening to destroy her Northern California home if she voted for health care reform.
In July, a California man known for his anger over left-leaning politics engaged in a shootout with highway patrol officers after planning an attack on the ACLU and another nonprofit group. The man said he wanted to "start a revolution" by killing people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation.
Giffords herself has drawn the ire of the right, especially for her support of the health care bill.
Her Tucson office was vandlized a few hours after the House vote to approve the health care law in March, with someone either kicking or shooting out a glass door and window.
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
The Gazette sure doesn't want to "take sides" in placing blame,does it? Think I read the Congresswoman was a second amendment supporter and mostly supported tightening up on illegal immigration- use your imagination from there. I think I'll get better articles on this in the Shopper.
January 8, 2011 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
PLEASE GO TO ARIZONIA ASSASSIN OBSESSED WITH MIND CONTROL.
January 8, 2011 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
PLEASE GO TO Political Hacks waste no time in shamelessly exploiting Gifford's shooting to demonize political opposition.
January 8, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
PLEASE GO TO Who's behind the Congresswoman's shooting in Arizona.
January 8, 2011 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dml (anonymous) says...
Reddog, it's in the AP Story: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/...
January 8, 2011 at 7:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Youtube Fall of the Republic HQ Full Length version.........Over 2 million views.
January 8, 2011 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
My hope is no one or an organization was involved in brainwashing this young man. If this was delibertly done to permanently destroy a fabric of our democracy and to demonize the folks against globalism and the new world order--then we have an uncontroled rouge government.
January 9, 2011 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpWlat...
January 9, 2011 at 6:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
dml,
Thanks for the link to that AP story. Very in-depth for so early in the period of time since this tragedy took place.
reddog, I don't think anyone is demonizing political opposition in this situation. Do you mean when the AP article quoted Congressman Giffords here:
"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," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC."
Well, Sarah Palin needs to realize that there are crazies in this world, crazies with guns who pay attention to that kind of sick rhetoric. Yes, sick. Sarah Palin uses a lot of weapons imagery that would be better left unpublished because those with easily manipulated minds take it all very seriously and they too own guns.
Little by little, this kid's problem personality will unfold. Already by what I read, he seems involved with conspiracy theory, certainly the anti-government kind. Those who believe conspiracy stuff take heed.
January 9, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Crete, I agree with your comment on the uses of a lot of weapons imagery. However we the people need to take a couple of hours and watch what's happening to our country. The problem is were more interested in watching the Kansas City Chiefs for 2 hours. If you have time You Tube End Game HQ Full Length Version.
January 9, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
reddog
So, are you afraid that there is a plot to turn the government of the U.S. into a " RED/COMMUNIST/ Governent/State " ?
I say this because the word " Rouge " is a French word meaning " RED ", it also brought to mind " Khmer Rouge ", which was a Red/Communist Regime in Cambodia in the 1970s' !
If so ... I believe that you are a little late in your fear, because the governments of the U.S. is already controlled by the few, who are powerful, influential and wealthy ... just as in most RED/COMMUNIST State, tyrannical States and I also believe that it is not necessarily foreign interests or individuals that have the ability to brainwash a vulnurable or weak mind or will !!
Tough times make for desperate people, who want change and improvement, common sense, fairness in their leadership so bad, this makes them vulnerable to vacant, worthless propaganda and promises of change and sometimes the young are the most vulnerable to these " Predators " !!!
The young people are the most vulnerable and impressionable !!
January 9, 2011 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
There is a saying that goes, " Beware of strangers bearing gifts " !
I believe that most, if not all politicans/political partys are nothing more than " strangers bearing gifts " ! The gifts being the " Promises " they make, tell us, as a means for them to garner votes that will put them in office !
Kind of like the " Wooden Horse " the Greeks gave to the City of Troy ! Once inside or in the case of the politician, once " Inside " or elected, the politicians ( the Greeks ) and their " Greek Kings/ Generals" ( or the few who control the politicians ) will reek havoc on the Country and its People, not for the benefit of the people, rather for their own benefit !!
January 9, 2011 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Boom (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
January 9, 2011 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thanks Boom.
For someone who advocates proper English grammar usage, he sure doesn't use much of it himself.
That entire thing was not only strange, it was just made up of garbled ideas. No wonder the junior college he was attending asked him to leave and to seek mental counseling otherwise they would not reinstate him.
I'd like to know who sold him the gun. I have nothing against the 2nd amendment, but what I find wrong with current gun ordinances is that sellers don't check on the mental capacity of buyers. This case speaks for itself.
Please, no hate mail from the NRA.
January 9, 2011 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Please go to B-Cast Interviews Dr. John C. Drew on Obama's Early Marxist Years......Now I understand all these Czars he has created.
January 9, 2011 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Our government has spent precious time and treasure, (money and lives), since the terrorist attacks on our country. Rights have been given up in the name of security and safety. Our economy is in the tank and people are suffering. The "American Dream" has had a major re-write.
Is it any wonder that some of those frustrated people think the only answer to their problems is armed action? We have seen two examples of this frustration in the last week or so, 1 at a local school board level and now this.
Will it be only a matter of time before our own local commission and board meetings are held with armed guards protecting the public "servants"?
Will this attack on a congresswoman result in an even greater disconnect between us and our elected officials? Probably.
January 9, 2011 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The majority of time and money used for National Security has been spent on " Looking Out " instead of " Looking and taking care of the " Inside People " so to speak . You know the bonafide, true U.S. citizen/person and the government, has allowed the Businesses, Corporations, etc. to export jobs, which had sustain the U.S. economy out of the U.S. and the U.S. government has allowed illegal immigrants to further erode the jobs base and economy and thereby turning the " AMERICAN DREAM " into the " AMERICAN NIGHTMARE ! "
Is it any wonder that the true, bonafide citizents of the U.S. are fed up with the " Business as Usual " in the Nations various Governing bodies and leaders ??
January 9, 2011 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Our various governmental officials/leader and those who are pulling their strings must bear some of the blame for the citizen unrest, because of their escessive , needless spending and taxation and non enforcement of the Nations laws ! But we as the people, must also bear some of the blame , for if we had been holding our elected leaders more accountable for their actions, perhaps things would be different !
January 9, 2011 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Please go to Meet the Jackwagons of Namby Pamby Land >> B-Cast........A famous Emporian Harley Emily of Full Metal Jacket is part of the program. He speaks his mind on the national situation at a charity event.
January 9, 2011 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scarlett01_98 (anonymous) says...
reddog,
the gunny's
name is ronald lee ermey aka r lee ermey..... aaarrrrgggghhhh.....
January 9, 2011 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scarlett01_98 (anonymous) says...
now drop and give me 20!! lmao!!
January 9, 2011 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Wow, was that just a trip to Namby pamby land? And just how much wood CAN a woodchuck chuck?
January 9, 2011 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scarlett01_98 (anonymous) says...
hi steve! lol i hope so..
wood chucks... hmmmm
January 9, 2011 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
What ever happened to all the jackwagons that said we shouldn't bad talk the commander in chief while our troops are in harms way?
sounds like a bunch of flip flops in nambi pambi land to me
January 9, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scarlett01_98 (anonymous) says...
just when i thought i was finished with posts on the gazette.....
January 9, 2011 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
PLEASE GO TO Obama Deception Full Length Version Part 2.........This 10 minute video is worth your while. John Kennedy was the last real president.
January 9, 2011 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
My thoughts are with the Giffords and may God bless America. I am sorry I lead you all off on a tangent but, most of the time I can't help myself.
January 9, 2011 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scarlett01_98 (anonymous) says...
i'm gonna go bang my head on a wall for a while. maybe i'll have another seizure. bye for now.
January 9, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thunk. Thunk. Thunk.
Snow coming. Barometer must be plunging.
Thunk.
January 9, 2011 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I just heard on NBC special news report that Fred Phelps and his sickos are planning to go to Arizona to picket the funerals of those who were murdered. I am just sick to hear that.
January 9, 2011 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN7LW0...
January 9, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFQpO...
January 9, 2011 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crFQpO...
January 9, 2011 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Listen to Alex Jones on your phone 512 646 5000. Find out about mind control.
January 9, 2011 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98wjO...
January 9, 2011 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98wjO...
January 10, 2011 at 12:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62obuY...
January 10, 2011 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flyboy32 (anonymous) says...
Fred & Company may find out that people in Arizona are in no mood for their antics. Maybe the bad weather will keep them stranded there until after the storm passes?
January 10, 2011 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCRJRE...
January 10, 2011 at 1:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DFo8z...
January 10, 2011 at 1:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This whole thing is just terribly sad. My heart and prayers go out for the friends and families of all those lost in this senseless tragedy. A nine-year old girl, a judge, etc. Senseless.
I don't know if anyone watched Olbermann's latest rampage against the right, Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, etc, regarding this shooting, but, as usual, he make me want to vomit. Yes, create, there are some who are trying their best to spin this into partisan blame.
I had no intention of going down this road - but after watching Olbermann's clip, and then waiting for the nausea to pass, it wasn't hard at all to find gun/target references made by the other side akin to those that are getting all the blame now.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Barack Obama, speaking at a Philadelphia fundraiser in 2008 regarding GOP opponents.
Or the map on the Democratic National Committee's website in Feb of last year that "targeted Republicans" with bullseyes placed over their states/districts, similar to Palin's map. (PS - I shoot guns, and know bullseyes are commonly what is shot at on target ranges).
Speaking of the poor congresswoman who got shot, Mrs Giffords, the Daily Kos put a list of congresspeople in June of 2008 and referenced a "bullseye" on them for a vote they didn't agree with. Giffords was among those "targeted".
In 2006, Democrat Harry Mitchell ran an add against Republican J.D. Hayworth in which he showed Hayworth in gun sights/crosshairs.
I'm not condoning it by either side. Just curious why Olbermann, and the rest of the media, never once spoke up against any of these instances. We've had violence and riots at plenty of GOP events - tear gas was used to arrest protestors at the GOP convention in 2008. Gosh, should Keith have mentioned any of the above was inciting violence?
We've had death threats and bullets shot thru the offices of both Democrat and Republican congressfolk alike. Sarah Palin has received death threats. Her daughter even received them while on Dancing With the Stars. Keith, didn't you get any of those memo's? Create, I don't have a problem with your paragraph about Palin needing to realize there are alot of crazies in the world, etc...... I just wonder why Kieth or virtually nobody else in the majority of the media complains when Obama or anyone on the left refers to bringing a gun to a fight or places crosshairs or bullseyes on Republicans.
Well, I don't really wonder. I know the answer. The answer just makes me shake my head in sadness. Nothing could be sadder than this tragedy.
January 10, 2011 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Out of this, we know EXACTLY, once the blame is set, what is next in their "sights" in added blame, our weapons. First, why must we "blame" anything or anyone except for the person committing the crime? If I take my car out and run someone down, did the car steer itself??? When are we going to be responsible for our own actions instead of passing the buck?? This is truly a sad day not only for Mrs. Giffords but also others that were shot and or killed. Did the killer hear a song or see a movie that death or dying was dealt with lightly? So many things in life could have had their affect but in reality only one pulled the trigger!!! Let us place the blame where the blame belongs. Heavens.......this snow is having a terrible affect on me...all I see is white.....God must be telling me only white is good......get my drift????(and not snow)
January 10, 2011 at 6:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Sorry, couldn't sleep....been up since 4:00 but get so tired of the fact we seem to have trouble placing blame where it should lie and not everything else. Seems we, society, can only "gossip" and with each tale, it grows. What are the cold hard facts????? A weapon was taken and used against society!!!!!
January 10, 2011 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
my paragraph on Sarah Palin will stand because her gun/target imagery and "mama grizzly" mannerisms all threaten violence; however, after reading your post, I will fully agree with you that the liberals have been doing just as poorly with their own violent imagery. In fact, I'm glad you pointed this out because I was unaware of it. Perhaps Sarah Palin's prominence makes us more aware of hers before anyone elses. My comment goes for Obama too. I hope someone with more power than I will point this out nationally. Good research and thank you.
I did not see the Olbermann program. I rarely watch those people anymore -- Olbermann, O'Reilly, Maddow, etc. because I finally realized that no matter what the newsstory, ALL these politicos who claim to have the real skinny on stories are just twisting everything to suit a thesis. I taught research for years and know quite well that you can't do that. These guys are millionaires, everyone of them, and they make their bread selling one side of a story. They employ people to look for all the dirt to suit their agendas.
The best programming would be if the talking head would offer both sides on the same program. I like Fareed Zakaria for that.
Until now, I don't think these politicians gave a rats behind what kind of imagery was used in campaigns or what it cost to get into office. Well, this time it cost lives.
Some may say that the imagery was used innocently. Palin herself has already come forward to say that her imagery is not meant to incite violence. A pundit on CNN yesterday said the same thing. That grates no cheese with me because the one factor they aren't considering is the number of crazies out there who take them literally, and who actually believe all the conspiracy hype. Before long, they'll use this kid in Arizona as one exception in millions.
So was Timothy McVeigh who was extracting his pound of flesh for what he saw as government wrongdoing.
I haven't heard anyone else say this, but all this poisoned rhetorical imagery used by politicians is no different than all the brainwashing that goes on inside those Madrassas where kids are taught day after day after day to hate the infidel and blame him for their problems. Eventually, it all erupts into hijacking planes and running them into buildings.
Yes, this is a senseless tragedy. But one thing could be sadder and that is if politicians don't take a lesson from this and continue to use their gun/target imagery in their campaigns. It's poison to the minds of those who believe that violence is the only answer.
Maybe it's up to us now. Whenever we see gun and target imagery or anything that relates to violence including angry she-bears, that we need to remind them of what it does in the minds of some.
January 10, 2011 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
On C-SPAN Someone said that the president said that senator McCain was taking a knife to the fight but, he was taking a gun. This took place during the debate according to the caller.
January 10, 2011 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Create, my beef wasn't meant to be directed at your comment - as I said, I have no problem with it. I simply want everything to be treated evenly.
Personally..... it didn't bother me in the least that Obama said if they bring knives, we bring guns. I realized it was just a metaphor for a political battle. Personally, the DNC's map of bullseyes on Republican states didn't bother me in the least, nor did the Daily Kos with its OWN bullseye on Congresswoman Gifford. I realized all those are just metaphors for focusing on specifics.
However, I consider myself to be at least a somewhat sane person. Ok, please, let's not have 100 posts here of the many of you who I am sure disagree with that - LOL. The point is, sane people understand the imagery & metaphors are merely that and not meant to promote violence of any kind.
But, I realize there are alot of crazies out there. Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if today's political atmosphere wasn't so charged. Unfortunately we live in such polarized times that one sadly does need to be very careful with how you use metaphors and imagery. To tell the truth, I'm amazed there weren't assassination attempts on Bush - given all the bulls-eyes put on him on the web and protestor signs, etc.... which went far, far, far, far, far beyond what we've seen since in numbers. Say what you want but I give Bush alot of credit for having enough class to not constantly backlash out against it. Perhaps if one took a good hard look at all the hate comments directed at Palin one would understand her need to be an angry she-bear. I know I'd be upset if my kids & family had to put up with the crap directed at hers. But maybe she needs to take a lesson from Bush as well. However, in Palin's case, I'm reminded of Pakistan. The prominent politician that was recently murdered. Something like over 500 imams have chimed in and said the murderer is to be honored for the killing & defending Islam. Meanwhile, a man was arrested there for throwing away a business card that simply had someone with the name "Mohammed" on it. Sometimes it appears Palin is that man. Gee, I'm surprised someone in the hate-Palin-for-everything crowd hasn't pointed out that since she wears glasses, and they are somewhat circular, that means she looks at the entire world thru "crosshairs" and is thus inciting violence every time she opens her eyes or some other such nonsense - lol
I only saw the Olbermann clip because it is making the rounds on other news stations. I think he's pretty much a laughingstock among real news but unfortunately, he DOES have 16 or 17 people who tune into him every night & hang on his every word ;-) I, like you, DO like those who offer both sides of a story. Which is one reason I like O'Reilly, despite your putting him in the opposite category.
January 10, 2011 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And a great analogy about the madrassas, create. That is a point I tried to make earlier. Many of our so-called "moderate" mosques may not openly preach the violence and hatred, but they make the teachings available, honor the suicide bombers, etc..... in many subtle ways are either aiding & abetting the spread of hatred, or at least purposefully looking the other way while it happens. We DO have muslims who openly denounce and disallow this type of thing, but they are woefully few. I posted the FBI findings earlier that said something like 75% of mosques in the US either openly preach hatred or make hate materials available for sale, etc, or in some way are connected to it. Perhaps during one of Olbermann's tirades against the folks who do not want the mosque built so close to GZ he might take a good long hard look and do an expose on that.
January 10, 2011 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
create, I agree with some of what you've written but some I question. I do agree concerning the politicians and their campaigns. But also, since you have been in education you are fully aware that we can't protect our young 24/7. They will see violence at sometime in their young lives, rather it be on the playground or in a movie. Just as we had Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, in society we have those that feel they are above the law or nuts. I do agree to not "feeding" them but also, tis very hard to do when violence is all around us, in word or action. My question was why we feel so compelled to place blame? Believe there is a verse in the bible concerning "throwing stones". We KNOW, without doubt, who committed these crimes in actuality, let us proceed.
For no matter what, it won't change the actions that have occurred. Have we learned? I doubt it........just find a new reason to place blame.
January 10, 2011 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
It seems to me that now that a crazy person has actually done something crazy, everyone who knew he was crazy is coming forward to inform society that they knew this guy was crazy all along.
A school teacher reported that this crazy person was scary crazy but the school administration just sent crazy somewhere else.
One Wal-Mart refused to sell crazy bullets so crazy went to another Wal-Mart to buy bullets.
If that isn't crazy enough, now democrats are blaming republicans and vica versa. Crazy, isn't it?
Of course the real crazy will start when the defense attorney uses a diminished capacity defense and the prosecution tries to prove this guy wasn't crazy. lol
January 10, 2011 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I also remember when Obama made the statement "we're going to punish our enemies" - regarding the GOP when speaking on Univision trying to persuade latinos to vote democrat in stead of republican. Maybe that's where the AZ nut got his idea. He was just "punishing his enemies." Or maybe he got the idea from watching any number of TV shows that regularly show a dozen or more people getting gunned down. Or maybe, he was just a nut job who didn't need any prodding or incitement.
I just wonder when fellow Americans who simply happen to be on the other side of the aisle became our "enemies"??????
January 10, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
If I have offended any crazy people out there I would like to apologize before you go out and do something crazy.
January 10, 2011 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
REWBA, your statements remind me of the Ft Hood murderer. Seems quite a few in the military knew he had some radical Islamic bents.
But we had to be politically correct and look the other way. If he had been Christian and done the same we'd have heard cries of Tim McVeigh over & over a thousand times and thrown him in the brig a long time ago. But we don't dare treat any radical Muslims that way. The ACLU will see to that.
January 10, 2011 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The craziest thing I ever do is write some crazy things on here. I hope I haven't incited any violence anytime/anywhere. I think I had better formally disclaim and disavow any culpability or blame for any crazy action taken by anyone reading anything I ever write. Just to make it all legal & whatnot. I hope Olbermann doesn't point out the fact that if you take the h out of Hope, the a and t out of haven't, and the e out of incited, that spells out h-a-t-e. Which, being somewhat conservative, was obviously a codified msg from me to all conservatives out there. See, I DO know how Olbermann's mind works. I'm sure I'll be featured on his next rant :-)
January 10, 2011 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, thank you for your post at l0:50, you did a super job in explaning, much better then I, again Thank You and stay warm.
January 10, 2011 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since the shooter was a heavy/frequent pot user, should the news start targeting the legalize marijuana crowd as being partly to blame????? ;-)
January 10, 2011 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, thanks for my laugh of the day!!! Between you and open_eyes, boy! what a pair!!!!!! Now if this snow doesn't bring out any "crazies" we should count our blessings. OK, 1,2,3,4, if I'm snowbound for more then two days, watch out!!!!!! :-)
January 10, 2011 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
sandman, you're right, we can't protect our young 24/7; however, since their brains are still growing and they are highly susceptible to ideas being flung at them from all quarters, we need to make sure they are being fed a good diet of how to separate the grain from the chaff.
In my case, for example, when I taught The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I didn't shield them from the language of that time. Instead, I explained why we no longer use those words, and why bigotry uses language to make its ugly point.
We just need to help young people put things into proper perspective. I'm betting that is something those who raised the young shooter in Arizona never did. He wasn't born with those ideas. When did they develop? Who was man enough to explain why he was wrong or to get him the help he needed? What did he watch on TV or computer? Was he into all this conspiracy once-sided garbage? What caused him to distrust government?
These things are not going to go away. We are one nut case away from another tragedy. But we must take responsibility for making sure our children are put on the right route by explaining things to them instead of just letting them get lost in the desert by making dangerous assumptions.
January 10, 2011 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
When we have 25% of all young Muslim men in America thinking suicide bombings are ok..... obviously someone isn't getting a very good diet.
January 10, 2011 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sail (anonymous) says...
It will be interesting to see how soon new legislation will be forthcoming to protect our congress .
January 10, 2011 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Most likely they'll all vote themselves a big raise based on the dangers of their job. "Combat pay". And a new, special, health care plan as a result, also. Which will NOT be available to the rest of us.
January 10, 2011 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I don't know about the rest of you, but sadly, shootings like this happen all the time. Just because it was a congresswoman we are going to be inundated with 24 hour a day coverage for a week or more. Where was / is the press when these shootings occur daily in Afghanistan?
i do feel sorry for the victims, but this is not now breaking news, and does not merit the coverage our lazy television news stations are giving it.
January 10, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
create, dangerous assumptions??? I don't believe you will find where I have done so, if so, please correct me. I so agree with Steve, let us MOVE on!!!! Just as the more attention we give that group in Topeka, the more they want, become aware of our surroundings and yes, those NUTS!!!!! But in this case, even the last few minutes of their lives, awareness would have done no good.
Am I saying put our youth on a desert, don't think so. What I am saying is that some can be reached, some can't. We don't give up but we also move on and stop trying to place blame but where the blame should go, on the person committing the act.
January 10, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I know this isn't really related but I'm sure Keith will tie it into Beck or Palin somehow.
The earth's magnetic pole is shifting 40 miles per year towards Russia. Tampa International Airport is relabeling its 3 main runways to reflect the change, as required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news...
I'm sure it's related to Alaska drilling, Bristol's dancing, (after all, she DID get death threats over it), or Beck's buying of gold and upsetting the gravitational balance of the earth.
Per REWBA, I just felt the need to say something really crazy today. Now let's see how many people stampede to the store to buy new compasses. (Somehow thinking they will read differently than their old one........????) ;-)
January 10, 2011 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I so hope you are incorrect. Our nation,state is so very broke and can't carry the burden it currently has without adding to it. Believe the "seniors" would rise-up for they aren't getting a cost of living raise, again, and they have paid heavily into social security. Wonders never cease tho.
January 10, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Now I like that, open_eyes, but this "crazy" is snowbound------RATS! the luck!!!!!!! Got a horse I could borrow???? Plus, I got a different car this past spring and now you tell me that the compass built in isn't right.......that doesn't help my sense of direction!!!!!!!
January 10, 2011 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
sandman, I didn't mean you yourself were making dangerous assumptions. What I mean by "dangerous assumptions" is that without proper guidance, young people can make dangerous assumptions about all kinds of things if a responsible parent or adult is not nearby to steer them clear by explaining things to them. That's what I meant. I thought I was clear. Sorry.
open_eyes, your eyes are a bit clouded today and quite turned to the right.
Yes, these tragedies have happened before and they will happen again, but I for one am interested in the news and in anything new that develops. While some may be sick and tired of the blanket coverage, keeping informed makes sense to me. You can always watch reruns of Bonanza or watch a soap opera.
January 10, 2011 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Create, my eyes are still looking straight in the direction they always have. It's the earth's magnetic core that has shifted to the left (when facing north) - lol
January 10, 2011 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
One more point on responsible parenting. According to neighbors, the shooters father is always angry at neighbors for small things, and many arguments have resulted. There seems to be more to this than meets the eye. Still, what can we do about it but be aware, and we're all aware what poor parenting can produce.
Hmmm, I wonder... if this was a Republican who had voted against the health care bill, would the views be different about coverage?
January 10, 2011 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You're right, they'd probably be different. Keith wouldn't even mention it on his nightly broadcast. The Daily Kos would be full of posters saying he got what he deserved. Nuts will be nuts, no matter what the issue is, or what side the claim allegiance to.
The whole point is that it shouldn't be any different, this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. Good lord a 9 year old child was killed - what was her crime?
And because of that my eyes are cloudy & turned to the right. No, I'd just say they're not blind to either side. The DNC map was almost an exact duplicate of Palin's, only bullseyes instead of crosshairs or surveying symbols or whatever.
Why did that not come under the same fire. The DNC is a pretty public figure itself. Why did Obama's reference not draw more ire. He's pretty much in the limelight these days. Why has nobody complained about the crosshairs on Dem campaign ad. Let's rip them all the same. Or not at all. I really don't care which, as long as its all the same. When I say "they".... I'm meaning most of the media.
January 10, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Like I said initially, create..... I wasn't even thinking going down this path until I saw Olbermann's latest pathetic rant. I was literally nauseous after listening to it. I actually DO try to watch news from various sources, even him rarely. His mostly to re-inforce my own views as being contrary to his. Which, much as in this case, he did quite well.
January 10, 2011 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
There is a difference in being informed of the news and being inundated by endless psycho babble of the reasons behind the story or what someone or someones father did 10 years ago. Did public discourse cause this to happen? Was it the pot use of the suspect? Or was he just finally fed up and reacted the only way his troubled mind would let him. This is a news story and so will be the criminal trial. 1 or two minutes on news programs daily would be enough for national consumption.
i did watch a rerun of Las Vegas earlier, it was good. and when I returned to the cable news shows 2 hours later, the same nut jobs were on talking about the same stuff. COME ON !
January 10, 2011 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I've seen numerous different stories all day long from three different networks, and all three are presenting different small stories within the big story. I don't have a problem with that.
Cable news does repeat stories, but that's because people tune in at different times of the day who have not seen the earlier news.
The pundits are on now to discuss whether some camps are being too harshly criticized for using violent political discourse. I'm interested in other opinions on that beside my own.
open_eyes, I hope you realize that you and I agree on these issues. You sound as if you believe I am attacking you when I am not. Maybe I'm having a difficult time with clarity today.
January 10, 2011 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, create, don't mean to come across that way, I very much agree with your statements on this, including parenting, madrasses, etc. I think I just get a little exasperated when I turn on the news and see what is being spouted by certain figures. Sometimes this is where I go to vent. (Which is healthier for all than the course the AZ nut took).
Again.... my main complaint here - that's fine, lets have discourse with differing views on whether or not some camps are criticized too harshly or not enough for the rhetoric they use. Lets dig out the little stories, the different angles on them, views from different camps. Great. I am much better informed when I get different angles and viewpoints.
All I'm saying is - whatever we decide, lets treat all camps the same. Let's either ignore or go after the same type of rhetoric with the same energy or passivity no matter where it comes from. And I challenge those on the right to adhere to that just as much as those on the left.
January 10, 2011 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"Hmmm, I wonder... if this was a Republican who had voted against the health care bill, would the views be different about coverage? "
The coverage would be much different, it would be all about the Republican not voting for OC instead of about the shooting itself.
January 10, 2011 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This would be the coverage in that case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW2FgG...
At least this idiot didn't get re-elected. (Which surprised me)
January 10, 2011 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Oh yes, I remember that and it was so very stupid. So much of the rhetoric in the past couple of years has been way over the top -- from both camps and the Tea Party too. So many inflammatory words by speakers and on signs and even in mannerisms by speakers, fists held high, ugly cartoons on signs.
I'm guessing that there will be fewer town meetings for awhile.
January 10, 2011 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I just listened to a program talking about increasing security for congressional members - how the cost would be prohibitive and unrealistic to do it for all the 500+ rank-n-file members, not just a few of the select higher-profile ones.
Well, that's never stopped them before.
The only thing I'm certain of about how the press would handle this if the situation were different is that were the shooter a Muslim, those screaming for heads now would be urging for "moderation", "not jumping to conclusions", "don't profile", etc.
Too bad Palin wasn't a Muslim. Olbermann would be arguing her Freedom Of Speech rights were being trampled upon - LOL
January 10, 2011 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
Your playing right into their hands by fanning the flames. Olbermann is an idiot, but then again so is 90% of FOX news. Best thing you can do is NOT watch any of it, last thing we need is any of those morons feeding us an opinion.
In regards to this shooter, based on the facts given to us thus far, the kid is just a lunatic, he snapped. People that use this as a reason to enhance gun laws will just further enable the loons.
January 10, 2011 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I disgree on both of your first 2 points. I've never been that big of a fan of the ignore it and it'll go away crowd, either. You might wake up some day and find while you were ignoring it it gained an even stronger foothold.
I also think those trying to hard to make political hay over it are going to see it backlash on them as well.
January 10, 2011 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
I so agree with not accepting the "What will be, will be" attitude or just "look the other way". What I do find is sad, the fact that yes, there would have been a difference in how this was handled. So many areas enter, age, sex, party, height, weight, standing on the left or right foot when shot. Now I'm being silly, but I thought we were in life together, each trying to make our own path but yet having those paths join forces. It just seems today that so many fingers are being pointed with nothing being gained.
Yes, we have "nuts" out there and create, no matter what, they will find the message that they want to find, searching until they do. I know, don't "feed" but at times no matter what is done some feeding occurs SOMEWHERE. Why blame??? Like a child blaming their sibling "so and so hit me"--can't we just all work together? This is where we have gone "crazy" in the desire to make one side the "good guy" and the other "bad", white hat verses black.
January 10, 2011 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
All those preaching their opinions on those networks are allowed to do so because they generate ratings. So tune out. Last I checked neither MSNBC or Fox News, effected policy. I suppose Fox could though since they have most of the Republican presidential candidates on their payroll, to me that is much more disturbing than what Olbermann or Glenn Beck drone on about.
January 10, 2011 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess I could just tune everything out be one of those ignorant uneducated voters we sometimes poke fun at on here and say should be required to take a test before they can vote.
I'd prefer not to. Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. Total dry news without some opinions is often worthless when it comes to politics. So much in the political arena is subjective, about all you can get on it is perspective & opinions. If anyone ever proved their way was always better we'd have had 1 party rule the last 235 years.
No thanks, I think I'll continue to keep my ears & eyes open. I might not always like what I see & hear, or give it much weight, but I'll be the one to weigh them all and make the decision on that.
January 10, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot....
January 10, 2011 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, you stated "Fox could though since they have most of the Republican presidential candidates on their payroll", please tell me which news service DOESN'T have someone from either party on their payroll. Thank God that for the most part we were given a brain to separate what we want to believe plus a hand to turn it off!!!
January 10, 2011 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
I'll restate my point since you obviously missed it. I thought I was quite clear above when I said to tune out the idiots mentioned above. Where did I say stick your head and sand and tune out the world? There are plenty of ways out there to get your news without having to take in an opinion pundit with it.
Per some of your comments earlier, I been doing a bit of research on how both sides has made comments relating to guns or violence, I had a MUCH easier time finding GOP related comments than I did Democrats, not saying that either one is more righteous, just that these kind of comments tend to come more from the right than left.
January 10, 2011 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman,
I have never seen any media organization employ so many candidates for the Presidency, Mitt Romney is the only one of the serious Republican candidates that is not a paid "contributor". Please do tell me what network is on this level, I would love to hear it. I will leave you with a quote from a former Bush speechwriter David Frum:
“Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox."
January 10, 2011 at 9:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Some of those you call an idiot I respect, and visa versa. Funny how it works, isn't it? I do research and find a much MUCH easier time finding bulls-eyes, gun references, calls for assasinations and so forth directed at Bush during his last 5 years than pretty much every other thing I can find added together. I went to left wing websites that amassed all disgraceful tea-party signs I could find and found about 30. And I'd say half of them weren't even offensive - just disagreed with them. The "violence-inciting" Bush signs I couldn't even begin to count, I got tired of scrolling, but easily in the hundreds. I have yet to find any Nobel Prize winners from the right that have publicly said they'd like to kill Obama, for instance. But my point was never about who had the most comments - it was about how the media TREATED those comments. In that regard it's pretty much no comparison. The bullseye map by Palin is a prime example. Nearly indistinguishable from the DNC map. But which one is the only one we hear about?
Sandman, goodoleboy is correct that at this current time, Fox is employing more possible GOP candidates than any other network. Everyone has had them in the past, but at the current time, Fox has that crown.
And I will leave you with this as well. You yourself, goodoleboy, called Olbermann an idiot a few posts ago. But White House deputy press secretary Burton a few months ago praised Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC as "invaluable".
Now what does that make the White House when they refer to your idiots as "invaluable"?
January 10, 2011 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Again, you missed my point. What I said was that many more GOPer's mention guns and likewise notions than Democrats. I am speaking about inciters not the incited. Michele Bachman said just the other day that American citizens, should be armed and dangerous. My contention is that the GOP party members tend to have a great deal more of this rhetoric floating around than their democratic counterparts. That is all.
Interesting you bring up Bush, he was hated by both sides, conservatives and liberals said nasty things and made threatening comments. I had no trouble finding articles today over at CNN that mentioned the Obama comment in conjunction with Palin. As I said before you have to stay away from the idiots.
In regards to the Burton comment, I don't know what context it was in but I am assuming they consider them invaluable because since Fox has departed the Fair and Balanced strategy my instinct is that having far left MSNBC to counter far right FOX would be invaluable.
I am however curious which idiots you respect. Out of all of FOX and MSNBC I used to like O'rielly, but anymore even he has shifted from his centrist position. Given the mass induction of right wing contributors that FOX employs it has to be rough finding people to work with that are not far right.
I did catch a pretty good one of Beck today on an RSS feed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01...
January 10, 2011 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
One more thing, was it not long ago we had a discussion about right wingers in Arizona carrying guns openly in the street near where the President was speaking? I remember one fellow with a bowie knife strapped to his leg, a sidearm and an AR 15 strapped on his back. It's hard for me to conjure a liberal dressed like that, they are too much of a wuss for that, I suppose they are out there though.
The thing that upsets me the most is that people will use this incident to try and further punish all of us responsible gun owners. Bottom line is that guns don't kill people, people kill people and if they want to do it bad enough they will find a way.
January 10, 2011 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbjin...
January 10, 2011 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, again, thank you. I am so very glad that you do keep up on this for I don't. The only TV channels I receive are those from my tower-local stations.
Afraid for the most part, I watch very little.Living in the country always so much to do. My youngest son is coming home on leave in less then two weeks so busy planning his visit, we will go see his brother and family in Chicago, etc. plus while he is here, make him his favorite meatloaf etc. Time for Mama to shine and show her love and pride in her son. He has gotten me some new dishes and also more thimbles which I value very much, Christmas in January!!!!
Again, thank you. Tis time to try and go get warm, temp. is dropping. How I hate winter!!!!!!! Now Chris, please don't boot me off here, sorry, just being a woman that is snowed in, yuck!!!!!!!
January 11, 2011 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot....
January 11, 2011 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
booker5m (anonymous) says...
I am reading on other forums that some think more gun control. Dont people know these morons that want to kill folks that cant get guns will go out and use something else? Dont they relize someone like this will use a propane tank and do even more damage? Gun control is not the answer.
January 11, 2011 at 2:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
booker5m, afraid it isn't only gun control but CONTROL. Some want all marching to the same tune and in the same manner, loss of freedoms and to be you and I. Yes, very scarey because those that scream the loudest get heard are not necessary the best. We all knew what Sats. happening would lead towards, only takes one spark.
January 11, 2011 at 5:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I understand your point, goodoleboy, and I'm not surprised that you find more references to guns on the right as I would be willing to bet more gun owners fall on the conservative side while more anti-gun anti-military anti-us folks fall on the left.
But you've missed 2 of my points - again. Again..... the point isn't who has the most of any particular kind of rhetoric, it is the press TREATMENT of it.
For example, you show a pic of Beck where he just happens to have a gun next to the ad. Yeah, catching all sorts of flack from it. But we have a democrat who ran an ad carrying guns - "Taking aim" at Washington (his words) - and shooting a hole in the cap & trade bill. Remember Joe Manchin from WV?
http://vodpod.com/watch/4648252-trail...
The reaction? Dem Sen Bayh calls it "the best ad he's ever seen".
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefin...
And the fallout over his ad?
And the second point you are missing is that it isn't just some talking head "idiots" on the news that are making this partisan. Not only are there print articles in NY Times & other mags, but there have been quite a few Dem congresspersons saying the same thing. Rangel, AZ State Sen Lopez, I've seen quite a few others on the news all adding fuel to the rhetoric that it was all the Tea Party's fault. Now they may all be idiots as well, as alot of our elected folk are IMO, but it isn't just the talking heads on the news you don't like that are doing it.
I respect alot of commentators on Fox - liberal and conservative alike. I wouldn't watch it if I didn't get alot of other points of view on there. I respect quite a few on CNN, very few if any on MSNBC. That doesn't mean I agree with them all the time or even most of the time. But I like hearing what they have to say & forming my own opinion.
If I only respect those who agree with me nearly all the time then I'm no better than they are.
January 11, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9hNpl...
January 11, 2011 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
The logical human mind truly wants to draw a straight line amid chaos in order to find some sense of order but what an impossible task that is.
Ordinarily funny, Jon Stewart was incredibly stoic last night and I found what he said to be particularly comforting. I share part of it with you here:
"I refuse to give in to that feeling of despair. There's light in this situation. I urge everyone: Read up about those who were hurt and or killed in this shooting. You will be comforted by just how much anonymous goodness there really is in the world. You read about these people and you realize that people that you don't even know, that you have never met, are leading lives of real dignity and goodness. And you hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think. I think you'll find yourself even more impressed with Congresswoman Giffords and amazed about how much living the deceased packed into lives cut way too short. And if there is real solace in this, I think it's that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that's become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. Please let us hope we never do. Let us hope we never become numb to what real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like when it's spilled."
January 11, 2011 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDQly...
January 11, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I remember back in 2000 when CBS put the words "Sniper Wanted" over Bush as he was giving his acceptance speech at the Republican convention. (This was before the Iraq war, before he even was elected, so you can't blame it on conservatives). I remember being told on these very boards that it was "just comedy" - poor taste, but still comedy.
I just wonder in light of what has happened in AZ, and with all the rhetoric & finger-pointing going on, and those who now condemn any target or military reference used in politics (campaigns regularly refer to planning sessions as "war rooms", etc)....... if they still think that was funny....... is anyone think there could have been a nutjob out there who saw that and got an idea...... maybe that's where the AZ killer got his ideas from. Or maybe it was the Dem ad shooting at the cap/trade bill. It could have been any number of things/ads/metaphors put forth by those from either side. We could speculate forever. Or maybe he was just a nut and needed no prodding or incentive - just, as create pointed out...... some better parenting.
I like - and respect - Jon Stewart. I think he's hilarious, I don't agree with him too often, but even then I think he does a good job of getting points across (when he wants to) and using comedy to do it as well. Like what create just posted, well said.
Here's one of my favorites of his (and you'll be able to tell why easily - lol)
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/big...
January 11, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHrDq3...
January 11, 2011 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thanks for that, open_eyes, I must have missed that one. It was pure.
REWBA, Haven't heard from you; I hope you're okay.
Back to my quilt. ...to make it, not sleep under it.
January 11, 2011 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/...
January 11, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.rbctwitter.com/29581-news-...
January 11, 2011 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.conspiracy.me/?p=18590
January 11, 2011 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.conspiracy.me/?p=18589
January 11, 2011 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Can't a crazy person do something crazy without everyone passing the blame? Why don't they ask the shooter why he did it? That might just put this whole left right argument to rest. jmo
create, I'm just fine. Thanks for caring!
January 11, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lio5N2...
January 11, 2011 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
REWBA - exactly! lol
Probaby had to do with his obsession with Jodie Foster or something.....
January 11, 2011 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://wn.com/Alex_Jones_2011-01-09_S...
January 11, 2011 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.conspiracy.me/?p=18668
January 11, 2011 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/...
January 11, 2011 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Jesse Ventura needs to look into this Fred Phelps organization and find out who is funding it. THIS COULD BE A CONSPIRACY.....Some people think the hells angels might show......NUFF SAID.
January 11, 2011 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA-guess sometimes things so simple are hard to see or HEAR. :-) That would take all the drama, rhetoric away and just maybe some peace. Guess you can't be nuts until someone tells you-you are and that person is probably as nuts as he in some manner. :-)
January 11, 2011 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Fred Phelps is a domestic terrorist. Why are he and his cult allowed to continually terrorize our citizens? Our freedoms were not meant to protect the likes of him.
I'd bet the 9/11 terrorists though it was their "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" to crash planes into the WTC. We sure wouldn't let them do such things over and over again. Why let the Phelps cult get away with it?
This is not a call to arms or anything, just wondering.
'enry
January 11, 2011 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
"though" should be "thought"
'enry
January 11, 2011 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I've wondered the exact same things, Henry. You'll have to ask the ACLU where they draw the line, if any.
January 11, 2011 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
2 days before the shooting, the Daily Kos ran an article with the headline that Congresswoman Gifford was "Dead To Us" (for voting against Nancy Pelosi).
Maybe the shooter was following up on that. Maybe the news should target that ad. (They've since taken them down).
January 11, 2011 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Since it was claimed on here gun references by the left are hard to find, I took about 10 seconds and found a few. None of which I'm sure have drawn any complaints from the media.
“A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked].” – A “humor bit” from the Randi Rhodes Show
“..And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger.” – From a fundraising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club
“…but the kind of people who would buy a car that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can’t be reasoned with. They’re selfish and stupid. It’s unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one thing’s for sure: It couldn’t be happening to a more deserving group of people.” – Ted Rall winks at ecoterrorism
“F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead.” –Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.
“Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” – The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places
“I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” – The Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy
My Congressman Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife…” “Remember Eric…our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you’re a Lucifer, you’re a pig, a greedy f***ing pig, you’re an abomination, you receive my bullets in…your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer’s abominations.” – Obama campaign contributor Norman Laboom
Just for the record, I wasn't able to find any comparable statements made by right-wing talk show hosts or talking heads. References/metaphors such as "target", "lock & load", etc, yes. But nothing comparable to these. If someone has some, I'd like to see them, so I can condemn them equally. Thx.
January 11, 2011 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Wow!!!! and we wonder why our children and their vocab is so very limited!!!! As a child I remember they had to say a woman was "with child"........now they do it on screen with their language!!!! Wonders!!!!!!!!!! and these are what are considered "educated people". I thought the military was bad with using that language, they don't hold a candle!!!!!
January 11, 2011 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Also, so much killing........isn't there enough of that in war.........guess we are at war here at home...sad!!!!
January 11, 2011 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sad, isn't it? So now the AZ sheriff there has come out and stated that this is the result of one party specifically preaching hate (really? Which party would that be?) - and specifically pointed a finger at Rush Limbaugh. He just talked about the last 2 years. (Apparently he has been in a coma for the 8 preceding that, although I have no proof).
Well, Rush says alot of controversial things, some downright racist-sounding at times, but I spent some time at several of the most vehement hate-Rush websites I could find looking for any comments by Rush that come anywhere close to the category above. All I read there were basically the same comments as above, only directed AT Rush. Stuff I wouldn't let children read, I can tell you that. Hardly any of them even listed any comments specifically, just the usual crap about how he does nothing but spew hate nonstop. The only site I did find with its "Top 10" disgusting Rush comments - well, I'd say some were pretty rude, racist, and crass - but none of them were even in the same league as above. Some of them I coudn't even figure out why they were listed there other than they just disagreed with any particular point. Come to think of it, none of them were even in the same league as what the article itself was branding him. Couldn't find any Beck or O'Reilly statements anywhere close to these either, and they're the ones always named as the prime ones. I've heard Michael Savage say some comparable things - but he directs them at the right just as often as the left.
It's just sad, really deplorable. We got so used to it for 8 years it hardly raises eyebrows anymore - until something like this happens. That and the fact that a certain segment of the population which was apparently deaf for 8 years now thinks it was suddenly invented 2 years ago. Rhetoric like the above has no place regardless of which angle it comes from - and it DOES come from both sides. Perhaps if the media treated it all equally regardless of where it came from, it would calm things down overall, instead of angering one side or the other even more when they see how unequal the treatment is? Just a thought.....
January 11, 2011 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Henry, I've been wondering the same thing about that Phelps group.
All Arizona, or any state, can do is pass a law preventing any group from picketing 300 feet from a funeral. 300 feet doesn't seem like much.
Somewhere along the line, somehow there will come a law that will prevent it entirely. I hope to see that soon.
Everytime they mention that the Westboro group is from Kansas I cringe.
Regarding toxic political rhetoric, I found myself agreeing with what President Clinton said today. He said, "...anything we say falls on the unhinged and the hinged alike..." And he's right.
The conversation we should be having is about how a federal gun permit can be issued in such a short time. That doesn't give enough time for anyone to be investigated. In this case, however, would they have been aware that the kid had been kicked out of Juco with a warning to go get a mental health clearance before they would reinstate him? Would health information laws prevent that from being filed?
How many unstable people in this country are flying under the radar?
January 11, 2011 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes,
I already acknowledged that it goes on across both aisles. I'll repeat my contention that it happens more on the right, logically so since they are the traditional pro gun party. I refuse to flood these forums with what we already know. Hate knows no party.
January 11, 2011 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
I so agree concerning angering one side or the other. Not sure if you listened to the speech today given by the governor of Az., was excellent. Haven't read much good concerning the Sheriff.......many folks in Az. feel he should be replaced, what he has said sure doesn't help heal but anger the populous.
Please anwer a question, how are the roads in town? Safe to get out? Thanks.
January 11, 2011 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman,
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/ariz...
He seems like a pretty level headed fellow from what I read in this article. Sounds like he had a good conservative upbringing and was rather "old school". I don't agree with his views on immigration but I think he makes some very valid points about a state that has had some pretty radical changes in policy as of late.
January 11, 2011 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Obama, he's a piece of sh*t, and I told him to suck on my machine gun," Nugent said in front of a screaming crowd as he brandishes what appear to be two large assault rifles. He was referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and would become the first black man to occupy the Oval Office. -Ted Nugent
The guy has more influence than all of your above combined, speaks on Fox News frequently and don't get me started who he "pals around with". Tip of the iceberg my friend, there is plenty of hate filled rhetoric on each side. But pertaining SPECIFICALLY to gun related antecedents, I do see more from the right, keep in mind, I am not taking sides, just being logical here.
January 11, 2011 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Glenn Beck poisoning Pelosi in effigy:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
I forgot about an article I linked in an earlier thread, it's funny you mention all the hate for Bush, It would seem Obama has been on the level with him from the get go:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennth...
Perhaps even more?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
Either way if take the Secret Services world for it all of the last 3 Presidents were hated equally, at least the haters are consistent right?
January 11, 2011 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://maxkeiser1.blogspot.com/2011/0...
January 11, 2011 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html...
January 11, 2011 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl3/outla...
January 12, 2011 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, You made the statement concerning the sheriff of AZ. that "I don't agree with his views on immigration"......in what manner??? The United States can no longer be "Meca" to every hispanic that wants to cross that border. Also, be home to a child that they may be carring because said child was born here because they gave birth on this soil after they were carring said child, we just no longer can be their
heaven. Believe there are more Americans that believe in what Az. is doing concerning immigration then against. We as a people are tired of Mexico allowing their population to come here and then us supporting them while they speak their language and fly their flag. If they are here and want to be part of this nation then they MUST speak our language and fly our flag. No more of "duel language" in public!!!!! We are an English speaking nation....speak ENGLISH!!!! Yes, I agree with Az.,, SEND THEM BACK and close those borders!!!!!
January 12, 2011 at 4:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy - es, I would say the hate goes back even further than that - Reagan had his shares of haters, too. Personally, even though there was alot of the usual dislike from either side for previous presidents, IMO Reagan is where the real hate started to come out and has been a part of our national scene ever since, unfortunately.
And I did say that I'm not surprised that you would hear more gun related remarks from the right since that is where the majority of gun owners probably fall. Just trying to show that gun-related remarks from the left catch very little or no flack whatsoever from the press. Actually, alot of gun-related remarks from the right don't catch all that much flack, either. It's just when Sarah Palin does it - LOL.
However, I would still contend that the number of repulsive protest signs that are anti-Obama don't come anywhere near the number we saw at anti-Bush rallies. Or even GOP conventions. The same point was pretty much brought up the other night as I was watching Beckel debate Hannity. He made the remark that we've seen a rise in the last 2 years unlike anything we've ever seen. Hannity challenged him on that point and said he would take him on tit for tat - Beckel backed down pretty fast. It was kindof funny watching him try to backtrack. He knew he was trying to get away with a statement that wasn't true.
And since I am writing this, if I may answer sandman's latest post for goodoleboy, sandman, he was talking about the AZ sheriff who is PRO-immigration, and has been blaming the shooting on Rush Limbaugh. The sheriff in the next county is the one who is tough on immigration.
Which brings up other good points in comparing the 2. The sheriff referredt to by goodoleboy has said he will not enforce AZ's new immigration laws. I believe, as a law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to uphold the law, (not just the laws he likes) - he should be immediately removed from office when making statements like that.
The second point is that while he's blaming Rush for violence he hasn't said a word about the other sheriff who has many, many death threats against him for enforcing the laws. Yet another big hypocrite. So for being a hypocrite and breaking his own oath to uphold the laws I don't see him as all that level-headed.
January 12, 2011 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJvRYC...
January 12, 2011 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1JzOz...
January 12, 2011 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, thank you but please read my post right before my last. I did a poor job admitted, but was trying to get goodoleboy to see that perhaps THIS sheriff wasn't so "level minded" since he wasn't following the law. Again, Thank you for wording so much better my "mess", plus the spelling errors, Oh my!!!! I should never get upset, I just "rant"!!!!!. Have a beautiful sunny day....I will, I'm plowed out!!!! Life is good!!!!
January 12, 2011 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Sounds like Sarah made a huge mistake in using the term "blood libel" earlier today. This will play out to mean she has no idea what she is talking about. Either that, or she doesn't write her own utterances. Quite a bit of discussion including definition of the term here:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...
I guess this will have to go under the heading damned if you do and damned if you don't. Can't wait to hear how Jon Stewart handles this one.
January 12, 2011 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, sandman, I skipped over & from reading the second only I got confused. My apologies.
Oh and by the way, I DO deplore Ted Nugent's inexcusable rant above. Perhaps, as Jon Stewart inferred regarding this tragedy, we should blame heavy metal music equally.
I'd still like to know why nobody on the left has complained about the Daily Kos article with the headline that Congresswoman Giffords was "Dead To Us Now" 2 days before the shooting. Sounds to me if we're going to look at inflammatory rhetoric & point fingers, that is as prime a target as any. Oh, I forgot, it came from the left, and Sarah Palin didn't write it, so it's ok. When can we expect to see quite a bit of discussion on MSNBC about it? Would we see hours devoted to it if Palin wrote it?
January 12, 2011 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You're right, open_eyes, I haven't seen anyone relate to that Daily Kos headline. I too found that distasteful and now, horrific and irresponsible in light of Tucson. Considering how quickly they took it down, what were they trying to do? Hide? Very poor shameful behavior all the way around on their part and the part of those liberal places that have paid no attention to it.
January 12, 2011 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Create, I fear we are seeing the death throes of honest political debate in this country, if it didn't already die awhile back. As I said before..... I had absolutely no problem whatsoever with Obama's remark about bringing guns - he was quoting "The Untouchables", I believe. Nor did I have any problem with the DNC map nor Palin's with the bullseyes & crosshairs. And to be quite honest, before this happened, although I thought it was distasteful, (as many Daily Kos articles are) - I didn't think the "Dead To Us" article was any more out of line than most I see. And I still wouldn't have connected any dots......until this all-out blame on the right began. Now I'm just saying..... if we're going to point fingers.... let's look at all of it, not just what Palin says. If they think what she said or what Rush said had something to do with planting some ideas in some deranged mind, then I for one look at the Kos headline and see a just as much if not more directed and questionable idea being presented.
BTW, back in 2006, a Daily Kos article described Joe Lieberman as "dead to us" as well, but it wasn't in the headline of the article as Gifford's was.
This is what the Kos has to say about it (predictably):
"When Rep. Giffords was shot today, the diarist out of respect for Rep. Giffords and after apologizing for causing any distress, deleted the diary of his/her own free will. There is no equivalency between what the diarist wrote in the title and what Sarah Palin posted on her web page or wrote in her twitter remarks about reloading. There is no equivalence between what the diarist wrote and what so many extreme right wing politicians, TV commentators or radio hosts say each and every day."
Of course not. Just as there is no equivalence between a DNC map with bullseyes and a Palin map with crosshairs.
I fear next we are going to start regulating free speech...... it will be interesting to see where the ACLU sides on that.
January 12, 2011 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now that Chris Matthews had fingerd Mark Levin & Michael Savage as also being to blame in this, Savage used the same "blood libel" term as Palin.
“This is a blood libel by Matthews. His remarks may cause me serious economic damage. I only hope his inconsiderate, malicious libel against me does not bring harm to myself or my family. I pray that an imbalanced left-wing fanatic does not take Matthews' libel against me to heart and seek to inflict bodily harm on myself or my family.”
I think in tonight's speech, Obama has a great opportunity to bring the country together, much as we rallied together behind Bush after 9/11. If he admonishes anyone, I hope he does it equally. If he does that, I think folks will stop and look around, maybe some will take a good hard long look at themselves in the mirror, and try to reach some sanity in all this. If he starts finger pointing at the right, then not only will he have missed a golden opportunity, but I think he will further divide the country (if such a thing is possible). We shall see.
January 12, 2011 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I would say the hate started to take hold back in the 60's with the culture revolutions that took place. The Nixon fiasco really ignited people. But historically speaking there have always been wedge issues that have fueled the hatred in the political spectrum. Hate is nothing new, and it will always be present.
It will be interesting what details emerge in the future from the young man that perpetrated these events. I do find it humorous that Rush said something to the effect that heavy metal music had something to do with it. I listen to it all the time, workouts especially, a psycho I am not.
January 12, 2011 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Speech has been pretty good so far IMO
January 12, 2011 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, hate has been around alot longer, it has risen and ebbed at times, but during Abraham Lincoln's time he was one of the most reviled presidents we had by nearly half the country, so I don't think there is any particular time or place we can pinpoint. That's a good point about the culture revolutions in the 60's. I wasn't thinking back far enough originally, just that I felt it extended beyond the past 3.
I think Obama's speech was very good. I find my self wishing he would have said a little more to the effect of those without sin casting the first stone or looking at the mote in one's one eye first, but being a memorial service, this probably wasn't the time or place to get too political. It was not missed on me that he pointed out several of the victims were Republicans. Let's see, discounting the little girl, it looks like there were possibly more Republicans than Democrats that were killed. So, obviously, it was left-wing media & talk radio that incited all this........... right? (Just trying to think like some on the other side are doing right now - and believe me........ I suddenly feel alot dumber ;-).
Heavy Metal music is great for workouts. Even Ted Nugent ;-)
January 12, 2011 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I regards to Palin using the term 'blood libel" at first I passed it off more of the media just trying to attack her for no reason, but then something occurred to me....
Palin has almost exclusively taken to spekaing through means of electronic communication or Fox News. I am %100 positive that she has advisers and handlers helping her prepare and deliver her messaged(as every politician does). Given the current environment being as politically charged as it is, why use a term as questionable as this one when she is under scrutiny as it is from the left for this? Is she stupid? Are her handlers incompetent? Is she trying to further stir the pot? Surely there were better ways to convey her thoughts.....
January 12, 2011 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, are you sure????? (Your last statement in the post before) Who makes that decision? :-)
I thought Mr. Obama did a super job of trying to "unit".....would be a terrible position to be, so many negative vibes surrounding you. For the first time I thought I could see stress entering his face. The fact he pointed out not to blame but only the one committing the act. Tis so time we look at true facts and not what "could have caused", the reality.
I did like the fact he brought out having no regrets with those we love or have a friendship with. I learned this afternoon that a man that I respected so very much is gone. Oh, what a loss for he had young children just as the judge that was killed in last Sats shooting. Life is so very short......much too short for all the bitterness and hatefulness, or blame.
What is done, is done. Learn from it and move forward.
.
January 12, 2011 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, you mention Abraham Lincolnl, I would put John F. Kennedy right up there. When he was running, believe so many were against because he was catholic (got to watch those catholic, they will corrupt you) :-) Once in office, if my memory serves me correctly, he was loved by those he served. Believe he stood his ground and beliefs, am I correct?
January 12, 2011 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
A better way to convey a message than injecting a very questionable term into a message that will be closely scrutinized?
You betcha! /wink
I think she really botched an a great opportunity IMO.
January 12, 2011 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Had JFK not been martyred there is a good chance he would have gone down in history as good/average president. His presidency really was not that remarkable; historically speaking. BUT it is really difficult to predict what he COULD HAVE done if his life had not ended prematurely.
January 12, 2011 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, in Palin's case, every breath she takes is so heavily criticized & srutinized there's no winning for her in any way, shape, or form among a certain segment. I'm surprised we don't have some congressman who was a former football player who had the nickname "Moose" in college that is saying Palin is inciting violence against them - because she hunts moose..... lol
There may have been ways to come across that wouldn't have given some folks as much "ammo" - but, given her circumstances, I'd almost say to heck with it and speak your mind. Because that's pretty much what it is. Look it square in the eye and name it exactly for what it is, and don't mince words. She'll never convince the true haters even if she single-handedly cures cancer. I really don't see where she had any "great opportunity" whatsoever. Nothing she says or does will ever change the mind of the True Palin Hater, and those in the media who worship at that altar. Look around at how much hatred and venom is spewed her way - given the AZ shootings....... why isn't the left condemning themselves for their own hate-mongering towards her? Anyone want to bet she would get alot less hate mail and death threats if it weren't for left-wing media? Isn't that getting people riled up against someone? Why does that never enter the conversation anywhere but Fox? Does Keith Olbermann even know what a mirror is?
I agree on JFK - when you make a martyr out of someone, it's hard to tell objectively how his presidency would have really been viewed. Something we'll never know.
January 12, 2011 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I can also recall, in the past, some instances where Sarah Palin has been completely unfairly demonized and slandered (well, that happens pretty much every day) - but not only instances where she has lashed out and taken the defiant route, but also instances where she has responded with class, calmly, using no terms that could be "questionable"......
And it hasn't made a damn bit of difference to the True Hypocrites. Go girl. Call it exactly what it is. It won't matter. Those in the media who claim she had a "golden opportunity" just said that to make themselves appear to be fair. They know damn good and well nothing she said would have appeased them.
January 12, 2011 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Oh I agree she will never convince those that hate her. That is not the point though, the point is to convince all the people on the fence about her that WILL seal her fate should she ever run for the Presidency.
She had time to record a message, and critique it, why would she use that term? She was a journalism grad and she could not proof her work? Her aides either? It just reeks of something that was not thought through and THAT to me is what has denigrated her in my eyes the most,
Palin's message should have been one of compassion and sympathy, instead, she's made today's story about herself. Love her or hate her she does have many admirers, a lot of them on the extreme right who could benefit a lot from her efforts to bridge a gap or at least try and close it. So yes I do think she missed an opportunity.
I understand she gets attacked a lot some of it is unfair, some of it is deserved because of some of her ridiculous claims. Her biggest problem IMO is that she lashes out at everyone instead of ignoring the negativity, thus further exacerbating the situation. Obama caught a lot crap saw his approval ratings tank for time, yet what did he do? Put his head down, weathered the storm and ignored his critics to prove them wrong.Until she learns this lesson she will never carry the independents and will never be a political threat to anyone other than people in her own party.
January 12, 2011 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.near-death.com/experiences...
January 12, 2011 at 11:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes wrote:
"Those in the media who claim she had a "golden opportunity" just said that to make themselves appear to be fair. They know damn good and well nothing she said would have appeased them"
I disagree, for myself and many of my friends and family THIS and events like it are why she is farce at present. For every instance she handles admirably there are 5 that are not. It's not just me who thinks this way, she has had years to do better, yet she makes the same mistakes over and over. To me it's no wonder the media attacks her, she lashes out, raises circulation and makes them money(ALL of them not just the left). It's like a cash register for them, I expect her and any possible Presidential candidate to be smarter than that. Only when she rises above this will she ever be a serious contender.
January 12, 2011 at 11:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
John Kennedy decided to end the Federal Reserve, eliminate the national debt and bring the troops home and when LBJ became President he reversed everything.
January 13, 2011 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://cherylkicksass.blogspot.com/20...
January 13, 2011 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
For Reddog:
The belief that he wanted to end the Federal Reserve comes from either an erroneous reading of EO 11110 or simple conspiracy theory nonsense. The notion that Federal Reserve Notes are especially harmful has given rise to one particular conspiracy theory relating to an executive order in 1963. According to author Jim Mars, Executive Order 11110 issued by President Kennedy on June 4, 1963 authorized the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes. Mars further asserts that after President Kennedy's assassination, the order was never carried out.
January 13, 2011 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
continued....
The claim is not borne out by the facts. First, E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes, and did not affect any section of law referring to them. Second, E.O. 11110 did not anywhere mention any quantity of money; wherever the $4 billion-plus figure came from, it was not E.O. 11110. Third, The President had no authority to issue such an edict. Even utilizing the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the most the President could issue without statutory authorization was $3 billion.
What E.O. 11110 did was to modify previous Executive Order 10289, delegating to the Secretary of the Treasury various powers of the President. To these delegated powers, E.O. 11110 added the power to alter the supply of Silver Certificates in circulation. Executive Order 11110, therefore, did not create any new authority for the Treasury to issue notes; it only affected who could give the order, the Secretary or the President.
The reason for the move was that the President had just signed legislation repealing the Silver Purchase Act. With this repeal, the Treasury Secretary could no longer control the issue of Silver Certificates on his own authority. However, the issuance of certificates could be controlled under the President's authority. Hence, for administrative convenience, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110.
Ironically, the purpose of the order and the legislation was to decrease the circulation of Silver Certificates, with Federal Reserve Notes taking their place. As economic activity grew and prices rose in the 1950s and early 1960s, the need for small-denomination currency grew at the same time that the price of silver increased. The Treasury required silver for the increasing number of Silver Certificates and coins needed for transactions. But the price of silver was rapidly approaching the point that the silver in the coins and in reserve for the certificates was worth more than the face value of the money.
To conserve on the silver needs of the Treasury, President Kennedy requested legislation needed to bring the issuance of Silver Certificates to an end and to authorize the Fed to issue small denomination notes (which it could not at that time). The Fed began issuing small denomination notes almost immediately after the legislation was passed. And in October 1964, the Treasury ceased issuing Silver Certificates altogether. If anything, E.O. 11110 enhanced Federal Reserve power and did not in any way reduce it.
January 13, 2011 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, I will completely and utterly disagree with your statement that Obama "put his head down and weathered the storm". I've seen him lash out at his critics VERY often. More than Bush ever did. He has gained a reputation of being quite the opposite - of being very thin-skinned when it comes to criticism. Obama is ripping Fox News, talk radio, conservatives, nearly ever single time one turns around, much more than Bush ever criticized, say, MSNBC. (As a White House spokesman said last year, "At the White House, we LOVE MSNBC"......). He's spent the better part of 2 years blaming everything on his predecessor and Republicans. Bush has been pretty classy about not criticizing either his predecessor or successor. Yes, he has done some criticizing of media coverage, but nothing like our current prez. And NOBODY can deny Bush faced his share, and then some, of criticism. Bush has actually been quite open about his refusal to criticize Obama:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washi...
Pat Roberts told reporters after a meeting with Obama that "he's pretty thin-skinned". But hey, it's not just the GOP, even left-wing journalists recognize it:
"Appearing with Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday, liberal journalist Maureen Dowd derided Barack Obama as "thin-skinned" and not happy with media coverage. This prompted Stephanopoulos to admit, "And his press hasn't been nearly as bad as he thinks."
No, I'd say our current president lashes out at his detractors more than any other president in recent memory. In that respect he's more like Sarah Palin - more prone to lash out & get defensive than "put his head down".
I wonder if any of the people you mention that think less of Palin for her thin-skinned-ness at times think less of Obama for his thin-skinned reactions to criticism. Aaaah...... there's a telling insight.
I have never seen a president criticize unfavorable press and media as much as Obama. And this from somebody who got such favorable treatment from the press SNL even lampooned him being handed a pillow during debates. Maybe that's the problem. He just can't bring himself to believe the lovefest has ended?
January 13, 2011 at 1 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Regarding Bush, if I screwed up as bad as he did, I would keep my mouth shut too, kinda looks like Cheney was still fighting his battles for him, he was pretty vocal.
No people could not oppose nor criticize for fear of being branded a traitor or unpatriotic, in fact there were more than a few TV and radio folk that lost their meal ticket for questioning things early on. I have NEVER seen a network hurl as much BS at president and his intentions as FOX News did in Obamas first few months office, there was some backlash with Bush yes but everyday someone was screaming about socialism and this guy destroying America, and the guy had been in office 30 days? Sure....
I just want to be clear about one thing, this guy inherited the worst situation in modern times, the spending and the wars WERE republican issues. They ARE still issues, so you are saying placing blame were it belongs is wrong? Sure......
You are so quick to make comparisons where they suit you, I don't agree with assessment of Obama, the media was in Bush's pocket for a great while too, until his mistakes were evident to everyone. I have not forgotten the first 5 years on the last decade, have you? I'm sure the Bush administration "loved" Fox News too, there is trend that Bush did keep his mouth shut, but others close to him sure did fight his battles.
Open Eyes wrote:
"I wonder if any of the people you mention that think less of Palin for her thin-skinned-ness at times think less of Obama for his thin-skinned reactions to criticism. Aaaah...... there's a telling insight. "
No it's not an insight of any kind, compared to Palin, Obama is a freaking Rhino. Comparisons that the 2 are not even close. I have never seen Obama say do anything even CLOSE to what Palin has. It's not even worth discussing, comparisons with Bush are far more feasible, I am dropping this topic now because it is an utter and complete waste of time to compare Obama and Palin at this time.
January 13, 2011 at 2:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Tell me this too, since we are making comparisons, Obama took some gambles, bet long on some legislation, things are looking a hell of a lot better than they were 2 years ago. I am not saying he is perfect, but I will gladly take bets that by the end of his term we will be damn near back to where we started and out of at least one war. He needs to trim spending, but after the Stimulus 2 was passed in the form of more tax cuts(since almost 1/2 of the original were tax cuts or credits) I am not convinced that neither him OR the GOP are going to trim things done in the immediate future, especially with our expenditures abroad. Care to bet if the GOP does not block raising the debt ceiling as promised?
Things got tough on Palin what happened? Yeah...
January 13, 2011 at 2:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/13/1328864...
January 13, 2011 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincoln...
January 13, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.illuminati-news.com/kenned...
January 13, 2011 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well I'll disagree on that, too. Reagan actually inherited a worse economy than Obama.
"When Reagan took office in January 1981, inflation was running at roughly a 12% rate, compared to the 3% or so that’s likely holding sway now. Mortgage interest rates were staggering, having topped 16%. Unemployment was at 7.5%, and on its way to 10.8%. Oil prices were triple what they had been four years earlier."
But I don't recall near the criticism of Carter out of RR that we have now. You can ascribe blame to whoever you want, justified or not. The point is did the following prez spend 2 years whining about it.
This notion that Bush enjoyed a "lovefest" for his first 5 years is a flat out fabrication. Not only did we have "Sniper Wanted" on his picture on TV BEFORE the election, but half the country has complained ever since that he stole the 2000 election. You don't remember any of that screaming? Really? During his "first few months of office"? We had protests at his 2001 inauguration. (Tear gas was used at the 2005). His approval ratings when taking office were nowhere near Obama's initially (about 20 pts less) - and never improved. They only spiked after 9/11, and were back down below to where they began roughly a mere 1 1/2 years later. Below 50 even before the 2004 election. He had roughly less than 2 years there he was pretty untouchable. And that was it. Utter bunk. And when you say the wars were Republican issues..... don't forget how many Dems voted for it, and said Saddam must be stopped. Kerry & Clinton, to name a couple. There were no votes down party lines. The Senate vote for going into Iraq was 77-23 and the House was 296-133. (Those are both wider margins than when they approved kicking Saddam out of Kuwait). The authorization to invade Afghanistan passed the House 420 to 1, and the Senate 98 to 0. Hard to call numbers like those "Republican issues".
I'll give ya the spending under Bush - I was also very much not in favor of that. But as they say... Congress controls the purse strings. And his last 2 years we had a Democratic-controlled Congress.
BTW......Bush signed an agreement to have all US forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011 back in 2008.
I have absolutely no faith in either party to do the right thing at this time. No bets there. But I don't think things are looking all that rosy, either. If we took the true unemployment rate, not just those applying, the stats would be even worse.
But you admit Bush DID keep his mouth shut. And you admit Obama lashes back alot, but only because he has a good excuse. Interesting. I guess then we agree. I think.
January 13, 2011 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
With regard to Palin using the term "blood libel." It doesn't make a rat's behind how many others have used the same term. This is like dealing with a kid when a kid loves to say, "well so and so did the same thing, howcum I'm getting into trouble." Well let's all jump off a bridge why don't we!
Sarah Palin, for all her claims of being a leader, should not be depending so heavily on speech writers. Instead, she should be depending on herself and not just rubber stamping what others write for her. Any bets as to Sarah Palin even understanding the term, "blood libel"? I didn't think so.
Her coming out yesterday, of all times, with her "blood libel" BS was thoughtless and just plain stupid. Once again, she has opened her mouth and proven how really unprepared she is for leadership.
What President Obama said last night cannot be topped. "If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost."
January 13, 2011 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cka2Ei...
January 13, 2011 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As I said, I think Obama's speech last night was excellent.
Here's a quick list of other folks who have used the term "blood libel" in the public arena. Quite a few liberals and Democrats directing the comments at Republicans among them. Do you want to place the same bets on whether they even understood the term? I tried hard but couldn't find the same outcry against their use of the term.
I wonder why that is?
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaig...
I'm just curious...... if one were to assume that the Republicans taking control of one branch of congress actually do manage to reign in spending (which I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in that they will), and/or if things do improve by 2012 as you think they will........... who will you ascribe the credit to? If it doesn't, who will you blame?
January 13, 2011 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favr...)
January 13, 2011 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm also curious about something else. We've had several folks on here discussion Palin's use of that term, and in both cases, initially, they didn't seem to be as upset about it as they are now. Now the anger in the air is palpable. What or who changed your mind? Reading the msnbc links that were posted? If the media had treated her use of the term in exactly the same way they've treated it in the past, (meaning, basically ignoring it) - would you be as upset about it now? Since this whole brouha is about whether the media "incites anger", or whips folks into a frenzy....... it seems that has happened here already - and from the other direction. As I've shown, the term has been used quite a few times in the political arena in the past - by both Repub & Dem alike. With barely an eyebrow raised. But NOW..... now that Palin has used it..... it seems certain media outlets are running with it.... and whipping people into a frenzy, getting some folks all up in arms about it, lowering Palin in their eyes...... when initially they didn't think it was much of a big deal, other than maybe just not the best choice of words.
Isn't that what we're all trying to get away from? Aren't those who are blaming the right doing the EXACT same thing in this case?
Does hypocrisy know no limits?
January 13, 2011 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, my last statement is referring to the hypocrisy of the media, doing the exact same things they are railing against, not posters here.
January 13, 2011 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Now,now, create, your fangs are showing!!! Poor Sarah, by you and goodoleboy, she needs to get back into the kitchen and out of the war zone!!!! Say, not sure you realized that congress past that it is OK for women to be out of that kitchen!!!!! Who says we can't fight just as dirty as you men?? :-) Now create, would you please explain what YOU think the term "blood libel" means.Time to get back in that kitchen!!!! :-)
January 13, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And also.... I'm just as guilty of getting worked up by the media as any. Only in my case, its usually by the hypocrisy of the other side. Not really anger as much as Olbermann makes me sick to my stomach. But I'm just asking - aren't we all just as guilty? It's pretty obvious here the latest media coverage of Palin has got some folks seething. The point is..... the exact same things come out of other folk's mouths, and somehow out of Sarah, it is 10 times worse and 20 times dumber. Just trying to understand why. A Dem congressman used the term referring to Republicans - I thought congress was a leadership position, also.
January 13, 2011 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I truly feel Palin realizes that "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" so what the heck!!!!! Just in the last few years have I grown to realize just how very critical people truly are, and that just doesn't go for the media. Guess in the past I was in my own little world and being very happy in it, never paid any attention to "outsiders". I have come to realize just how true the saying "make a mountain out of a mole hill" fits today. Now whose hands have blood on them today??????(directly or indirectly?)
January 13, 2011 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
I should have added as the gossip goes for we ALL know what is said is the TRUTH.........right?????
January 13, 2011 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah, when Obama said "we bring guns" - did he show how unprepared for leadership HE was? Personally I didn't think any more or less about that comment than I do Palin's. Politics is ugly. First we hear if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. But if you fight back............. she truly is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. As another poster here has already characterized it with those exact words before you did, sandman. That is, before, I guess, the media got folks into more of a frenzy about it. In other words....did the exact same thing they're railing about.
As goodoleboy said, ALL politicians employ speechwriters. So were Obama's incompetent for letting him utter the guns comment? Or referring to half the country as "the enemy"? That comment drew more ire from me than the guns one, easily. Should Obama "depend more on himself"? (This from someone who has gained some noteriety for not doing nearly as well when he doesn't have a teleprompter handy). Obama has also made statements to the effect of how he'd like to muzzle Biden at times and keep him from going off-track and on his own.
Well I really don't think that much about alot of Biden's slip-ups, or Obama's stammering when the teleprompter breaks. Any more than any of Palin's "mannerisms" bother me. Sure, we all get our digs in, but they're human, folks always have and always will say things that in hindsight may not have been the best way to present it. I've always been more interested in what's inside the package than whether or not its wrapped up fancily.
January 13, 2011 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Here's a side note about our improving economy:
"2011 to Top 2010 Record of 1 Million Foreclosures"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Fore...
It seems the only place where the economy is improving is for the fat cats at the top. Yes, those the damned Republicans held out for keeping their taxes low.
And regarding the term:
Famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the term’s use has evolved over the years from one fraught with pain in Jewish history, and that Palin used the term correctly.
“The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse,” Dershowitz said. He said that, although the historical origins of the term were "in theologically based false accusations against Jews and the Jewish people," its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.
“I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the state of Israel by the Goldstone Report,” Dershowitz said. “There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim.
Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin also defended Palin's use of the term in warning that journalists and pundits “should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”
“Sarah Palin got it right,” a spokesman for the organization told the Daily Caller. “Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel.”
Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman issued a statement Wednesday agreeing that it is inappropriate to blame Palin and others for the tragic shootings in Tucson.
“Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks,” Foxman wrote. “We agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
January 13, 2011 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
But when does a voice in the wilderness of blamers finally say STOP THE MADNESS!!! When does that voice finally say, "We are all wrong and now we must go forward and stop all this BS bickering and mudslinging!"
We could go on and on ad infinitum saying, "look at what she did, what he did." Fine. It's time to stop. Just freaking stop.
Barack Obama is our president, and the leader of the free world. It's time to pay some modicum of respect to that instead of constantly dragging his name in the dirt. But will anyone listen? Hell no!
At least Congress is reaching for some kind of solution with a seating arrangement instead of each party sitting by itself divisively on each side of the aisle. That's a start. It beats finger pointing. I've had an entire week's worth of that and I'm getting pretty damn sick of it.
It was nice to see that giant flag unfurled at the little girl's funeral today, the flag that flew at the WTC on 9-11 -- the day she was born -- repaired with parts of which flew over Greensburg, Kansas the day that town was leveled by a tornado -- the WTC flag that the kind ladies from that tiny Kansas town took upon themselves to repair and get flying again. What a hopeful thing to do.
January 13, 2011 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
EXACTLY, create - I couldn't agree with you more. We could start here. Folks that initially didn't think much one way or the other about Palin's remark could quit letting the media convince them she's the devil's spawn for uttering it. That would be a good place to start. And I certainly hope that some of those in the media - on both sides - will try to choose their words and rhetoric more carefully. There's nothing I can do about that, but I CAN control how I react to it. Just because some on the right are making hay about Obama's "bringing gun's" remark doesn't mean it has to change my opinion of it, which was that it was just an innocent metaphor and absolutely nothing more at all, for example.
I feel so sad when I read your third paragraph. I completely agree. I'm just sad because very few seemed to have that mindset during the last 5 Bush years. Very little has changed, other than the direction of the wind.
I think that's great about Congress working on a seating arrangement - I hadn't heard that. Great idea.
I didn't get to watch the funeral, but that sounds very moving and profound.
I honestly don't think, however, that a voice in the wilderness will be the one to say stop the madness. I think those throwing the stones are going to have to be the ones to look in the mirror and realize they are perpetuating the exact same thing.
Somewhere, somehow, both sides are going to have to be able to sit down together, in the same forum, and be able to discuss things - maybe heatedly at times, but not from afar where they can just blather their own self-righteous indignation without having to look the others in the face and have it pointed right back out to them.
You know, like they do on some programs on Fox (*wink*) - LOL
(Sorry, couldn't resist) ;-)
And CNN, too :-)
January 13, 2011 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, how I enjoy you! Am sad to say that the tradition in America doesn't seem to show its head very often. Now I'm being negative, stop that!!!! I thought I knew what the term "blood libel" ment and did feel Sarah used it properly, thank you. Also, believe many are on her case because she is a woman and many are women themselves. Personally, I LIKE the kitchen but am so respectful of those, Sarah, Jan Brewer, Gabby (who was shot) that find a "nitch" and go for it.
Obama made me question when he mentioned 58 states........Oh dear, not good!!!!!! Where were his writers? Several times also when he is speaking but he did do a super job last evening, good job writers!!!!!!!!
January 13, 2011 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah, if only the folks that lived back in the "Gay" 90's knew what that term means now - LOL ;-)
January 13, 2011 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Reagan did NOT inherit worse:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
You want to talk about incompetent gaffes between Obama and Palin? PLUUUUEAASE! Really?
Our Economy?
%80 increase in the DOW by now, my 401k looks one Hell of a lot better now.
For all the claims of budget cuts Obama already shaved %8 off this years:
http://www.turbulentblacktea.com/2010...
Given what what was in place:
"“The Congressional Budget Office’s projected budget deficit for FY2009, beginning four months before Obama took office, was already in excess of $1.3 trillion. Indeed, the 2011 budget deficit is projected to be ever-so-slightly lower than the one Bush left on the White House doorstep. Despite the one-time $787 billion economic stimulus (spread over three years), no huge growth in government spending has taken place on Obama’s watch.”"
I have no clue what your talking about..
January 13, 2011 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
create, so very much agree with you and "blame". Believe I posted that from the first. Let us try being positive and building this nation upward. Let us pick our playing field where it will be productive for both sides have lacked productivity at some time. Let life go on. How many times have we all heard "if you can't say anything positive, SHUT up!!!!" :-)
January 13, 2011 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Funny I can find plenty of prominent Jewish leaders that are NOT happy about her or ANYONE using it.
"David A. Harris President and CEO, National Jewish Democratic Council :
Following this weekend’s tragedy, we -- and many others -- simply did two things: we prayed for our friend Gabby while keeping all of the murdered and wounded in our thoughts and prayers, and we talked in broad terms about our increasingly charged level of political debate -- asserting that now is as good a time as any to look inward and assess how all of us need to dial back the level of vitriol and anger in our public square. Nobody can disagree with the need for both.
Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a “blood libel” against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.
Perhaps Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.
All we had asked following this weekend’s tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Palin’s invocation of a “blood libel” charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction."
January 13, 2011 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman,
How dare you say that create and I think Palin should stay in the kitchen. Male or female, I don't care. Those are YOUR words not ours. My problem is with the person, not her gender.
January 13, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's interesting, goodoleboy. But your own link said this:
As Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, recently put it, "Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low. A situation in which the number of jobs available is falling is bad enough, but if inflation is also destroying purchasing power, the misery is compounded."
Recreating the famous "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- shows higher numbers in the Reagan years, ranging between 13.5 and 19.5. The misery index in the current recession has been lower -- 5.7 in 2008 and 11.8 so far in 2009.
If you think Bush enjoyed a lovefest for 5 years, or that Obama deserves full credit for getting us out of Iraq when the agreement by end of 2011 was already signed beforehand by Bush, then, yes, you're very last statement before this is right on the mark. ;-)
January 13, 2011 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, and there are plenty of prominent Jewish leaders, just as I also showed, who say her remark was right on target and not offensive at all. So who's right and who's wrong?
Gee, I wonder if their own political ideology had anything to do with it? I notice that the one you posted had "Democratic Council" in the heading. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Their mission statement says they "work to promote Jewish values within the Party, and to promote the Democratic Party within the Community. And from what I found in about 10 seconds, they've pretty much always been in the hardcore True Palin Haters club. Back in 2008, they called for withdrawal of the invitation to Governor Sarah Palin at and anti-Ahmadinejad rally and applaud Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to not attend the rally after the attendance of Palin was announced.
Yeah, I'll put alot of stock into THEIR views on the matter.
Funny, isn't it? As you say.
January 13, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes wrote:
"That's interesting, goodoleboy. But your own link said this'
Post the whole article instead of the tidbits that suit you, facts are facts, Reagan's situation was not worse.
Open Eyes wrote:
"Gee, I wonder if their own political ideology had anything to do with it? I notice that the one you posted had "Democratic Council" in the heading. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?"
How many do you want? Tell you what, give me what YOU want, I'll find it. Your trying to make a partisan issue out of this again when it is not, it is an anti semantic issue.
January 13, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Also, the Reagan and Bush administrations are WHY the deficit is where it is. Care to debate that one?
January 13, 2011 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
As CNSNews.com has reported, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion.
At the end of FY 1989, which occurred on Sept. 30, 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion -- an increase of $1.4788 trillion over the eight years of the Reagan administration.
By the end of FY 1993, which ended eight months after George H.W. Bush left office and occurred during Bill Clinton’s first year in office, the debt was $3.248 trillion, growth of just over $1.05 trillion over four years.
By the end of FY 2001, eight months after Bill Clinton left office and during George W. Bush’s first year in the White House, the debt stood at $3.319 trillion.
By the end of FY 2009, (Sept. 30, 2009) eight months after George W. Bush left office, during Barack Obama’s first year in office, the debt stood at $7.544 trillion.
According to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt, on Jan. 3, 2011, the public debt stood at: $13.998 trillion. ($13,997,932,781,828.89)
And the Democrats are the party of out of control spending?
January 13, 2011 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In many areas, statistically, this is worse, in some areas, statistically, from your own article, Reagan's was worse. Problem is, it can't always just be measured by pure statistics. Inflation and interest rates have huge effects on the economy that aren't always easy to quantify. That is why the "misery index" was created, to get a better fix on the true economic health of a country. (BTW, the misery index was created by a Democratic economist who served under Kennedy & Johnson).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
That's the point - the entire firestorm around Palin's comment is nothing but a partisan issue. If it was anti semantic, then whey aren't all Jewish organizations condemning it? Gosh, if it was purely anti-semantic, why is the Anti-Defamation League not bashing her over it? Aren't they supposed to be pro-Jewish? You didn't think the remark was that offensive at first. Who convinced you otherwise?
So, Carter had nothing to do with Reagan's deficits, but Bush has everything to do with Obama's. Which is it? (I think there's a middle ground in there somewhere). Truth is, the BIG kahuna that more than anything else caused this whole downturn is the housing collapse - and who are you trying to lay all the blame of that on? I think it's been done to death that there are plenty who share in it, Dem & Repub alike. And plenty of instances beyond one's control - both good and bad. Think how differently our economic history would have been if the dot-com boom happened on Bush's watch, and 9/11 on Clinton's. Again - if the economy either does or doesn't turn around, who are you going to credit and who will you blame in either case?
January 13, 2011 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Glad you put up those stats, goodoleboy. Only the left forgets that the Republicans controlled Congress during those years Clinton ran a surplus. And he basically had to reign in alot of his plans and adapt because of it. Reagan never controlled the House (House Ways & Means committe is what controls the purse strings) - and hobbled by an opposition Congress never got the spending restraints he wanted.
Now under Bush, the Repubs turned an about face and started spending like there was no tomorrow. And, of course, once the Dems took control in 2006, they did nothing whatsoever to curb that, either.
Waiting to see what this Congress does....
January 13, 2011 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, had to look that one up in Webster:
Gay:
1.Merry
2.Bright and lively, esp. in color
3.Inclined to social pleasure
4. Homosexual
Yes, from what I understand the "20's, weren't they the "gay 20"s"? (meaning merry or to have fun) Even the '60's, were they not a "gay time" or a gay tune (which I still love!!!).
Not sure where meaning #4 came into play, but I still prefer meanings 1,2,3.
Also the old saying:" A gay time in the ole barn tonight!!!" and no, I am not homosexual but joyful, so I guess I am "gay"according to Webster. Funny how meanings come into play and how the reflection of those meanings sometimes have no reflection. Just as the old saying "they are a queer sort" meaning different. Yes, our English language is hard to understand. Each time we had a foreign exchange student told them as such.
January 13, 2011 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, and the Dems controlled both houses all 4 of Bush the elder's years, too. Gosh, when you look at who controlled Congress, the picture suddenly looks alot different, except for the spending spree they went on during Bush the younger.
January 13, 2011 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think those were the "Roaring 20's", sandman, and the "Gay 90's) (the 1890's) ;-)
January 13, 2011 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Another interesting read on who controls Congress & the White House, and deficits - from CNSNews.com, which you quoted above:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/6...
January 13, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The problem is, unfortunately, the bigger our deficit gets, the faster it's going to grow, as it takes more and more just to keep up with the interest. THIS Congress had BETTER act - soon.
January 13, 2011 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes wrote:
"You didn't think the remark was that offensive at first. Who convinced you otherwise?"
I never "I" found it offensive, I just think that given the circumstances and the focus that is on her that it is a stupid mistake. Almost to stupid, to the point I think she might be doing just for the press.
Open Eyes wrote:
"So, Carter had nothing to do with Reagan's deficits, but Bush has everything to do with Obama's. Which is it?"
Reagan's deficits were the result of Reaganomics failing and massive military spending, Carter had little to do with it. Obama inherited 2 wars on top of the economy in the crapper, aw hell, your a smart guy, you don't need me to tell you this=)
January 13, 2011 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, Oh dear!!!! the subconscious
is showing!!!! Your statement: not "her" gender", why not just gender?? Sooooo, yes I dare!!!! Plus, I have two sons that are super cooks, truth known, probably the oldest is better then his Mom. His wife doesn't care to do so and he does enjoy, super!!!! BUT you knew EXACTLY what I ment and what it appeared you were saying.
January 13, 2011 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Yes, open_eyes, you are correct but I still like the "gay 20's"- each time I see a film clip from that time period they seem "gay"!!!!!(full of fun) Now the '90's don't seem so gay, in fact depressing. My adoptive parents were married in 1926 and Yes, often heard of the "gay" times they had plus the many pictures from that period. I imagine you know what the pictures were called, you had to look thru glasses to see. Sooooooooo, will always be the "gay 20's" to me even though the proper term is "roaring". I love the dresses from back then!!!!!!!! FUN!!!!!!!! Be a fun party, "The Roaring 20's" style!!!!!!
January 13, 2011 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman wrote at 4:13 PM
"Now,now, create, your fangs are showing!!! Poor Sarah, by you and goodoleboy, she needs to get back into the kitchen and out of the war zone!!!! Say, not sure you realized that congress past that it is OK for women to be out of that kitchen!!!!!"
Are you feeling OK? YOU brought gender and the whole kitchen thing into this. I responded that gender had nothing to do with it. You really need to read into what you say more closely before throwing stones my way.
January 13, 2011 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes wrote;
"Oh, and the Dems controlled both houses all 4 of Bush the elder's years, too. Gosh, when you look at who controlled Congress, the picture suddenly looks alot different, except for the spending spree they went on during Bush the younger."
So what was Congress to do? Choke all the funds for the wars off? Defund everything the prior Republican majority?
"Three proximate causes of the rising national debt remain: the Bush tax cuts of 2001, his unfunded Medicare drug benefit, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Would have never happened, they did not have the numbers to overcome a presidential veto. This Congress will be no better, they already approved the tax cuts for all, which equates to a another 800 billion stimulus that everyone decried so much.
January 13, 2011 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm still a little confused on how when a Republican prez inherits a recession from a Dem it's all his fault but when a Dem inherits a recession from a Repub it's all the former's fault. Hell, for all the surpluses, Bush II still inherited a recession from Clinton.
You're right, goodoleboy, I'm no dummy. Smart enough to realize that things are way too complex and way too inter-related to hardly ever be able to put all or nearly all the blame in one particular spot. One needs to take a good hard look at Congress, who really controls the purse strings, when one complains about spending. And don't forget, "failed" Reaganomics, once the tax cuts finally got phased in after 2 years, despite an opposition Congress, resulted in an economy that took off - growing 7.6% in 1984 alone. And a reduction in unemployment from over 10% to 5.4 by the end of his terms. Balooning deficits, yes - but did you follow the link about deficits & control of Congress? Who had the House all of Reagan's years? Do they bear some responsibility?
"more of the media just trying to attack her for no reason", and "I understand she gets attacked a lot some of it is unfair". Your own words. Well, in this example we simply differ on the blood libel phrase. I think nothing about it - after all, its been used quite often in the press and by congress in the past with no outcry. Jewish anti-defamation league isn't attacking her for it. Jewish organizations with strong ties to the Democratic party are. So to me, it's just as you said - attacks for no reason, unfair. To you, she deserves it. We simply differ there. Could/should she have used a different phrase? In retrospect, apparently. But in all honesty - would it have made any difference? Is there ever any choice of words she can choose that will, as you say yourself, keep her from being attacked "for no reason"? Hell, there are some on the right who didn't like Obama's speech at the memorial, for crying out loud. So if she says something that is factually correct, and folks that aren't sitting around just waiting for the next meaningless trivial thing to jump on her are ok with it, then I'm not going to sweat it. Let them fret themselves into a blind tizzy over nothing. I've got better things to do ;-)
January 13, 2011 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, part of that spending spree WAS for the wars. And no, I don't think Congress should have defunded it. But, after 9/11, no matter who would have been in office, would we have still went after Bin Laden/Taliban in Afghanistan? Almost certainly. Iraq? No, probably not. So we'd have still had SOME war spending no matter what, IMO.
I agree on part of those causes - I've said before I disagree with tax cuts for the very top. Short term at that time, yes. But those should have expired, and kept the rest in place, IMO. And unfunded Medicare, yes. However, Bush DID sign legislation trimming Medicre & Medicade in 2006. "He defended his budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year in the face of critics from both parties who say he is shaving too much from Medicare and other programs. He said his critics are thinking like free-spending Europeans." And in 2008, the Dem-controlled House blocked further cuts.
So there are some things they could have started reigning back in but didn't.
January 13, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, please reread your post of 4:23, You state: "How dare you say create and I think Palin should stay in the kitchen. Male or female, I don't care. Those are YOUR words not ours. My problem is with the person, not her gender."
My reference was to the last "HER". If you were truly not concerned with their gender, why say "her"....why not leave out or say "their" gender.
Also, create. After referring to the "blood libel" she states "Once again she has opened heer mouth and proven how really unprepared she is for leadership. Now, as it has been proven, if a man had said the very same words would the response have been the same, NO!!!
January 13, 2011 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes wrote:
"I'm still a little confused on how when a Republican prez inherits a recession from a Dem it's all his fault but when a Dem inherits a recession from a Repub it's all the former's fault. Hell, for all the surpluses, Bush II still inherited a recession from Clinton."
Then you wrote:
You're right, goodoleboy, I'm no dummy. Smart enough to realize that things are way too complex and way too inter-related to hardly ever be able to put all or nearly all the blame in one particular spot.
You answered you own question right there, the answer is simple, the situations were different.
Did Reagan inherit 2 wars along with his recession? No
Did Bush inherit 2 wars in addition to a recession that was no where near this one? No
Clinton inherited a small recession, remember the campaign slogan "It's about Jobs, stupid?"
Obama inherited 2 wars, worst recession in recent times.
Clearly he inherited the worst situation of all, followed by Reagan then pretty much a toss up between Bush II and Clinton, neither recession was even close to Obama's or Reagan's.
January 13, 2011 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman wrote:
"My reference was to the last "HER". If you were truly not concerned with their gender, why say "her"....why not leave out or say "their" gender."
Because it would have been improper grammar?
January 13, 2011 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Oh, I disagree entirely, sandman. This has nothing to do with gender and I wasn't involving gender at all. I have a problem with Sarah Palin herself and what she said about "blood libel." Were a man to have made that very same statement, I would have still said the exact same thing as I did earlier about poor leadership. You can bank on that.
January 13, 2011 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Given the fact that this entire blaming her for the shootings is ludicrous, why is she even having to have a discussion about her defending herself? Is this like all the bogus ethics charges in Alaska, just keep throwing mud until someone slips and you get something to stick? You throw enough mud out there where someone is walking, even someone with cleats on their shoes is bound to slip and get a spot of mud on their jacket. Meanwhile I guess those doing the throwing can walk on the nice, clean paved roads, not get a speck of mud on themselves, and feel so much better about themselves in comparison, I guess.
Sandman, men have used the term in public discourse and politics, many times, including a Democratic congressman, and as you say, there has been little or no fallout over it.
Just at random, I picked an article from "The Jewish Week" that said Palin was correct to use the term blood libel. I counted the blogs afterwards: They ran roughly 3 to 2 in support of her use of the term. Many of those who disagreed called her things like a sack of garbage and so on....... if that tells you anything about the mindset of those who disagreed. I kinda liked this one comment:
"I guess hating Sarah Palin is somehow liberating of the soul for some people and a mark of sophistication in some eyes. Personally I find hateful people hateful."
January 13, 2011 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Is this like all the bogus ethics charges in Alaska, just keep throwing mud until someone slips and you get something to stick? "
First off I know of 2 that WERE valid and DID stick.
More Jewish people saying it was a poor choice and wishing she would choose her words more carefully:
The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that combats anti-Semitism, says Sarah Palin should have used a different phrase than "blood libel" to characterize attempts to link her discourse to the Arizona shootings, the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at the former Alaska governor Wednesday over her use of the controversial term.
"We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman in a statement. "While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
January 13, 2011 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I never made any bones about disliking Sarah Palin. I have never liked her from the git go. The one thing I refuse to do however, is point to any of her shortcomings with an eye toward gender. If Sarah Palin were a man all along, with the same exact ideas and illogical remarks, I'd have viewed him with equal contempt. Quayle comes to mind.
open_eyes, to be fair, I could go out and look for all kinds of Jewish publications and find just as many comments to the contrary of what you have found. And you know I'm right. But you know what? I am working on two different quilts and I prefer doing that on a cold day.
January 13, 2011 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
CONTINUED
The Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization also "denounced" Palin's use of the term Wednesday.
"It is simply inappropriate to compare current American politics with (a) term that was used by Christians to persecute Jews," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center. "She has every right to criticize journalists without going over the top."
Interesting republican saying a lot of the same things I have.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
If she can't even get her words right being almost completely scripted (and she makes fun of Obama on a teleprompter) then what is going to happen when she runs for president and has to actually think for herself quickly?
January 13, 2011 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Create,
No worries, work is slow and I plan to keep on posting them, from what I am seeing the indicator swings much further in the direction of people being upset about than passing it off.
As far as Sandmans comment goes. I would not worry about it one bit, it's troll bait as far as I am concerned.
January 13, 2011 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes I did answer myself, goodoleboy - yet you continue to put all the blame specific spots. Wish it truly was that easy and cut and dried. And then you contradict yourself. First, Carter had little to do with it, then, later, Reagan inherited the second worse situation, according to you. And while Obama inherits a bad situation, deficits are mostly the fault of the predecessor, Reagan inherits one (your own words, Clinton & Bush didn't inherit anything close to as bad as Obama & Reagan) and the predecessor has nothing to do with it. Please make up your mind, I'm getting dizzy - LOL.
And while you call Reaganomics a "failure" its interesting to note that every president since him has inherited a recession - except Reagan's immediate successor. Sounds like there were some other "failed" policies along the way, weren't there?
And I DID say Obama inherited the worst situation overall. However, I'll continue to disagree about the Misery Index when it comes to purely looking at the recession. Remember...... a democrat invented that as a more accurate barometer of economic health.
Did either Obama or Clinton have 9/11 happen on their watch? No. But all the warnings were there, the planning, even previous attempts on the WTC. As far as I'm concerned, Bush inherited a war that was declared way back in the 90's - people just never woke up to the fact until 9/11. His misfortune. And Obama wasn't the first president to inherit a war, and sadly, I doubt if he'll be the last.
January 13, 2011 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Ok seriously, I am starting to wonder if your even checking your facts now. So here we go
Openeyes wrote:
"And while you call Reaganomics a "failure" its interesting to note that every president since him has inherited a recession - except Reagan's immediate successor. Sounds like there were some other "failed" policies along the way, weren't there?"
The stock crash "Black Monday" in 1987 was probably the first sign of the coming recession, but it was in full swing the year or two later when there were two or more successive quarters of declining GDP. The recession started in 3Q90 and ended in 1Q91. Also your remember the Savings and Loan crisis? So your statement is false.
Concerning Jimmy Carter and Reagan, I posted this before.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carte...
When I said inherited it was proper terminology, it does not place fault, as you said before, each circumstance is different. Go look into each, do your homework, present me some facts, then we can argue, or spin around and get dizzy, I don't care.
January 13, 2011 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
On the issue of Troopergate I'm with Palin on that one. He needed to be sacked. Which leaves her traveling with her kids as the only one. And if you take the time to actually research that one, seems pretty flaky, too.
Yes, create, I know you're right. And have said so already. (Does everyone her skip over half of what a person writes?). I'm trying to show that not every single Jewish group out there is blasting Palin over it or being offended. Some, like the first one goodoleboy listed, obviously will because they are affiliated with the Democrats. I just tried to go out to some out of the way, non-national non-political-affiliated Jewish site & see what people were saying. Sometimes what the leadership says and what the people say aren't always the same thing, I think we've seen plenty of that lately. There are plenty of folks on BOTH sides of it in the Jewish community. It is drawing both support and criticism from various Jewish organizations. Which tells me something right there. If a term is so blatantly anti-semantic and incorrect you'd think the Jewish community would be more united on it, wouldn't you? Which to me means it just smells more like politicking as usual.
January 13, 2011 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Open eyes wrote:
"And I DID say Obama inherited the worst situation overall. However, I'll continue to disagree about the Misery Index when it comes to purely looking at the recession. Remember...... a democrat invented that as a more accurate barometer of economic health."
Think what you want, vast majority agrees that THIS recession was worse than the one in the 80's. Facts are hard to argue.
OpenEyes wrote:
"Did either Obama or Clinton have 9/11 happen on their watch? No. But all the warnings were there, the planning, even previous attempts on the WTC. As far as I'm concerned, Bush inherited a war that was declared way back in the 90's - people just never woke up to the fact until 9/11. His misfortune. And Obama wasn't the first president to inherit a war, and sadly, I doubt if he'll be the last. "
Clinton had the OK bombing and a WTC bombing. So yeah he had his share of events, not 9/11 but nothing to sneeze at either. If these are such moving precursors to what was to come then why did Bush not act? Is that his fault? Clintons? Fact is that it happened, smart money says it will happen again. Bush inherited nothing. That is like saying Obama might inherit something to do some group we hacked off 15 years ago. A secret service agent once said "it is nearly impossible to stop someone from a task they are willing to give their life for" this holds true still and will continue to.
OpenEyes wrote:
"And Obama wasn't the first president to inherit a war, and sadly, I doubt if he'll be the last"
No he inherited 2, and the worst recession since the Depression. I find it hard to find any President that has had it that difficult, in anytime.
January 13, 2011 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
OpenEyes wrote:
"On the issue of Troopergate I'm with Palin on that one. He needed to be sacked. Which leaves her traveling with her kids as the only one. And if you take the time to actually research that one, seems pretty flaky, too."
See it how you want, but she was found guilty, so someone with more knowledge of the situations than you found it to be logical.
January 13, 2011 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, goodoleboy, technically I am correct. As you said, the recession began in 3Q90. Bush was sworn in Jan, 89. No recession at that time. Look up a history of US recessions, (not "bad" quarters, impending doom, dark clouds on the horizons, or any other spin you're trying to apply) and you will see that there was no recession when Bush I took office. Irrefutable fact. Did he inherit things and situations which possibly could have caused economic distress down the road? Doesn't every president? Didn't Bush inherit the bad housing loan policies of the previous admin? If we'd payed more attention to the first WTC attack and others, would we have even had a 9/11? Good lord, lets just give all your favorites halos and be done with it.
Now if you want to list every crisis that has happened, and say it is a recession, or pointing to a recession, or the cause of a later recession, then we can throw just about any and everything in that mix. If we're gonna do that, I'd say Obama in a way inherited his own recession because he was one of those out there fighting for bad housing loans to be made. And now he's dealing with a mess that he, among many others, on both sides of the aisle, had a hand in making. I could say under Clinton during the dot-com boom the price-to-earnings stock ratios getting way beyond historical averages could have been the first sign of the coming recession/bust too, couldn't I?
January 13, 2011 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
What was the root cause? I have pointed out root causes that led to the recessions and deficits. You want to write that off fine, the stock market crashed, the savings and loan crisis WERE the precursors of it, then it happened. You want to take it a step further? George HW Bush was Reagan's VP right, he had know knowledge or hand in anything right? Sure....
I look at root cause and what happened, I concede that there is plenty of blame to go around with the Housing debacle, but what I have a problem with is that when Bush had super-majorities he was aware of the issue, was very popular, yet choose to ignore. This is a problem for me because he had the muscle and the manpower to effect change on an issue that he knew was a problem and chose not to. I know the democrats had a hand in it too, but had he exercised his power e could have prevented the problem. Where does the buck stop?
January 13, 2011 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And O.J Simpson is innocent. We all know because people with more knowledge of the situation told us so - LOL
You're going to have to define vast majority on the recession thing. I find about as many going either way. And, again..... most of them appear to have some political motivation behind them. Both directions. I've tried to stay away from the obvious partisan claims, (of which there are many) - but I think this says it pretty well.
"Economists do not fully agree on the precise definition of a recession, even though a recession is commonly referred to as two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The private National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has served as an authority for defining recessions in the United States. The NBER uses a number of factors - including judgment and not just GDP changes - to characterize a recession. Other economists and organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, use different definitions than the NBER. Recessions may be as short as eight months, like the 1990-91 and the 2001 recessions, or may continue for a couple of years. Depressions normally are defined as a downturn of 10 percent or more, lasting for more than four years.
Which is why many economists cite the "misery index" to guage the relative severity of a recession for comparisons.
Wanna bet money if the stats were all reversed, and the misery index that Obama inherited was higher, then every single site on both sides would switch gears and start using the other barometer? Me, personally, from what I've read, because so many different factors are involved, go with the misery index. My personal choice, (along with enough others to rebut your "vast majority" and we will have to simply agree to disagree there.
You kindof lost me on your rambling about 9/11.... but I think we agree. You seem to be putting everything as Bush's fault.... then you contradict yourself again and say things like that will happen again, impossible to stop, etc. And for crying out loud, when are you EVER going accept the fact that for the third time time I've SAID Obama inherited the worst situation overall of any prez in modern times. Do you only read every other sentence? The point I'm trying to make, (again), is, you seem to blame Bush for every last bit of it. I disagree. Bush IS to blame for a chunk. But he also had the unfortunate crcumstances of being the Prez when unfortunate things happened. Just as Clinton had the fortune of bgeing the Prez when the dot-com bubble gave our economy such a boost.
During Reagans term, the turnaround began 17 months later. That with a Democratic and opposition Congress. Well, Obama has had free reign to do whatever he wanted for 2 years. At what point will the economy become his responsibility? Who will you blame for whichever direction it goes?
January 13, 2011 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"what I have a problem with is that when Bush had super-majorities he was aware of the issue, was very popular, yet choose to ignore. This is a problem for me because he had the muscle and the manpower to effect change on an issue that he knew was a problem and chose not to".
Another incorrect claim. First, Bush NEVER had any super-majority. The Senate was 50-50 Bush's first 2 years, and 4 months after his inauguration, Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status and announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage. The biggest majority the Senate had during Bush's years was 55 - for 2 years. The other 2 it was a 1-seat majority, and the last 2, the Dems controlled. He did have the House those first six years, but never was the majority as large as Obama had his first 2 years, or the Repubs have now. Perhaps that is what you meant by a super-majority, that for a time Repubs had both houses? (A super-majority is usually referred to as a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the senate).
Also the second part is incorrect. It has been discussed to death on here (and everywhere) that Bush DID try to reign in Fannie & Freddie in 2003, and again in 2005. And was rebuffed by the Dems down a straight party-line vote by Chairman Barney Franks committee, which was controlled by the Democrats. And it never made it out of committee. Surely you've seen all the vidoes of Barney claiming there was nothing wrong with Fannie & Freddie, and also statements by some of the Dem who voted with him since admitting they were wrong.
I posted here some time back that Bush was on record no less than 17 times publicly calling for reform, regulation, and oversight of Fannie & Freddie, warning that there could be dire consequences if we didn't. Why couldn't he get it thru? You'll have to ask Barney. Despite all that, did he try hard enough? Who knows. Obviously, given what happened eventually, we'll all say (me included) that whatever Bush tried to do, it wasn't enough.
And that popularity you keep referring to lasted all of less than 2 years. I think by the time this rolled around back in 2003 he was already back down in the 50's or below.
January 13, 2011 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's ok, sandman, I don't think you're troll bait. Don't let it bother you.
Anyone remember the CNN political show "Crossfire" - where they had crosshairs on the debaters?
January 13, 2011 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Absolute majority then, good grief you get my point, he had plenty of backing, and his approval ratings did not start to really tank until late 2004. He did pretty much whatever he wanted until he was reelected. House has the purse strings right?
I blame Bush because Bush was president, bucks stops with the big cheese, because a lot of of initiatives that I listed above contributed greatly to an already massive deficit and perpetual war, he may have tried to persuade us there was an exit strategy, but there was not, the war drums for Iran were already being beaten near the end of his tenure. He took executive orders and power to whole new level and with that comes the added consequences.
We are not going to agree on the recession argument so I am dropping it. Personally everything I have watched/read says this one is worse, but whatever, lets just agree they both suck.
January 14, 2011 at 12:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot....
January 14, 2011 at 1:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Has anyone who has posted on this string in the past week noticed that nobody but y'all gives a shi...er...poo...ah..kaka...uh...turd. People die everyday and criminals commit crime everyday so quit crying for popular socialites. Anonymous nobodies die every 0.3 seconds on this planet Anonymously.
January 14, 2011 at 1:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95
"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton
"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."
- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01
"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men."
- State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01
January 14, 2011 at 1:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.infowars.com/attempt-by-ob...
January 14, 2011 at 1:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul...
January 14, 2011 at 1:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Alex Jones? Really? They guy things the government was behind 9-11, did Van Jones not get attacked by Beck for that?
January 14, 2011 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Black Monday, the S/L crisis.... all those things also came during 30 years of uninterrupted Democratic rule of the House, and nearly as long a stretch of uninterrupted Senate rule, often with a true Super-Majority. Do they bear any responsibility whatsoever?
Fair enough, I posted plenty of equally disgusting quotes from liberals - all using gun-related imagery, to show that what those on the left are claiming they are just as guilty of. Do you really want to go tit-for-tat on stupid and hateful quotes by both sides? We could basically post them forever in equal numbers.....except when it comes to signs carried at rallies calling for Bush's assassination. Then I'd win that one hands down.
January 14, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
S/L crisis was bad policy preyed upon by Keating and his cronies. Most people simply blame the right for it, which I blame for exploiting it, but the policy aspects of it run deeper and span decades, scary part is in reality it could happen again.
I posted the quotes because I have seen you come to the defense of Coulter and Rush before. All I have to say is that if they make those comments in public, then what they say in private much really be something. They reap what they sow, hate, and for the record I feel the same about the leftist equivalents. That pie in the face seems justified to me., at least it not a lethal means which Mrs. Coulter clearly advocates.
I recently found a site devoted and updated with Tea Party/Anti Obama signs, there were quite a few about Clinton in there too., and Bush for that matter. I can't really link it here it because it would probably get this post deleted but trust me, there are plenty of hate signs about all them, to measure which one had the most is a fools errand. My only contention with Obama is that he achieved the kind of hate Bush did in record time. Imagine the next go around...
January 14, 2011 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
What I don't understand with anybdy's arguement is this.
Why does the president always get the blame?
Makes no difference which party. There are 435 Reps. and 100 Sen. The president has veto power but it can be overridden.
It does make me wonder why the Dems. seem to blame the previous Rep. more than vice/versa but the 535 other people are the ones that should bear more of the blame. IMO
As for blaming this last shooting on the conservative media or conservatives, that's crap.
Television, movies etc. are full of violence and the vast majority of that comes from liberals.We can't bring a kid up with any kind of parental or school spankings or a good ole switch because of liberals. So put the blame where it lays.
On liberal thinking and attitudes.
The guy killed and shot people, he's nuts and he's really only got himself to blame no matter who he or we say it's his fault, he did it.
January 14, 2011 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well for once we can almost agree on most of your last post. I don't like the hateful rhetoric on either side, either.
Although this may be splitting hairs over subtle degrees, I don't believe that Obama has reached the same level of hatred as Bush did - yet - and I think it is a perception thing. Perhaps it is because it seems the public and the media seem to be much more touchy about it than they were back then (good for them, just wish they had started sooner). Yeah, I've found those same sights, plenty to go around both directions, and I've done a rough count, so I stand by my contention on numbers. But personally, even 1 of those types of signs are too many. It just seemed to be such an accepted thing during Bush - Nobel Prize winners publicly saying they'd like to kill him, university professors preaching hate, students complaining professors pushing anti-Bush views on them, etc. It was so common it just seemed to be ignored alot of the time, or accepted. Just think if any of that were to happen now. I mean seriously. Which is why I say the level is not the same - and I'm glad folks are more sensitive about it, seemingly, but at the same time disappointed there wasn't the same level of sensitivity to it before.
And given all the hatred over the 2000 election, protests at the inauguration, and Obama's coming in with 72% approval, I would also say it's also a fools errand to sit here and say who achieved a level of public discontent first. People see that 2 year spike after 9/11 where Bush was soaring and somehow continue to just use that as a blanket for 4-5 years. It just wasn't so.
Bush had alot of detractors right from the start. 20% less approval rating out the gate than Obama, protests at the inauguration. And alot of it was pretty vitriolic over the election. People just seem to forget that, I don't. Then he had the nearly 2-year spike after 9/11, and by the end of 2003 (not 2004 as you say) - was when it really started to get ugly.
The only thing I feel for sure is that the cycle is accelerating - on both sides. As you say, imagine the next go around. Don't even like to think about it, regardless of who is elected next time, I fear it will be hateful rhetoric from the very beginning.
January 14, 2011 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Exactly, tbluma. Not only that, but even with a majority in congress, bills can be killed in committee's who's makeup may or may not reflect the overall balance in that branch, and never make it to a vote, by just 1 or 2 folks not voting party-line. Without a super-majority bills can be killed just by debate and filibustering. With slim majorities there are often a handful who cross the aisle. Very few things ever go completely party-line vote. Hell, health care didn't even. And the wars CERTAINLY didn't.
When the "buck always stops with the big cheese"........ its called a DICTATORSHIP. Not what I want. I don't even like it when 1 party controls all 3 branches, regardless of which party it is.
January 14, 2011 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://onlinefoxnews.blogspot.com/201...
January 14, 2011 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Remember the CNN reporter who went off at a Tea Party rally because there were a handful of disgusting anti-Obama signs there? She went ballistic over it, wouldn't even talk to the folks who were trying to talk to her about the majority there. Sure, she had a right to. But then the video surfaced of her at an anti-Bush rally, and she just stood blithely by as a long line paraded by her with equally rude Bush signs - wearing devils horns, Hitler mustaches, etc. She just smiled at the camera. That's the kind of treatment I'm talking about. Alot of folks are shocked when they hear what went on at those Bush protests because the media for the most part just looked the other way - it wasn't scrutinized with a microscope like the Tea Party gatherings are. It just seemed to be accepted, no big deal.
January 14, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Busy morning and day. Now I had to laugh, goodoleboy, if I'm "troll bait" may I say "Thank God" it is for open_eyes and not YOU.(at least I hope) Also, troll in webster: musical round-I like that!!!!!
Need to catch-up on reading, from last evening and today. Teach me to go to bed early but at least you started me laughing right off the bat!!!!!
January 14, 2011 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, hope you are a fisherman!!!!
I do have a trolling motor so when you use me for bait I won't have to see how fast I can swim!!!!!!!!!:-) I also have a "live well" so you can put the fish in I help you catch.......going to be fun "fishing".
Got to look at the bright side, correct!!!!!!
January 14, 2011 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL, Sandman. ;-). Yes, definitely a fisherman, and a hunter.
Now, I realize my last statement will probably be used by the left to blame me the next time something terrible happens, but that's their problem. ;-).
January 14, 2011 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, you are in luck!!!!!! Open_eyes is a fisherman so your dream will be fufilled!!!! Will say tho, not sure how good of bait I will make, because I'm older, probably tough. Sorry about that. Now open_eyes, goodoleboy is on the left and he wants me used as "troll bait"..... Yep, then he could blame the right. We are on to you, goodoleboy!!!!
January 14, 2011 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now there's a 4 minute YouTube video that is a montage of tweeted death threats against Palin. There as been a big spike in death threats against her, since all the accusations, apparently several thousand tweets daily exhorting death for her & her family. It was posted on Tuesday, before the memorial service & Obama's speech. I believe Youtube finally took it down after being pressured.
It will be interesting to watch the crowd pointing the most fingers..... have nothing to say about this..... nor examine their own culpability in it.
Hypocrisy at its finest :(
January 14, 2011 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I went to a left-wing site to see what they had to say about it, and they were saying that ABC's decision to run the story about how death threats against her have risen to unprecedented levels was "based on hearsay from Palin's aides without any corroborating evidence, and irresponsible at best....... By repeating the Sarah Palin death-threat meme sans evidence, these major news outlets mislead the public, continue to lower journalistic standards...."
This despite the youtube video(s) that have surfaced.
No evidence to support it? Now WHERE oh where have I heard that lately?
January 14, 2011 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
I truly feel sorry for Palin or ANY one that is in politics, law enforcement etc.(our military) I went to a memorial this AM for a man that I thought the world of and he is GONE. Such a loss not only to his family but US. His death was medical but still, death is death. I am so very hardput to understand how anyone can speak lightly of it. I had just seen him a few weeks ago up in our local cafe, always a hug, no more hugs. We so as a nation, society, need to step back and look at how we portray something that is so very final, we speak of it so lightly. I believe that also goes for abortion, etc Sorry, I was in tears....made myself very busy today
The terms. LIVE, LAUGH AND LOVE come into mind. Sorry, time to go get something to eat and out with people, we so need each other.
January 14, 2011 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, this WAS NOT directed to you in any way, shape or manner.I realize that life goes on. Sorry, I was being emotional, should take my own advice. Was earlier with live and laugh
and my dog was wanting to be loved (hugged). Please forgive.
January 14, 2011 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sandman,
You continue to denigrate yourself by trying to label me and YOU are the one that incited this to begin with your claim that I am a sexist. For one, I am a registered independent, two I also tend to be right center on a great deal of the issues. You are just a follower, and incapable of independent thought, as the only time you listen to reason is when someone that you agree with tells you how it really is(in this case Open Eyes) funny you apologize to him for telling you that you were wrong earlier in the thread instead of the people whose statements you attacked without actually educating yourself on the topic. Hence you make illogical statements and are ill informed, conclusively making you part of the problem that plagues so many people these days in matters of politics, being ill informed. Question is, will you continue to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
January 14, 2011 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
OpenEyes wrote:
"Bush had alot of detractors right from the start. 20% less approval rating out the gate than Obama, protests at the inauguration. And a lot of it was pretty vitriolic over the election. People just seem to forget that, I don't. Then he had the nearly 2-year spike after 9/11, and by the end of 2003 (not 2004 as you say) - was when it really started to get ugly."
Went ahead and found a right wing source for you to corroborate what I said. Since you continue to say I am false. Google it up and find 30 more if this does not work for you.
http://pewforum.org/uploadedimages/To...
Looks like 2004 he was still in pretty good shape to me...
And since you want to continue to pick apart my statements. "The buck stops here" was a quote from Truman, any leader worth his salt takes ownership of their failures. By your logic we were under a dictator when we went to war since Executive orders were used to initiate these, where was that declaration of war again? Simply amazed you go that route with what I said, so I'll spell it out for you nice and simple. Presidents are the most visible leader in our government, to have them be accountable is a GOOD thing. They have veto powers and 2/3 majority overrides are pretty rare, so yeah, buck does stop with the big cheese quite often, because of the public opinion they garner if nothing else. Good grief.
January 14, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, Do you feel better? Are you going to run for office since it is very evident that you feel you are so correct on everything and heaven forbid, would never acknowledge that perhaps you are wrong. My gut feeling of you, yes, holds true. You can have whatever feeling you want of me for you see, I know different concerning myself. I will be the first to admit that many topics I am not informed concerning and I stay out of them, but the ones I do have knowledge, I will add. You and I are on the opposite sides of the coin and I realize that and accept it, you don't. You want everyone to believe that you are right all the time, doesn't happen. You bring in open_eyes, could it be that we, he and I, have feelings more closely related then you or I? That is very understandable since we, he and I, are on the right and you appear to be on the left. Also, earlier you mention create. I have known her for years and most of the time, I agree with her but I do and did have a right to disagree and say how it appeared to ME just as she does with me. Please remember this is a blog, a means of communicating but also can be a debate.
So please don't take it so to heart for you appear angry most of the time.
January 14, 2011 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'll stand by what I said. Here is a chart with more detail than what you showed. In 2003, his approval had already dropped back into the low 50's - back to where he started. It spiked again temporarily for a very small time when the Iraq invasion began, dropped sharply back BELOW 50 (still in 2003), another small peak when Saddam was captured, then back to the downhill slide. So, as I said, the short-lived high popularity was already over, back below 50 even before 2003 was over. At this point, even with his approval in the 40's, it was getting ugly. I can pull up plenty of ugly anti-Bush protest signs from that timeframe as you want. It was already getting ugly.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...
"Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush" from a November, 2003 protest, for example, or a child holding a sign reading "RIP - Here Lies George Bush, Mass Murder of his Own and Others, From the Comfort of His Own Home" - from a protest in FEBRUARY of 2003...
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Since you asked, The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Vote description: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
The vote in the House was 297-133, with 82 Dems voting yes, in the Senate it was 77-23 with 29 Dems for (more Dems than were against).
http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/1...
or
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/co...
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Res...
I agree - the President is the most visible leader in our government, and absolutely, to have them accountable is DEFINITELY a good thing. But, you don't seem to understand how our government works. A president doesn't get everything he wants just because he's prez or just because he may have a slight majority in 1 or both houses. Yeah, overrides are rare..... but bills that never make it out of committee, compromises, close votes with people crossing the aisle happen, or things the Prez asks for but just doesn't get happen every day. Obama wanted to raise taxes on the rich - did he get it? Why not, he has the majority in both houses. He wanted a public option in health care - why isn't it there? Were there compromises? Did he just not get everything he wanted? Can't he wave his magic wand & make it so? Good lord, I thought you understood government better than that.
Sandman, I am so sorry and dissapointed to see his rude attack on you. You are as well informed on some things, if not more, than some who claim or think they are. Good for you for handling it with a class that seems to disappear from here at times.
January 14, 2011 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, thank you, I owe you a hug or maybe I just need one. Food was good, they do such a super job at "The Breck" in Americus but I always bring half home for the next day. Their pies are WONDERFUL!!!! Yep, I brought a slice home for tomorrow. Sat. night is steak night so this gal doesn't miss that!!!! Not good with winter and less activity. Again thank you. I so appreciate the fact you realize that you don't need to be negative to be a man and believe me in my eyes I have always seen you as a 110% man and continue to do so. God Bless. Time for rest,.
January 14, 2011 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.infowars.com/witch-hunt-fb...
January 15, 2011 at 12:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/...
January 15, 2011 at 1:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
January 15, 2011 at 1:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Yeah I attacked her alright, scroll up and see who was on the offensive. Present all the facts you like THERE WAS NO FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR! AS I SAID!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarat...
I made a completely true statement, enough said.
Since your still posting signs, is one where no less than 2 of our elected officials were speakers,
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/...
January 15, 2011 at 3:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Just so we are clear this is my exact quote
"where was that declaration of war again?"
I knew what I said when I said it, I figured you would probably twist it somehow, which you did. I kept it simple and you spent 2 paragraphs trying to disapprove a true statement.
This Bush approval rating thing I don't understand
OpenEyes wrote:
"and by the end of 2003 (not 2004 as you say) - was when it really started to get ugly."
Simple yes or no here, is %50 ugly? Because that is where they were in 2004.
http://www.google.com/images?q=bush+a...
Plenty of them there show him 50 in 2004
January 15, 2011 at 3:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
sandman,
YOU were the one that injected that I was gender biased in this very thread, YOU were the one made these claims which had no basis.
I would quote them here if I thought it would matter. You play the victim all you like. But since you advocate Palin lashing out all the time then don't get upset if you hurl something my way and I come back on you for it.
I never claim I am always right, I get it wrong too, but the luxury of forum posting is that you can make a statement on your own terms with the facts to back it up, I rarely say anything here unless I have something to back it up with. Try it sometime, people that debate do it often...
January 15, 2011 at 3:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
January 15, 2011 at 3:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, get over it!!!!! If anyone you are the one who wants to look injured, sorry your ego is so thin. For you see, I have moved on for life is much to precious to waste on something that is so very minor. Get out and have some fun, it may change your outlook. Have a super day and a great weekend, hope the sun shines.
January 15, 2011 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I just read your earlier post. If you feel better by attacking me, good for you, for anger is a terrible "partner" and I sincerely hope you can find a different partner. I will not say another word concerning this matter.
January 15, 2011 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
We all need to cool off, don't we?
ANY OF THE POSTERS ON HERE WANT TO TAKE THE PLUNGE?
Polar plunge to raise money for special Olympics? You could wear a mask to hide your identity. What a way to cool off !
Heck, I would even furnish Henry with some liquid antifreeze to warm up afterwords. Those of us who survived could meet up at the senior center for food and argument, a good time !
January 15, 2011 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Steve, was there a "gathering" this past Thurs. at TR for Preston? If so, RATS! I had another meeting. Sorry, I freeze as it is, can't imagine jumping into water, OUTSIDE!!!! Guess my donation will have to work for me but good luck.
January 15, 2011 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I have no anger about it, humor is more like it. You were the one who made things personal, now your making more inferences. I find great humor rereading what you wrote about me, then watching you and OpenEyes try to reason it away. Puts a smile on my face=)
January 15, 2011 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
When Obama's approval dips below 50, and we have protestors with disgusting signs, he's being viciously and brutally attacked and the other side is ugly. When Bush's approval dips below 50 and the ugly protests are in full swing, he's in pretty good shape. Sometimes I struggle to understand, until I remember it must be the old liberal double standard, I guess.
When congress passes a law authorizing the commander in chief to take full and whatever military action he deems, you can twist words all you want as to whether its a war, police action, or a tiddly-winks contest. When congress gives someone full and lawful authorization to take whatever military action they deem and they do it, I don't think you'll find any description fitting that under "dictatorship" in any dictionary in existence.
Sandman, I think we can read goodoleboys last post, read betwee the lines, and that pretty much says it all. I'll bet there are alot more smiles reading this thread too, but not all for the same reason(s). :-)
Interesting poll out by Quinnipac on the AZ shooting:
Saturday's shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people were killed, could not have been prevented, 40 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Another 23 percent blame the mental health system, while 15 percent say it was due to heated political rhetoric and 9 percent attribute the tragedy to lax gun control.
American voters say 52 - 41 percent that "heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence," the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.
Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 - 32 percent.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?R...
January 15, 2011 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Create, to clarify the reason I posted other examples and further links to "blood libel" being used in public discourse by media, congresspeople, etc, it was not to excuse Palin's use of it. As you said, you deplore anyone's use of it, "why don't we all jump off a bridge", and "he got away with it, why didn't I", so to speak. I think you missed the point I was trying to make in a subtle way.
When a phrase is used, and there is no outcry against it - as in these cases, I didn't find any complaints from Jewish organizations over use of the term - then, yes, I would assume that it is an accepted term, and the more recent definition of falsely laying blame is being attached to it. The point wasn't that is was a "he got away with it, why didn't I". It's not about "getting away with something" that is wrong. The point is, that it wasn't viewed as wrong. "He got away with it", not because he did it in secret, or pulled the wool over anyone's eyes, but because it wasn't considered offensive. THAT is the point I was trying to make. Now there may have been some Jewish groups that were angered and offended by all the previous usages of the term, but I haven't found any. If you can, by all means please do post and I will recant.
But if I go out and rob a bank and get away with it, and then someone else tries the same stunt and doesn't, then that's one thing. If I do something that apparently doesn't offend anyone, like stand on the street corner & drink a grape slurpee, and then Palin comes along and does it and suddenly the entire Grape Growers Association (well, only part of them) are suddenly offended by it.... then that's something else. Just trying to understand why it only seems to offend part of the Jewish folks and not others. And only now.
January 15, 2011 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And create, my previous post/explanation was not meant to deride or belittle your point of view in any way. Just trying to explain as I think you misinterpreted my meaning. Heck, I didn't even know what the Jewish connotations to the term were until I read this and the links. I only was aware of the modernly applied definition of false accusations of blood. I wonder how many other people - including those offended now - were in the same boat as me originally?
January 15, 2011 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, Ok, my laugh of the day! The above and how definitions may be viewed in different manners to different people. Earlier, I started to use the term "fire-away" and then retracted.... yep, gun shy!!!!!!!!!(and I used to love to traget shoot, rats!!!) Open_eyes, in response to your last sentence/question, I imagine a number of them thought they were floating nicely until they were informed differently and just MIGHT sink.
January 15, 2011 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Buffalo_Breath (anonymous) says...
The kids was sick.
He had been sick for a long time.
He needed help.
Everyone around him knew it.
His parents didn't get help for him.
His college didn't get help for him.
The police didn't get help for him.
His friends didn't get help for him.
Epic fail, all around.
It would be a good idea if the focus of this story went to the place it belongs: mental illness requires those around the sick person to act.
Politicians and pundits will never let a good tragedy go to waste, but nothing constructive will come from the mutual finger pointing and name calling.
What would benefit us is a discussion of what to do if there is a mentally ill person in your life, who needs help but cannot or will not recognize that need (as is often the case). It is your duty as a human to get them help.
January 15, 2011 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the POTUS 2 days before he even has to tell Congress what he is doing and 60 days before he has to withdraw forces without Congressional approval.
On March 24, 1999, the US joined NATO air strikes in Kosovo. Clinton dutifully informed Congress on March 25, and at other subsequent dates as he ordered more US military intervention.
On April 28, Congress voted overwhelmingly against declaring war against Yugoslavia and defeated a concurrent resolution to continue the air war.
On May 25, the The 60-day period accorded the President to engage in military action WITHOUT Congressional approval expired. However, US forces continued to engage in military conflict after that.
http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar....
Question: Given that Bush had Congressional approval BEFOREhand, and Clinton clearly violated the War Powers Act, did that make Clinton more of a "dictatorship"?
LOL, sandman - here's another questionable interpretation: I'm not sure if you said you used to like to target shoot, (and then, rats), or whether you said you used to like to shoot rats! LOL
True, Buffalo_Breath. I think the strategy is already backfiring on those who immediately started pointing fingers.
Steve_Corbin, actually it's going to take MORE heated political rhetoric (from either side) to get ME to jump thru a hole in the ice into frigid waters! LOLOLOL :-)
January 15, 2011 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.gcnlive.com/listen.php
January 15, 2011 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/world...
January 15, 2011 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.infowars.com/the-opportuni...
January 15, 2011 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I can see the confusion.....at one time I was fairly decent at target shooting but with the current atmosphere, as you pointed out earlier, afraid anything we say gun related will be taken the wrong way. Also, I hope my cats are doing THEIR job out in my barn and catching field mice. There may be some rats but this girl doesn't know about them and selects allowing my cats to only have that knowledge!!!!! :-)
Will admit I have helped a couple opossum meet their maker!!!! Only problem with that, I've got to clean up their mess and this girl doesn't like that, so I pray they waddle on their own out of my sight. I also have seen such beautiful does,several nights 7/8 and also a buck, but honest guys, he didn't have pretty head gear, honest!!!!!!! :-) Such wonderful sights!!!!
January 15, 2011 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.infowars.com/the-tea-party...
January 15, 2011 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-trage...
January 15, 2011 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/...
January 15, 2011 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z62DvJ...
January 16, 2011 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/n...
January 16, 2011 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/n...
January 16, 2011 at 12:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://newsfornatives.com/blog/2011/0...
January 16, 2011 at 1:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Still trying to disprove one statement.. amazing. Ramble on all you like. Now your taking my my declaration of statement and trying to twist it into something else? Sorry I don't feel the need to debate which presidents were most like dictators.
January 16, 2011 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
If a democrat president would have been the director of the CIA who made drug deals with Noriega for cash to illegally fund a contra army in Nicaragua, Republicans would have been more critical of Operation Just Cause. But since it was Bush we won't discuss it at all.
January 16, 2011 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
If a democrat president was an heir to the holocaust the republicans would have saught to destroy the family. But since it was Bush we won't discuss it.
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For...
January 16, 2011 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
If President Obama's family had financed the Nazi Party and used slave labor from Auschwitz to provide energy and steel for use against American Soldiers we would be talking treason. But since it was Bush....say no more.
January 16, 2011 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Buffalo_Breath (anonymous) says...
CNN finally had some "grown-ups" on this morning, discussing the Tuscon incident, and one guest remarked on the fact that the community college, whose staff felt compelled to call law enforcement to the classroom because of the mentally ill young man, apparently had no concept of what its role was - or should have been - when it identified a severely mentally ill student. It appeared that the main, if not sole, objective of the college staff in Tucson was simply to get the guy out of their classrooms so they wouldn't have to deal with him -- without regard to the effect on the kid or anyone else.
ESU trains a lot of teachers and school administrators. What are they training them to do in an instance like this?
Educators are in a unique position to see mental health problems bubbling up ... I hope we are giving them the tools to do the most good.
January 16, 2011 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
From WWI to Iraqi Freedom, no single family on the planet has benefited more, financially and politically, then the Bush Family Dynasty. But forget about that. Let's bash Democrats!
Crazy people do crazy things (AZ Gunman), stupid people do stupid things (Palin), Evil people plan (Bush).
If I have offended any crazy stupid evil people out there I would like to apologize before you go out and do something crazy stupid evil. :-)
January 16, 2011 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I meant "no single family on the planet has benefited more FROM WAR, then the Bush Family Dynasty."
Sorry for the confusion. :-)
January 16, 2011 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, have one question, what about Johnson????? Remember Vietnam? Helicopter plants, ammo etc. Gee, Texas was a gold mine even then. Wasn't that why they thought Johnson had Kennedy killed because Kennedy wanted to get out of the war and Johnson didn't want see his cash flow stopped?
January 16, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I still believe that Johnson was a republican plant in the democrat party. He was suck a Dick.
January 16, 2011 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
But ignoring the fact that the Nazi party was broke and couldn't have taken hold in Germany without the financial support of Bush's grandpa George Herbert Walker is just whistling past the graveyard.
Also, "According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor."
That slave labor mined coal and processed steel used to kill Americans by the tens of thousands. Defend that why don't ya.
January 16, 2011 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL, everyone. Sometimes all you need to do is give someone a shovel. Then just stand back and watch ;-)
Excellent point, Buffalo_Breath.
January 16, 2011 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, you went right over my question. Yes, Johnson may have been a "____" but to my knowledge he was a democrate, correct?(says alot!!! :-)) If what you say is true concerning Pres. Bush and his ""Dynasty", I believe he had an excellent teacher. Guess "War is Hell" unless you are on the "green" side of it and the grassy knoll!!!
January 16, 2011 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Just about 300 posts.
Nothing much else on the news this morning, Christiane Amanpour had a full hour + internet after. Nothing much except this and "discussions" on polite discourse in America. Discourse had nothing to do with this. The man was pissed at the government. In his demented mind he struck out at the symbol of that government, his congresswoman. Now our elected reps are going to make a show of peaceful co-existence by sitting together at the state of the union address? No wonder people go nuts. The press is implicit in this, there is NO reporting of REAL news.
Taxes
Wars
Jobs
Economy
Government ineptitude.
Repeat the above.
Report the above.
And stop speculating about the 2012 election, give us a break.
Keep us in the dark, otherwise we all may "go nuts"
JMO
January 16, 2011 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Also REWBA, believe you ment "such"---correct???? :-) Now he have done the other.........not going there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 16, 2011 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
And I suppose you read the link I posted yet still could care less that one of the most powerful political families in the world has the blood of millions staining their family crest. People are still dieing today on the command of a Bush and there is talk of the Bush family throwing their hat in the ring for another presidential term. It sickens me.
January 16, 2011 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
sorry, "could have"---oops!!!!!!!!!!! REWBA,
now I'm laughing.........got me shook up!!!!!
January 16, 2011 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
REWBA,
All you will get is a retort with something along the lines of how the left did it too, and if there is equivalent on the left, then denigration will next, or perhaps your sourcing will just be written off. Welcome to my world.
January 16, 2011 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Steve_Corbin, we're seeing alot of that on here, right now. The hatred some people have is astounding, and they will find anything, anywhere, written by anybody, to "confirm" what they already "know". Classic examples. 2+2=4 then, but not now, somehow. Oh well, certain folks have such anger and hatred inside - whether thinly-disguised or not, and it's not as thinly disguised to most as they might presume - that it will never matter. Sensible folks can still add 2 and 2 on their own, regardless of what they might read or hear.
REWBA, please don't get yourself banned - again.
January 16, 2011 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I noticed you were being tag teamed by open_eyes and sandman. Thought you might enjoy a break. :-)
open_eyes, People are getting a little too familiar with REWBA. I'm thinking up another user name as I post this. lol
January 16, 2011 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, please go back thru this thread and read what open_eyes posted concerning Bush and veto power. Things you either don't know or forgotten, as I. I'm still perplexed as to why you want to blame Bush............a "figure head". Also, by what was posted earlier, the date to pull our troops out was set by BUSH!!!!!
January 16, 2011 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
REWBA,
Appreciate it and thank you. It would seem anything centrist is a foreign topic here, but I fight the the good fight all the same. Funny thing is I get tagged a liberal because it is easier to label than to think.
Sandman,
Please learn to thing for yourself instead of being spoon-fed what you like. I was about done with this thread but I am considering going back and quoting your accusations and my rebuttals if for nothing more than to shed a little more light on what people already know.
January 16, 2011 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Openeyes,
You have defended Coulter, and Rush, yet quotes within this thread have showed that they are no better than Olbermann. Perhaps worse...
REWBA presented some interesting accusations, yet I see nothing in rebuttal. Is this because you don't care or just going to blow it off like above when someone comes along with conclusive quotes or facts that directly contradict your claims.
January 16, 2011 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I've mused back thru this thread, trying to see where, how, and why it began to denigrate. First, to give credit to Obama for "...by the end of his term we will be... out of at least one war." is disingenuous at best. That had already been signed and in place by Bush before Obama became president. And, as you put it perfectly, this is an excellent example of "yet I see nothing in rebuttal. Is this because you don't care or just going to blow it off like above when someone comes along with conclusive quotes or facts that directly contradict your claims."
You also stated Obama inherited the worst recession since the Depression. I agreed that overall, he inherited the worst situation (3 or 4 times, which you seemed to ignore) - but I disagreed on the worst recession part. The experts themselves say that guaging the health of an economy is an inexact science at best, and just because one recession may have 6 or 7 out of 10 barometers worse than another by a few percentage points, nobody can tell for sure which ones should be weighted the most and by how much. Hence the democratically-created "Misery Index". JMO, but I, along with others, favor 1 view. You, along with others, believe in the other. Simple disagreement about something upon which there is no concrete answer. We both agree they were both very bad. As I've said, I'm sure if things were reversed and Obama inherited the worst misery index plenty would argue the opposite.
Then the claim was made Bush was untouchable for 5 years. And as your timeframe began to shrink, the only thing we disagreed on was when it began to get "ugly". As you also lump inheriting 2 wars in with a bad economy, I also put disgraceful protests breaking out all over in with sinking approval ratings. And I did NOT discount any of your links - which were very general averages. The point was not what he averaged for the year, or whether he started out with a 100% approval rating. I showed a detailed one, which does indeed prove that Bush dropped back down not only to where he started not long after 9/11, but actually did dip down below 50% before 2003 was over, and the disgusting protests were in full swing yearlong. Maybe you don't see it the same because you see things the same as the CNN reporter. Or you didn't see it on the news as much. Of course you didn't. We are now in a situation where much of the media gets up every morning desperately searching, hoping, PRAYING that some Tea Party activist somewhere will do something disgusting so they can report it and all say "AHA". Contrast that to a few years earlier when those types of things were just ignored. The CNN rep was pretty representative of the attitude of much of the media then. So when I say it was getting ugly in 2003, I'm not talking JUST about approval ratings - I'm saying the overall mood of the country was turning fast, and the protests were already as ugly as anything we had seen in a long time.
January 16, 2011 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Then you railed about Bush and the legalities of the war. I mentioned he had full congressional approval in place before taking any action, but you bypass that. America has been in many military conflicts, and whether you give them the technical label "war", "action", or "shouting contest", I do not care. But since you were intent on "By your logic we were under a dictator when we went to war since Executive orders were used to initiate these". Well, that's all we had under Clinton - every bit of it was done by Executive orders. He didn't even have congressional approval beforehand, like Bush. And illegally kept troops after 60 days without the lawfully required congressional approval. That's yet another of those " interesting accusations, yet I see nothing in rebuttal. Is this because you don't care or just going to blow it off like above when someone comes along with conclusive quotes or facts that directly contradict your claims.", as you put it so well.
My point isn't really pointing out "they did it too". My point is none are guiltless - the question is, do you treat them the same, or do you let blind partisanship or personal dislike could your assessment or comparisons? In other words, were you just as mad (if not madder) at Clinton for the same thing? No, not the same, he didn't even have the prior approval as Bush did, and failed to meet the requirements of the law after 60 days. Me? I didn't rail against Clinton for it. If you look thru history, you'll see alot of Commander-In-Chiefs has gotten us involved in dubious military actions, circumvented Congress, done it under the guise of Executive Orders (as Clinton's Kosovo war was done 100% by) - but Congress generally gives the Prez a LOT of leeway in matters like this. They gave Clinton alot of leeway & I didn't complain, I know it happens. Alot. If you want to point fingers, look at who we defended then, it is now a close ally of Iran & breeding ground for terrorists. How much blood shall we put on Clintons hands for that? As a NATO commanding general replied to a question about the war.... "We bombed the wrong side".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFsg61...
January 16, 2011 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Should have been dislike CLOUD your assessment above.....
As for REWBA's going off the deep end.... he said once he doesn''t believe 90% of what he says - LOL. I'm sure if one digs deep enough we can find ties and all sorts of skeletons. I found out a few years ago a great uncle of mine once belonged to the KKK for a short time in his youth. Well, if any of my friends who happen to be black were to hold that against me today..... they wouldn't be worth having as friends. Took me about 10 seconds to pull up equal crap:
Back in 1993, I received a 49-page report entitled "Secret: FBI Documents Link Bill & Hillary Clinton to Marxist-Terrorist Network," published by the Sunset Research Group of Wichita, Kansas. It was a meticulously documented report showing the connections of the Clintons to the Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist think tank in Washington. Clinton's top economic advisor was Derek Shearer, an IPS operative and advocate of Marxist socialism. Shearer's sister Brooke was also Hillary's traveling companion. The report states: "In a 1980 book he authored, Shearer confided that he and others were planning to so influence the Democratic Party that a President sharing their Marxist-socialist views could soon be elected....
Their aspirations materialized in the person of Bill Clinton. Concern for such a national disaster as a communist-sympathizing President was the project of retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Albion Knight, Jr."......
And there's more following detailing illegal Chinese contributions to Clinton, illegal transfer of technology, released classified missile technology to China after receiving political contributions from the communist Chinese, etc......
http://www.tldm.org/news2/sellout.htm
Yeah, well, I don't get too tied up in crap like the above. I leave that for the REWBA's. Let the True Clinton Haters pursue it.
And I've never defended a single one of Coulter's or Rush's remarks that go over the top. I'll defend other things they say at times, and I still defend Coulter's right to speak without a pie in the face. Every single politician either of us has defended - Obama included - has said some pretty dumb things that we don't agree with. I don't consider calling half the country "enemies" to show much qualification for leadership, either. Should he learn to talk for himself, or do we blame HIS speechwriters for that one? LOL
January 16, 2011 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
The only guaranteed way to destroy an enemy is to make him your friend. You may not always agree but at least a friend will pause to savor to your point if it's not to acrid. An enemy won't taste it even if it's sweet.
January 16, 2011 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
So just to be clear, you are blowing off REWBA just because he admits to nonsense, OK sure...
As I said you would try misdirect, and so it is.
I could go on and on, and dig up articles on this very forum where you did much more than defend Coulter and Limbaugh's right to speak, problem is that if you detest Olbermann and the like so much then you should mention them in same sentence when you complain.
January 16, 2011 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I did what open_eyes often does. I found a link that said something derogatory about a Republican and posted it to prove Republicans are evil. I don't know if the info on that site is valid or just something posted by a left wing extremist but since the stuff they post is usually obviously from the far right I don't read it with an open mind. I didn't expect them to read my link with an open mind either. If they had, they would have been busy on Google searching for a site that totally refuted my site. Maybe what was written on the link I posted is true. If so why wasn't it used against them. In the political climate of the past 20 years It had to have been brought up by the opposition if their was any validity to the claim. Or maybe the Democrats and Republicans are just playing us all for fools knowing that whichever side wins, nothing will change. American's remain Sheeple arguing over the past, 1/2 on the left, 1/2 on the right and while we are all distracted, the elite rob us blind.
January 16, 2011 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
So great to hear that Gabby is improving, can move both sides of her body, her eyes and hearing seem to be also working. So very thankful. Hopefully God has blessed us since the news is saying she was the main target. Sometimes we have to go with what is said or heard and go from there. I like to think she is doing better.
January 16, 2011 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Scratch the "think".........Glad to HEAR she is doing better!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Hope that information is correct and I've not been lead down a path of misinformation and would need to THINK!!!!!!!
January 16, 2011 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryFc0d...
January 17, 2011 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot....
January 17, 2011 at 3:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I went thru and answered every single thing, and I am "misdirecting". However, I notice you didn't reply to a single thing or question I asked. As I expected.
I'm glad you finally got the point, REWBA. So I googled your last one. "Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor."......Defend that why don't ya."
Other than the obvious left-wing sites, just as you say, that will say anything, I tried to actually find out the truth.
According to The Straight Dope:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/r...
"The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party--in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis.
An article by journalist Toby Rogers posted on Loftus's Web site makes an even more explosive charge. Another company in which Prescott and his associates had a stake was the Silesian-American Corporation (SAC), which owned several industrial concerns in Poland. The Auschwitz death camp was established in a district where SAC already had a steel plant. The plant allegedly used forced labor from Auschwitz during World War II. The article asserts that "a portion of the slave labor force in Poland was 'managed by Prescott Bush,' according to a Dutch intelligence agent." (See www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp.)
The slave labor charge is easy to dismiss. SAC plants in Poland were taken over by the German government after the Nazi invasion of 1939, and the Auschwitz prison camp wasn't established until 1940. No one can seriously claim that Prescott Bush managed camp inmates in any of those plants."
continued....
January 17, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated. Though Thyssen had been an ardent backer of the Nazis in the early days, he broke with them in 1938 after the Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. He fled to Switzerland the following year, and Hitler confiscated his fortune and stripped him of his citizenship. In I Paid Hitler Thyssen confessed his role in financing the Nazis and denounced the Führer. Arrested in Vichy France, he spent the balance of the war as an Axis prisoner. Prescott Bush, for his part, owned a single share of stock (of 4,000) in UBC, the Thyssen bank. According to a 2001 Boston Globe piece, the New York Herald Tribune ran a story in July 1942 headlined "Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank," in which Prescott and other BBH partners "explain[ed] to government regulators that their position [as directors of UBC] was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client."
So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.
Loftus tells me there's more to it than that. He says that the value of German industrial assets in which Bush and friends invested increased during World War II, in part due to slave labor, and that Bush benefited from this increase when the assets were returned--supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back--it was an American bank, after all--but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous."
January 17, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And if you dig some more, you'll find things such as:
"Perhaps the Germans could have assembled vehicles and airplanes without American assistance. But Germany desperately lacked strategic raw materials, such as rubber and oil, which were needed to fight a war predicated on mobility and speed. American corporations came to the rescue. As mentioned earlier, Texaco helped the Nazis stockpile fuel. In addition, as the war in Europe got underway, large quantities of diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and other petroleum products were shipped to Germany not only by Texaco but also by Standard Oil, mostly via Spanish ports.
It looks like it was business as usual for many large corporations as Hitler gained control in Germany and even during the wars in Europe.
In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany's largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today's Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America's investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power."
"The Rockefellers had financial connections to Nazi Germany, and John F. Kennedy's father, an avowed isolationist and former ambassador to Great Britain, profited during the 1930s and '40s from Nazi stocks that he owned."
January 17, 2011 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Thank you, open_eyes. I was going to mention John F. Kennedy's father because everything I've ever read concerning him, he was corrupt. Hated that because I thought the world of Kennedy. Thank the God Lord we are not liable for what our fathers or grand-fathers did or some of us would have never gotten very far. I was blessed!!!!!
January 17, 2011 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
REWBA,
It's pretty much useless to debate with him, if you get him dead to rights he goes after the validity of sources or finds something to misdirect the topic over to the left. I just don't care anymore, he can think what he wants, you can always find something on the net to corroborate any theory, look at Reddog=)
I agree with what your saying though, saw it happen in this very thread, people get caught up trying to label each other, then square off. It's pretty comical to me, I've been called left, right, you name it. The day people stop choosing sides and think will be the day we retake this nation.
January 17, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
He ran rum during prohibition. Made a bunch of money.
If we run drugs today, we would go to prison because we would be cutting into the profits of the fat cats who believe all that drug money should be theirs.
January 17, 2011 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
I agree goodoleboy
January 17, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, aren't you glad that open_eyes has been willing to take the time in trying to show that there are skeletons in all OUR closets that we may wish wasn't there? In bringing up the past doesn't do the present any good. I will say has been very informative so not all is lost for what has been shown here is that money wins SOMETIMES, honor ALL the time.
January 17, 2011 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Yes ma'am.
January 17, 2011 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I've answered every single question, checked out by as valid sources as possible. I've asked many other questions, pointed out many other "dead to rights" facts, and not gotten a single response to them. I think people reading this can figure it out well enough on their own.
Speaking of misdirection, do a little more research on Joe Kennedy, find out why he was forced to resign from the State Dept in 1940. (Hint: It had nothing to do with running rum).
I don't see all this as comical, though. I think it's sad.
It's all here. As a certain network says, "let the viewer decide".
January 17, 2011 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I so agree, very sad. It has shown that some don't want to debate, they want to be RIGHT! Not sure they understand the meaning of "debate". Life goes on and good job.
January 17, 2011 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Spoken like a true follower, whatever would you do without someone to you work for you. When was the last time you posted anything on your own sourced out? Yeah...
January 17, 2011 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sandman, your last comment here showed a wisdom often lacking in those who accuse you of the same.
January 17, 2011 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
People will faithfully sit and listen to someone else who has a 30 minute opinion program on TV or radio. As long as the opinion being presented agrees with the viewer of course.
It only works in closed systems though. In a system open to public response, people who disagree with the opinion being presented will disagree and interrupt the presentation. That is why CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh, and others close their program to honest debate. They all have a target audience so they present the viewpoint that that audience want's to hear.
Back in the 70's when CNN started I liked it. I could see what's happening in the news 24 hours a day. Somewhere along the line all that changed. 24 hour "New Networks" became opinion outlets and the "news stories" was presented as scrolling blurbs at the bottom of the screen.
They make money telling you what you want to hear knowing that people who disagree will just channel surf to another "outlet" that is more agreeable to them.
Today FOX NEWS targets the Extreme Far Right. MSNBC targets the Extreme Far Left and CNN Targets Everyone Else. I don't watch CNN anymore. I never watched FOX or MSNBC. If I want drama I'll watch Jerry Springer. I don't watch that either because I don't want drama. All I ever wanted was to know what is happening in the world. Keep the opinions from the "personalities and pundits" out of it. It's irritating! These days, I get my news on my drive to and from work by listening to NPR. They present the news without any hype and if I want to learn more, I've got the internet. For differing views, I come here to the Emporia Gazette and read the blogs.
January 17, 2011 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
REWBA, that is a very good analysis. I am not saying the following for argument's sake at all - your opinion is valid on many points. Just a slightly "additional" view:
I have found often, in the past, news that one may feel is neutral is often not. When there is nobody there to play "devil's advocate"..... one invariable only gets the views of those presenting, and no matter how hard they try to appear to be strictly neutral, often they are not, and do a good job of disguising it. Personally, for me, I often see "omissions" in that kind of reporting, whether intended or not is anyone's guess. Now I'm sure many of us will always disagree about what constitutes "being open to honest debate", but no debate at all with no opinions is often just as lacking at times. Politics itself is a very subjective and opinion-prone beast: It's tough at times to try to pick thru and sort out the rhetoric from the facts. But I've always believed the more you have to choose from, the better decision you will be able to make. JUST My Opinion.
BTW.... I did see where the NPR News Exec that fired Juan Williams has resigned. In her own words, when asked if she was fired, she replied "let's just say, I made a choice; and I chose to resign." The NPR board has stated they were unhappy with the way the firing of Williams was handled, and have announced that they have ""expressed concern over [NPR CEO Schiller's] role in the termination process and has voted that she will not receive a 2010 bonus."
I'm also curious about one more thing - if you've never watched certain things, how can you form an honest opinion of it? Are opinions of the competition (which is pretty much everyone in the media, they're all out for themselves) - to be taken fairly? In other words...... don't let my opinion of MSNBC keep you from watching it and forming an opinion for yourself. ;-)
I'm all for Eric Holder actually READING the AZ immigration law and knowing what's in it first before he says he's against it...... anyone remember that.....
January 17, 2011 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I meant to add, however....... I realize some people simply don't have the time to wade thru various news sources and get exposed to all of it..... and some simply like the pundit debates purely for the entertainment value. Nothing is ever perfect, we all do the best we can. To each their own.
January 17, 2011 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
My opinions come from the same place your opinions come from. Personal Life Experience.
This story is a fine example of what I tried to explain. Here a mad man shot a congressman and bystanders in a horrible crime. He was caught and will be prosecuted. There were warning signs of the danger this man posed on society before he did it. We can only speculate as to his motives.
But that's where we are all drug into our own personal opinions. In the speculation. MSNBC points out that this guy hated illegals so he had to be right. FOX news defends the right by pointing out that he smoked weed so he had to be left. (I know a lot of pot heads on the right, left and middle) CNN points out that FOX news and MSNBC are making this political and goes after Sara Palin's cross hair ads. Then the frenzy turned from news of a horrible crime to a battle of the fringes and we hear nothing about North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other world news unless we read the scrolling words at the bottom of the screen. Problems of the world remain unsolved.
When we stop tossing out rhetoric that support our side, the argument turns into a conversation where we still have our own convictions but consider the other side in a considerate manner. That is how we used to deal with issues of the day. Understanding each others concerns is the only way to come up with a mutually agreeable solution.
January 17, 2011 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
REWBA - well said.
January 17, 2011 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, Something I have realized, that no matter what I say, own feelings, knowledge or sourcing the information, it won't be correct for that is the type of man you are, negative. You have done somewhat the same with open_eyes and yes, I resent that!!! Since we, he and I, feel much the same concerning certain issues and I know he will do a super job and truly enjoys the "debate" and yes he does. Now if you want to say I'm a follower, go for it, for there is no reason to duplicate, when he says it so very well. I have stated in the past, I'm not truly a "fighter" and people who know me would also say I am NOT negative. You appear to be both. You can't truly debate without tearing the other person down, feel sorry for you. There has been some wonderful information provided here and yes, a good debate COULD occur but you won't allow that to happen. For you see, it is interesting and educational reading both sides and then deciding my own belief. Have a good evening.
January 17, 2011 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, along with this, open_eyes could tell you that when you mix mud and water it will be muddy and you would disagree without any truth to follow. Debate is the means of taking various opinions, information and each person representing their belief No, that isn't from webster, but me. You rant and rant concerning "think"......but I truly wonder if you are capable of such. If so, you would take this information and with open_eyes, give us one heck of a DEBATE.
January 17, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
sandman, That depends on what kind of muddy and who's to blame. lol
January 17, 2011 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, you've got THAT!!!!!! As open_eyes told you, nice job earlier.
January 17, 2011 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
Thanks sandman! I like arguing with you. You never make it easy. If we agreed all the time it wouldn't be as fun.
January 17, 2011 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
REWBA, Yep, that is debate, not agreeing but able to work and show why your "case" is more right then the other. That is one reason I enjoy open_eyes so, he will hang in there but yet remain positive. I, on the other hand, am not and do not enjoy.........I add what I desire and then post, as concerning Johnson, Joe Kennedy etc. Now this doesn't mean I'll sit back and be walked all over, for I won't. With various threads, I have read what open_eyes has posted, therefore he has gained my respect, admiration and loyalty. If this makes me a follower, troll bait, so be it.. Say, I do look forward to fishing with open_eyes, so hope he catches some "winners"!!!!! :-)
January 17, 2011 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Winning on this forum is a relative point of view, much like today's environment you have a couple of pied pipers leading the mice.
January 18, 2011 at 6:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot....
January 18, 2011 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sandman, I appreciate the comments, and thank you, but please don't ever, ever, ever just believe what any one person says just because it came from a certain poster or source or another. Check it out for yourself if you have doubts or questions, and/or, as REWBA put it, rely on your own life experiences to decide. Me....... unfortunately some of my "life experiences" I'm afraid have clouded my judgement in some areas, others not, so I still have to remind myself at times to keep an open mind, walk a mile in another's shoes, etc. I'm the same way with the news. Sometimes my life experiences have needed to be tested and pushed in other directions. Just because it was on Fox or CNN or PBS doesn't mean it is necessarily right. There's alot of cases to be made for bias at PBS just as much as many others.
And anyone that agreed with me 100% of the time I would definitely be wary of........ LOL. And, as REWBA says, not nearly as much fun. ;-)
Still miss biscuitboy on these threads. I always appreciated his input, whether we agreed or not.
This summer's fishing trip has just recently been confirmed in Canada. Looking forward to catching my first pike or musky! (hopefully).
January 18, 2011 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, back on topic - an op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on Jan 10 used the words 'Blood Libel' (before Palin) in connection with the shooting response. The writer used the term in the piece, and the editors used it in the headline.
Haven't seen an outcry yet. Apparently, when it comes to certain things, the only thing that matters is WHO said it, not what was said?
And one of the survivors of the AZ shooting has been arrested for death threats. Was yelling at a Tea Party spokesman who was speaking saying "you're dead" among other things.
Doesn't look like things are cooling off much, sadly :(
January 18, 2011 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, yippee!!!!!!! Canada!!!! You are going to catch the biggest and prettiest pike for those Northern Pike are awesome!!!! Now remember those waters are COLD, so dress according and please, since I freeze, make it quick. I have a dear friend who he and his wife live in Michigan and I went to visit. They have an absolutely beautiful ship, no, not a boat! We went out on Lake Huron and he dared me to jump in (was July), clothes and all. They had had a hard winter and let me tell you, I've never been in such cold water......He had jumped in so I couldn't wring his neck. No, wifey didn't for she knew better!!! Yes, dress warm.
You are correct and believe me, I'm not nearly as gullible as once was, no "snipe" hunting for this girl!!!! :-) As in politics, these threads I believe, you read various points and some will more closely resemble your own thoughts and beliefs. I stated "closely" for with life don't believe we believe someone 100%
of the time, especially not a man and woman, heaven forbid!!!!! Makes life interesting!!! Also, you can disagree but in a manner that isn't a "put-down" to the other person. Just as "blood libel" is offensive to some, never dreamed I would be put in a pot of hot water for say "back in the kitchen"......Life is such a wonderment!!!!!!!!!
January 18, 2011 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
I ment to also write concerning "check it out", believe me I do many times, more so lately, Have found this so true especially today with the internet. I have been very guilty of passing something by e-mail and then finding out it isn't true or is so old and out-dated. Yep, not as guillible plus learning to slowdown for that is part of the key.
January 18, 2011 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
Yes, I miss biscuit on here. As you, he and I didn't always agree but were able to see the others point of view and move on. Also seriously. Oh, those cat "clips"......plus enjoyed his humor. I have enjoyed meeting many on here and yes, for REWBA, I pray he keeps his nose clean so we can continue to enjoy.
January 18, 2011 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, you said "winning on this forum", I'm sorry you look at it in that manner. For sometimes you may hit the nail on the head and other times your thumb. 'For there truly isn't any winning or losing but OPINIONS, many times supported by articles. Now I'm not saying that those discussions can't get heated at times, they can, but you move on,throw your two cents in one time and maybe five dollars the next. I know no one is out for blood, even though it may appear as such at times..
You had posted in the past and I was so glad to see you back posting. Just as all posters, you do hit that nail and sometimes miss and others do the same. As I'm sure we all have learned, it is life, sometimes you get the fish and sometimes it gets your bait.....now laugh!!!! Even though our fingers may get sore, we still work on a project and say "Wow, what a job!" :-)
January 18, 2011 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
REWBA (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, Didn't you know?! Winning on a forum debate is being the last one to comment.
January 18, 2011 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
http://nevernwo.blogspot.com/
January 24, 2011 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
The previous post has a complete text of the shooter. You will have to roll the mouse down to find it.
January 24, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )