AZ Congresswoman has been shot, many others dead

[Vain]

I initially, way back when, thought she was stupid...since then, I've changed my mind, she was insufficiently prepared/informed. She's smarter than the average mama grizzly, though not really impressive. I do think she's untrustworthy, though, and both narrow and close-minded.

Well it's a positive that you've shifted a bit I don't understand the untrustworthy bit though?

She's a politician. Ergo, she's untrustworthy. Also, this whole "Mama Grizzles" thing smacks too much like a "Hitler's Youth" deal... you know, brainwashing through group mentality... "I'm a mama grizzle, I must protect my cubs from the progressive threat! Not sure what that is, but Mama Palin will tell us who's causing it!"
She completly lost any support from me when she resigned from the governorship to pursue a lucrative book tour. She essentially abandoned her constituents for selfish reasons. As a result I don't trust her because Palin will do what's best for Palin.

I suspect there's a degree of tongue-in-cheek in this reply

[Farsailer]

I initially, way back when, thought she was stupid...since then, I've changed my mind, she was insufficiently prepared/informed. She's smarter than the average mama grizzly, though not really impressive. I do think she's untrustworthy, though, and both narrow and close-minded.

Well it's a positive that you've shifted a bit I don't understand the untrustworthy bit though?

She's a politician. Ergo, she's untrustworthy. Also, this whole "Mama Grizzles" thing smacks too much like a "Hitler's Youth" deal... you know, brainwashing through group mentality... "I'm a mama grizzle, I must protect my cubs from the progressive threat! Not sure what that is, but Mama Palin will tell us who's causing it!"
She completly lost any support from me when she resigned from the governorship to pursue a lucrative book tour. She essentially abandoned her constituents for selfish reasons. As a result I don't trust her because Palin will do what's best for Palin.

I don't trust Orlion because Orlion will do what's best for Orlion.

See how silly that is? Nearly everyone does what's best for themselves in their own minds most of the time. It's OK not to like Palin but really ought to find another argument for not liking her.

[Zarathustra]

She completly lost any support from me when she resigned from the governorship to pursue a lucrative book tour. She essentially abandoned her constituents for selfish reasons. As a result I don't trust her because Palin will do what's best for Palin.

I can't speak for Palin. Maybe she did want to pursue her newfound opportunities on the national stage. She has certainly done just that. However, you can't speak for her either. In her own words, Palin said she resigned the governorship because her new status made it too distracting to do her job as governor properly. She said that she was no longer in a position to give the citizens of Alaska the governor they needed. That's the opposite of a selfish reason.

Whether you believe her or not is up to you. There are undeniable facts which lend credibility to her claim: she has endured unending attacks from people on the Left that no other governor in our union has had to endure. She was undergoing legal battles (brought by her political opponents) at the time.

Personally, I think it is just more honest to quit your current job when you're seeking a higher office. It bugs me that we paid Obama and McCain to be Senators while they spent much of their time campaigning for a better job. You couldn't get away with that in the private sector! Only in government do we accept such self-serving absence from one's current duties.

[Zarathustra]

Liberal political operative threatens Tea Party leader over political views in the wake of Tuscan shooting:

... it was inevitable that the conversation would eventually turn to politics. It did, toward the end, with Amanpour leading a discussion on a very touchy but obvious topic: gun control.

That's where the atmosphere turned tense. When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, "You're dead."

When State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) rose to explain and clarify current and proposed gun legislation in the state, several people groaned or booed her. One of those booing, according to several witnesses, was Fuller. Witnesses sitting near Fuller told KGUN9 News that Fuller was making them feel very uncomfortable.

The event wrapped up a short time later. Deputies then escorted Fuller from the room. As he was being led off, Fuller shouted loudly to the room at large. Several witnesses said that what they thought they heard him shout was, "You're all whores!"

Fuller, age 63, is a political operative who specializes in gathering petitions for ballot initiatives. Before the program began, he passed out business cards to people sitting around him that read:
"Signatures
"Expediting Initiatives since 2006
"J. Eric Fuller
"Political Circulator."

A Pima County Sheriff's spokesman told KGUN9 News that the department has charged Fuller with one count of threats and intimidation, and said they plan to charge him with at least one count of disorderly conduct. Humphries told KGUN9 News that he does plan to press those charges, at the recommendation of sheriff's department investigators.

The irony could not be more pointed, or painful. One of the issues discussed in the town hall meeting was the question of why no police or mental health professionals had ever intervened with Jared Lee Loughner, despite his increasingly bizarre behavior that had included disruptive outbursts.

Everyone is worried about conservatives inciting violence with their rhetoric. It's surprising how little we're discussing liberal violence and rhetoric. Clearly, this man was reacting to a political position ... though officials are treating him as if he's (merely) psychologically disturbed. They're forcing him to get a pyschological evaluation, but we don't hear a word about his politics producing his violent outburst--which it clearly did.

If Palin gets shot by someone who blames her for the Tuscan shooting, can we blame Paul Krugman and every other liberal pundit who incited this violence with their false accusations?

[Vraith]

If Palin gets shot by someone who blames her for the Tuscan shooting, can we blame Paul Krugman and every other liberal pundit who incited this violence with their false accusations?

You could, if you wanted to repeat their error.
[of course, I realize that's pretty much the point you're making... ]

[Zarathustra]

If Palin gets shot by someone who blames her for the Tuscan shooting, can we blame Paul Krugman and every other liberal pundit who incited this violence with their false accusations?

You could, if you wanted to repeat their error.
[of course, I realize that's pretty much the point you're making... ]

It wouldn't be repeating the error if the hypothetical Palin shooter killed her because of her alleged role in the Tuscan shooting--an idea that only became public "knowledge" because liberals explicitly (and implicitly) made that connection. That's completely different from a liberal (Loughner) taking out another liberal because he's crazy.

The death threats to Palin have reached unprecedented levels. I think we can say with certainty that it's not because crazy people have suddenly got a lot more crazy in the last week. It's politically motivated, and it's driven by left-leaning media.

It's ironic that the very thing they tried to blame Palin for, they're causing themselves.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- Aides to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin say the conservative icon has experienced an increase in death threats since Saturday's shootings in Tucson.

Palin aide Rebecca Mansour told USA Today the uptick in threats is "incredible," while another aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, also confirmed the increase to CBS News.

"There has been an incredible increase in death threats against Governor Palin since the tragedy in Arizona, since she's been accused of having the blood of those victims on her hands," Mansour said. "When you start to accuse people of having the blood of innocent people on their hands, it incites violence."

link

It's not really new. Palin haters hate her so much, they threatened to kill her daughter over her dancing. But we act like there's no violent hatred on the Left at all.

[Vraith]

If Palin gets shot by someone who blames her for the Tuscan shooting, can we blame Paul Krugman and every other liberal pundit who incited this violence with their false accusations?

You could, if you wanted to repeat their error.
[of course, I realize that's pretty much the point you're making... ]

It wouldn't be repeating the error if the hypothetical Palin shooter killed her because of her alleged role in the Tuscan shooting--an idea that only became public "knowledge" because liberals explicitly (and implicitly) made that connection. That's completely different from a liberal (Loughner) taking out another liberal because he's crazy.

But I thought we'd already established that whatever the media/pundit/politician rhetoric, the real cause was insanity. The same applies now...no sane person would kill Palin because some public/media figure said it was all her fault.

The rest [about the rise in threats, and why] I basically agree with.
I particularly agree that there is, of course, violent hatred from some on the left.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Any sufficiently-large group of people will have a lunatic fringe containing the potential to react violently. Many people love animals; some people are willing to harm other humans because of how they treat animals, even if that means targeting hunters looking to bag only one deer. Many people love nature; some people are willing to burn down houses that may contain people inside just because they don't want a particular piece of land developed.

Not that I was a supporter of hers, anyway, but I wrote off Ms. Palin as a serious politician when she quit her job as governor to sell books. She gave any future opponent a great slogan: don't vote for my opponent because she is a quitter.

[Zarathustra]

But I thought we'd already established that whatever the media/pundit/politician rhetoric, the real cause was insanity. The same applies now...no sane person would kill Palin because some public/media figure said it was all her fault.

If Palin had been saying something as colossally irresponsible and libelous as claiming that Giffords was responsible for murder (when she wasn't), and it could be proven that Loughner was motivated by this statement, then insanity could no longer hold up. Loughner would show that he is very capable of determing right/wrong, because his shooting would have itself been an expression of his sense of right/wrong in the name of vengence for a "crime." It would be rage, and not insanity. (Well, maybe temporary insanity ...) In that case, Palin would have some responsibility for making an egregiously incorrect statement. No, she couldn't be blamed for Loughner's actions, but she could be held responsible for incorrectly asserting that someone has blood on her hands.

This is especially interesting when we compare it to the Tiller debate we had last year. O'Reilly was accused of being responsible for Tiller's murder simply because he described Tiller as a "baby killer." That's all it took for some in the media--and some here--to say that Bill shared the blame with the killer. (Some of you might remember the expletive-laden exchange where I defended myself from an identical charge. ) However, Bill was correct--or at least the connection between his accusation and Tiller's actions wasn't "thematic" or metaphorical. Tiller performed late-term abortions. Tiller himself described the organisms which he was paid to kill by the 1000s as "babies" in his own promotional materials. So "baby killer" can be backed up by Tiller's own words, and the fact that these were virtually indistinguishable from those cuddly humans we *all* call, "babies" when they're breathing air, and only *some* of us refrain from doing so moments or days or weeks prior to that.

I note this to distinguish it from the example above: someone falsely accusing another for killing which they didn't do. Tiller was actually ending lives (even if you disagree with Bill's terminology).

Perhaps by my own logic, I could not lay the blame for Palin's hypothetical murder at the feet of the liberal media. But if we're to accept the argument now being made by members of the liberal media, then they'd have to either accept that hypothetical blame, or admit that they're 100% wrong.

In other words: either they're endangering Palin's life now with their rhetoric (which makes them hypocritical for criticizing rhetoric as dangerous), or they're spewing for the most hateful falsehoods imaginable (which makes them incompetant assholes worthy of being fired and publicly scorned forever).

This is one ugly chapter of U.S. politics, that's for sure.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is one ugly chapter of U.S. politics, that's for sure.

Perhaps it is time to turn on the lights and overturn the rocks to see what kind of nastiness has been lurking below the surface in politics for a while. In the last 10 years, it has gotten really ugly really quickly on both sides and the pressure has been building. A little releasing of the steam might serve to reduce the pressure; of course, the probability always exists for things to get worse.

What does it say about us, though, when you have one slice of the population blaming one president for causing a terrorist attack and/or manipulating oil prices (as if presidents could actually do this) and another slice claiming that another president isn't even a citizen and is trying to "destroy" the nation? Both extremes are wildly ridiculous.

It doesn't matter how vile someone's rhetoric might be, you can never hold person A accountable for the actions of person B, even if person B says "but person A told me to" or "but person A wanted someone to do something!". Even if person A says "I want someone to do something awful" you must not do this. The instant you hold person A accountable for person B's actions, we all become responsible for other people's actions. Your kid hit someone at school? Your fault. Your neighbor ran over your cat? That's his wife's fault for making him late for work. You took a gun to work and fired several rounds? Your boss gave you a bad review. Only children behave this way--"my sister made me hit her!".

[Avatar]

I'll certainly agree that if there is a chance of conservative rhetoric inciting violence, there must be an equal chance of liberal rhetoric doing the exact same thing.

I've said it before, the real problem is that your electorate seems brain-washed to automatically hate anything the other side is doing, and by extension, to hate the other side.

It's gonna blow up in your faces one of these days.

--A

[Vain]

I actually don't think that the politicians are saying anything violent. What is happening is that the media is distorting messages and creating false realities and this is responsible for the atmosphere you have today.

What is really needed is a refudiation of all media driven rhetoric by all sides.

[Cambo]

Been reading along...

I've said it before, the real problem is that your electorate seems brain-washed to automatically hate anything the other side is doing, and by extension, to hate the other side.

It's gonna blow up in your faces one of these days.

Seems that way to me as well. I'm very much to the left on political ideology. My conservative friends know me as the "filthy socialist." I don't hate them or their representatives, they don't hate me or my representatives. I don't hate Palin (I view her with a mixture of hilarity and trepidation), and my conservative friends don't hate Obama.

I used to comment on an American progressive news site. I quit because the level of hate from some there was just extreme. And it spread across every issue. It's a shame, because there were some neat people there.

I actually don't think that the politicians are saying anything violent. What is happening is that the media is distorting messages and creating false realities and this is responsible for the atmosphere you have today.

What is really needed is a refudiation of all media driven rhetoric by all sides.

Agreed conditionally. The media does distort, misrepresent and filter information. But it's a two way street. They have to be given something to work with, an image to reflect back at us, however twisted. That said, a general denunciation of the media is something I'll always be in favour of (or at least until they actually start doing their jobs).

[Rawedge Rim]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[\b]

still as pertinent now as ever. The "free press" is supposed to watch those in power and let us know what the heck is going on, and in turn we, as the electors are supposed to do something about it.

But we also have the responsibility to keep an eye on the "free pree" and make damn sure that they are actually doing thier job responsibly, and with integrity, not just digging up dirt to be sensationalistic, and most assuridly not to egregiously favor one side of the political spectrum over the other.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'll certainly agree that if there is a chance of conservative rhetoric inciting violence, there must be an equal chance of liberal rhetoric doing the exact same thing.

I've said it before, the real problem is that your electorate seems brain-washed to automatically hate anything the other side is doing, and by extension, to hate the other side.

It's gonna blow up in your faces one of these days.

--A

Which is why I think both the Democratic and Republican parties, where most of the hatred exists, should be suspended from politics for a period of 10 years.

still as pertinent now as ever. The "free press" is supposed to watch those in power and let us know what the heck is going on, and in turn we, as the electors are supposed to do something about it.

But we also have the responsibility to keep an eye on the "free pree" and make damn sure that they are actually doing thier job responsibly, and with integrity, not just digging up dirt to be sensationalistic, and most assuridly not to egregiously favor one side of the political spectrum over the other.

Most news outlets are corporate ventures and are actually more interested in selling commercials than presenting "just the facts". In fact, most news these days isn't so much "news" as it is partisan political pontification; sometimes, they don't even try to hide the fact that they are partisan!

[Rawedge Rim]

I'll certainly agree that if there is a chance of conservative rhetoric inciting violence, there must be an equal chance of liberal rhetoric doing the exact same thing.

I've said it before, the real problem is that your electorate seems brain-washed to automatically hate anything the other side is doing, and by extension, to hate the other side.

It's gonna blow up in your faces one of these days.

--A

Which is why I think both the Democratic and Republican parties, where most of the hatred exists, should be suspended from politics for a period of 10 years.

still as pertinent now as ever. The "free press" is supposed to watch those in power and let us know what the heck is going on, and in turn we, as the electors are supposed to do something about it.

But we also have the responsibility to keep an eye on the "free pree" and make damn sure that they are actually doing thier job responsibly, and with integrity, not just digging up dirt to be sensationalistic, and most assuridly not to egregiously favor one side of the political spectrum over the other.

Most news outlets are corporate ventures and are actually more interested in selling commercials than presenting "just the facts". In fact, most news these days isn't so much "news" as it is partisan political pontification; sometimes, they don't even try to hide the fact that they are partisan!

No doubt, and at one time they were essentially in the pocket of whatever political party that the newspapers owner favored.

Still, as citizens, it's our responsibility to "watch the watchers"

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Still, as citizens, it's our responsibility to "watch the watchers"

I am watching, for certain, but that doesn't mean that I like what I am seeing.

[Zarathustra]

In fact, most news these days isn't so much "news" as it is partisan political pontification; sometimes, they don't even try to hide the fact that they are partisan!

I actually don't think our politics or our media are getting more polarized. I think they're getting more honest. I think more people are saying out loud what they have always thought.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I actually don't think our politics or our media is getting more polarized. I think it's getting more honest. I think more people are saying out loud what they have always thought.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Zarathustra]

Good or bad? Well, I take "be true" seriously. If an increase in inflammatory rhetoric gets the truth out in the open, I think this is better than people trying to deceive us. Our media, for instance, has always had a particular spin. They hid it, but it was there beneath the surface, shaping public opinion, often without people realizing it. Now it's getting harder to fool people.

Besides, the calls for "civility" aren't real. They're merely a tactic for silencing speech which one side doesn't like ... the side which is losing the PR war in both politics and the various media outlets. So they call for civility, but don't do it themselves. The people who call for more civility are usually the last ones to recognize their own hostility. They're only talking about one side when they say this.

[Edit: I'm talking about the politicians and pundits themselves, not your average citizen. I'm sure there are sincere people among those who don't tie their fortunes to political strategies.]