I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: YLGuy on January 08, 2011, 11:56:14 AM
-
Sara Palin came up with her "Target Map"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html
Today Congresswoman Giffords was shot in Tucson. She was on the map.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
-
The thing that disturbs me most about Sarah Palin is that she presents every argument in an "us versus them" framework. She is one of the most divisive voices on the American political landscape at a time when the electorate clearly wants Congress to work together for the benefit of the entire nation. She has to find an enemy before she can be effective.
That said, I really hesitate in making Palin responsible if indeed this was an attempt at political assassination of the Congresswoman. Ultimate responsibility is with the shooter.
-
C'mon. Jeez. The subject of this thread is ridiculous. Some psycho shot people at a town hall meeting.
It's still not clear how many were shot. Absolutely horrible event. I am praying for all of the victims. :pray;
-
C'mon. Jeez. The subject of this thread is ridiculous. Some psycho shot people at a town hall meeting.
Well, I hope you are right and that politics had nothing to do with this. Congresswoman Giffords must have been pretty popular, though, to be a re-elected Democrat in Republican Arizona. Her constituents are losers in this, too.
-
I didn't say politics had nothing to do with it. I just think the focus should be on the victims.
-
I didn't say politics had nothing to do with it. I just think the focus should be on the victims.
Of course you are right, but I guess hospital policies dictate how much information they can give out. There's not much information right now about any of this. Chaos and confusion reigns. Guess we will have to be patient and just keep listening for updated news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html
Huffington Post has an updated feed...
Notice that Sarah Palin has made a statement.
-
I don't think it is ridiculous. I think people in positions of power - anyone who has the attention of the country and a platform to use - should be expected to show restraint and caution. Sarah Palin crossed the line in my opinion, and then this is compounded by being a figure who is very popular with many people.
Free speech ends when you advocate violence, most especially when it is directed at specific individuals. I think it is important to talk about how our country comes to this, or there will be more victims to focus upon in future.
-
I didn't say politics had nothing to do with it. I just think the focus should be on the victims.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html
Huffington Post has an updated feed...
Notice that Sarah Palin has made a statement.
That's more of a generic non-statement in my opinion.....
-
C'mon. Jeez. The subject of this thread is ridiculous. Some psycho shot people at a town hall meeting.
It's still not clear how many were shot. Absolutely horrible event. I am praying for all of the victims. :pray;
NO, it is not! When she came out with her "Map" many were appalled at it saying something like this may happen. It is ridiculous that the map with cross-hairs on people would be found acceptable.
-
LOL so the map made someone shoot them? Get real.
-
That's more of a generic non-statement in my opinion.....
I mentioned it only because it made me wonder if Palin feels any morsel of responsibility due to her map.
I wonder if John Boehner is crying. :'(
-
It's not that the map "makes" someone, but would you want to see your name/face with crosshairs over it? This is a violent and radical intimidation tactic.
-
LOL so the map made someone shoot them? Get real.
Someone tried to assassinate President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Weirder things have happened.
-
LOL so the map made someone shoot them? Get real.
Someone tried to assassinate President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Weirder things have happened.
Yes, and those people are mentally ill. Would you blame Jodie Foster for making movies??
-
That's more of a generic non-statement in my opinion.....
I mentioned it only because it made me wonder if Palin feels any morsel of responsibility due to her map.
I wonder if John Boehner is crying. :'(
Oh, I think mentioning it was completely appropriate, but I highly doubt she does and it sounds like the type of pre-written utterly emotionless statement with which you could just substitute out names at a push.
Interesting. And if John Boehner is not crying, it will be the first time in days!
-
There's an immense difference between an actress making films that are fiction and being a political figure who wants to lead the country.
-
C'mon. Jeez. The subject of this thread is ridiculous. Some psycho shot people at a town hall meeting.
It's still not clear how many were shot. Absolutely horrible event. I am praying for all of the victims. :pray;
Thank you Karol, we have nuts on both sides of the aisle.
I don't agree with the AZ congress woman's politics, but she didn't deserve this. My prayers are with her and her family. If we are going to be a nation of laws, that applies to all. I would point out that apparantly 12 people were shot by this person.
Eric Cantors office was shot at as well last spring. Is Pelosi responsible for that? Of course not. I would hope we can get past inflammatory rhetoric in this nation or we are truly doomed, once again on both sides of the aisle.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/
-
C'mon. Jeez. The subject of this thread is ridiculous. Some psycho shot people at a town hall meeting.
It's still not clear how many were shot. Absolutely horrible event. I am praying for all of the victims. :pray;
Thank you Karol, we have nuts on both sides of the aisle. There was a Republican congressman who had someone shoot at his office some time back in the last few months, Is Pelosi responsible for that? Of course not, deranged people are just that.
I don't agree with the AZ congress woman's politics, but she didn't deserve this. My prayers are with her and her family. If we are going to be a nation of laws, that applies to all. I would point out that apparantly 12 people were shot by this person.
I don't remember Nancy Pelosi implying that guns were the way to hash out political differences. Wasn't it Sharon Angle who said "2nd amendment remedies"? Thank goodness the people of Nevada rejected that thinking, or lack of thinking.
-
There's an immense difference between an actress making films that are fiction and being a political figure who wants to lead the country.
I know that. That's obvious. The thread is about holding Palin responsible for this slaughter. If it makes anyone feel better, they can blame her. I just think it's short-sighted. Threats and damage has been done to many offices of representatives who voted for the health care bill.
-
Anyway, pardon me for posting as I historically avoid all political threads, so I leave it to you folks to hash it out. I doubt the problems of our country are going to be solved in a thread on IHD. I will go back to my corner. Still praying for the 12 victims (one now confirmed dead) and their families.
-
I wonder if the shooter was legally able to have a gun under Arizona laws. The one victim that died was a child...9 months old.
-
Anyway, pardon me for posting as I historically avoid all political threads, so I leave it to you folks to hash it out. I doubt the problems of our country are going to be solved in a thread on IHD. I will go back to my corner. Still praying for the 12 victims (one now confirmed dead) and their families.
Well, all of the problems associated with the provision of dialysis aren't going be solved by ALL of the threads on IHD, but we still talk about it. This may have started out as a political thread, but the underlying fear is that we are headed toward violent times, and this attack just reinforces that fear. Sure, there are violent people with guns on all sides of the political divide, but this really is an attack on all of us who chose our representatives in a democratic way. If someone killed my congressperson, I'd feel personally violated.
-
No, I don't blame Jodie Foster for making movies, but Jodie Foster never claimed to lead and represent the American people. Ms. Foster never directed people to "target" anyone in any way.
The Congresswoman's office in Arizona was vandalized during the healthcare debate. Many democratic congresspeople experienced the same form of intimidation. While the attack today may well be random and have nothing to do with politics, it is interesting that the President, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin...all highly visible political figures...all seem to intuit that there might be some political motivation behind the attack. But it does remain to be seen if that is indeed the case.
The surgeons are optimistic about her chances for recovery. She made it through surgery. She's still unconscious.
-
Anyway, pardon me for posting as I historically avoid all political threads, so I leave it to you folks to hash it out. I doubt the problems of our country are going to be solved in a thread on IHD. I will go back to my corner. Still praying for the 12 victims (one now confirmed dead) and their families.
Well, all of the problems associated with the provision of dialysis aren't going be solved by ALL of the threads on IHD, but we still talk about it. This may have started out as a political thread, but the underlying fear is that we are headed toward violent times, and this attack just reinforces that fear. Sure, there are violent people with guns on all sides of the political divide, but this really is an attack on all of us who chose our representatives in a democratic way. If someone killed my congressperson, I'd feel personally violated.
I think what Eric Cantor stated after a bullet went through his campaign office sums up what all should do at present:
Cantor said "a bullet was shot through the window" of his campaign office. The incident happened Monday, Fox News has learned, the latest in a rash of apparent threats and acts of intimidation against members of Congress. Most of the threats so far have been reported by Democrats, but Cantor -- the No. 2 Republican in the House -- is one of about 10 lawmakers who has asked for increased security protection, Fox News has learned.
In brief and pointed remarks, Cantor said he would not be releasing any information about the other threats he's received, as some lawmakers have done, out of concern that it would "encourage more to be sent."
And he admonished his colleagues -- specifically Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine -- for "dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting these incidents be used as a political weapon."
"Any suggestion that a leader in this body would incite threats or acts against other members is akin to saying that I would endanger myself, my wife or my children," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/
This is a terrorist attack against our political system. I would hope we wouldn't fall prey to the political retribution they planned as a result of this horrible event. If so, it will only lead to more attacks and the loss of freedom for all of us.
-
Well, all of the problems associated with the provision of dialysis aren't going be solved by ALL of the threads on IHD, but we still talk about it. This may have started out as a political thread, but the underlying fear is that we are headed toward violent times, and this attack just reinforces that fear. Sure, there are violent people with guns on all sides of the political divide, but this really is an attack on all of us who chose our representatives in a democratic way. If someone killed my congressperson, I'd feel personally violated.
Well said, MM. I agree completely.
-
I don't see this thread as saying she is responsible for the shooting, but that statements like hers can have dire consequences. Of course the shooter was probably mentally ill - I think he would have to be - but it is no secret that we have mentally ill people in this country who can be set off by violent rhetoric. She had plenty of time to 'refudiate' her remarks, but when she is called to account for herself, she just digs in further rather than consider that she may be wrong. My four year old does this.
Since she is not in office and therefore avoids one of the most common ways to hold a politician responsible (voting her out of office) it's left to people to speak up and suggest that this was beyond the pale. If you make a threat against the president, that is an automatic crime. If you make a joke about a bomb in a security line at the airport, you are held accountable and have to suffer the consequences. Why should a person with millions of followers be any different?
-
LOL so the map made someone shoot them? Get real.
Someone tried to assassinate President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Weirder things have happened.
Yes, and those people are mentally ill. Would you blame Jodie Foster for making movies??
Give me a break. Someone with Sara's popularity should not be putting cross-hares on people. It is reckless. Politicians on both sides are rarely held accountable for their ludicrous statements. The shooter was caught. It could be that he never even heard of her map.
Imagine if one of your family members was "targeted"? Would you still feel the same way? Would you? Honestly!
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/?gt1=43001)
This article mentions that the congresswoman has been threatened in the past - over her support of health care reform. Sarah Palin is mentioned.
-
The campaign rhetoric from Giffords' opponent, Jesse Kelly, had been inflammatory:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/24kxkc7.jpg)
-
The campaign rhetoric from Giffords' opponent, Jesse Kelly, had been inflammatory:
Perfectly nauseating! What is this country coming to?
-
...putting cross-hares on people.
Just FYI - I believe it's "crosshairs" - lines that cross in the focus plane and are use for sighting
-
LOL so the map made someone shoot them? Get real.
Someone tried to assassinate President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Weirder things have happened.
Yes, and those people are mentally ill. Would you blame Jodie Foster for making movies??
Give me a break. Someone with Sara's popularity should not be putting cross-hares on people. It is reckless. Politicians on both sides are rarely held accountable for their ludicrous statements. The shooter was caught. It could be that he never even heard of her map.
Imagine if one of your family members was "targeted"? Would you still feel the same way? Would you? Honestly!
I agree it is reckless and pretty stupid really, but so be it, it will be one of the issues raised in the next campaign. I wouldn't go beyond stupid to responsible though.
I heard a few years ago from somewhere that many were privately stating we are only a few years away from a civil war in America. At the time I thought that was laughable, I no longer do because of how little wisdom people on both sides of the ailse speak, on inflammatory rhetoric. I remember it wasn't that long ago where people of opposite political ideology could engage in civil discussions, I don't think that is possible any longer. I would simply point out there are people who will benefit from this discord behind the scenes cheering both sides of the opposition on.
Let's hopefully go back to the roots of this republic, not a democracy, and get back to the rule of law. A republic is based on the rule of the law, a democracy is based on the rule of the majority, there is a great divide between those two political systems. Unfortunately, we seem to no longer have any common sense on either side of the situation. That is not the America that I knew as a child and it wasn't that long ago, I am only 52.
-
The campaign rhetoric from Giffords' opponent, Jesse Kelly, had been inflammatory:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/24kxkc7.jpg)
I would just point out that that bozo was rejected and rightfully so by the will of the people. I am literally a gun toting Republican, but that sort of nonsense does my quest to protect the rights that I enjoy as US citizen much harder. I grew up in Alaska and have always enjoyed the outdoors which meant we always had some sort of gun with us, there are things in those beautiful woods that eat people. I enjoy the right to keep and bear arms and do so with great care and responsibility.
Glad to see the Democrat win against such an idiot. I personally feel that the so called tea party candidate was mocking my constitutional rights with his gimmicks.
Let's go back to getting some real statesmen on both sides before we explode this entire country. Don't think it couldn't happen here and I would hope that would sober our thoughts and our spoken words. America is a great nation, but there is no guarantee it will remain that way. Like it or not, we all have to work together for the common good. I am not sure anymore that is possible.
-
Here is a quote from the article I linked where congresswoman Giffords spoke about Sarah Palin's actions. I believe this statement was made around election time this past year.
"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.
What a way to be proven right.
-
...putting cross-hares on people.
Just FYI - I believe it's "crosshairs" - lines that cross in the focus plane and are use for sighting
Crosshairs are most commonly represented as intersecting lines in the shape of a cross, "+", though many variations exist, including dots, posts, circles, scales, chevrons, or a combination of these. Most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms.
-
The shooters name has been leaked to the press and he is apparantlyy a white supremist with a quite deluded manifesto on video just before he went to do what he himself terms a terrorist action. This is not about politics folks, this is a deluded and deranged attempt at terror, with 5 people dead, I would say he got the worlds attention which is all these nut jobs want.
Read his commentary and see if you can gain a political statement or simple delusion. I suspect he will be found to be mentally incapable of standing trial when it is all said and done. Taking this deranged action and making political implications from what I see so far in my mind is simply wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvyo1H6DaOk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM_zApVcXs0
-
...putting cross-hares on people.
Just FYI - I believe it's "crosshairs" - lines that cross in the focus plane and are use for sighting
Crosshairs are most commonly represented as intersecting lines in the shape of a cross, "+", though many variations exist, including dots, posts, circles, scales, chevrons, or a combination of these. Most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms.
Yes, I know. But Cross-hares are angry bunnies. LOL It's the spelling, not the definition I was highlighting.
-
Slate magazine says NPR and other news have reported Giffords is dead. ???
-
The shooters name has been leaked to the press and he is apparantlyy a white supremist with a quite deluded manifesto on video just before he went to do what he himself terms a terrorist action. This is not about politics folks, this is a deluded and deranged attempt at terror, with 5 people dead, I would say he got the worlds attention which is all these nut jobs want.
Then he is a domestic terrorist just like Timothy McVeigh. You're probably right...it's probably not about partisan politics but something much more sinister. This doesn't make me feel any better!
I believe in a loyal opposition. I don't automatically assume that those who may not agree with my political positions are disloyal or unpatriotic, but I sense that I am in the minority in this regard.
But we have to remember that this nutjob may have targetted any politician who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If he wanted to really strike a blow against the government, he might well not have cared if his target was R or D. We just don't yet know what his motivation was. We don't even know yet if he was working alone.
-
Slate magazine says NPR and other news have reported Giffords is dead. ???
Well, I'm watching CNN right now and am following NPR's and HP's sites, and I haven't read that.
-
The shooters name has been leaked to the press and he is apparantlyy a white supremist with a quite deluded manifesto on video just before he went to do what he himself terms a terrorist action. This is not about politics folks, this is a deluded and deranged attempt at terror, with 5 people dead, I would say he got the worlds attention which is all these nut jobs want.
Then he is a domestic terrorist just like Timothy McVeigh. You're probably right...it's probably not about partisan politics but something much more sinister. This doesn't make me feel any better!
I believe in a loyal opposition. I don't automatically assume that those who may not agree with my political positions are disloyal or unpatriotic, but I sense that I am in the minority in this regard.
But we have to remember that this nutjob may have targetted any politician who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If he wanted to really strike a blow against the government, he might well not have cared if his target was R or D. We just don't yet know what his motivation was. We don't even know yet if he was working alone.
Good points MooseMom, this is a tragedy today for all Americans, even thoughs that don't share the congress woman's politics. She still has a right to bring forth her ideas in public safely. I hope that is is seen in that context just like the shooting of a Republican president was likewise not a political statement, but simply a nut job trying to get world wide attention.
-
White supremacy is a very political position. Ask any South African.
I am sure he is mentally ill, though I would not be so sure that he will be found incompetent to stand trial. That is a difficult position to argue and rarely works. We have seen a fair number of barking mad individuals put away in prison.
Laws surrounding free speech are very clear on this, and speech that incites violence is not protected. I still feel that politicians need to dial it down and stop talking like the wackos who perpetrate these crimes. They need to take responsibility for their statements and examine how they might be contributing to a culture of violence. Words matter.
-
Slate magazine says NPR and other news have reported Giffords is dead. ???
Well, I'm watching CNN right now and am following NPR's and HP's sites, and I haven't read that.
Good. I have been hoping that someone will tell me I'm wrong. Here is the article - look at the third paragraph, after the word UPDATE if you care to.
-
Re white supremacy...Congresswoman Giffords is a "blue dog" democrat but she supported immigration reform ie secure borders plus a path to citizenship. She was seen as an up and coming effective voice on immigration. Ironically, what she has supported in this regard is much like what George Bush supported. So it is possible (conjecture here) that she was targetted not because she was a Democrat or a Republican but because of her views on immigration if it is true that this shooter is a white supremacist. I guess we'll find out soon.
-
I just remembered something...about 18 months ago, my then-Congressman was having one of these meet and greet things at our local grocery store. My husband and I went and got to speak to him. What if some lunatic had come by and started shooting at us? Good grief.
-
Palin's Pac Map: "Crosshairs" which features 20 TARGETED Congress members who voted for Obama's health care bill. Her language was inflamatory: "Don't retreat, instead - RELOAD!" The next day Congressman Giffords Tuscon office was vandalized. Giffords' father told the New York Post that members of the Tea Party "always threatened" his daughter.
Such language, in my opinion, does incite violence.
The Tea Party candidate (Jesse Kelly) used even more violent language in a campaign event called "Get on TARGET for Victory in November". He described the event as "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from Office." "SHOOT A FULLY AUTOMATIC M-16 WITH JESSE KELLY."
I wonder if the automatic weapon the killer used was a M-16. He killed 6 and wounded 12.
Violent language begets VIOLENCE.
-
I am so saddened and pissed off about this tragedy today. It pisses me off because it compromises all of our safety. I think it is awesome that Congress is having these "meet and greets", but now I wonder - will it go on? I am saddened that our freedoms keep being taken away because of the actions of a few. I am scared for my country, and what the future may bring. I am angry that some politicians feel it necessary to display childish gun lingo and icons on their campaign material, and disturbed that some in this country support that. The anger in me then brings out questions like this - why is being "white trash" in the way we conduct business in this country accepted? Take a look at Sarah Palin - potential presidential contender, on down to "Jersey Shore" being such a major hit. Why can't we be civil???
KarenInWA
-
State Sen. Linda Lopez, a close friend of Giffords', told Fox News that the three-term congresswoman was shot in the temple and the bullet exited through her forehead. Lopez said Giffords was responding to commands.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/arizona-congresswoman-reportedly-shot-public-event/#ixzz1AVbDHDWS
This is a very survivable injury from that description but difficult to tell what kind of long term difficulties she will have. One of my patients had a large brain tumor in this section of his brain and upon recovery was able to return to his full work duties. Some people show remarkable resilience to these sort of injuries. Hopefully, she will be one of those with time.
-
What worries me the most is that it may become more and more difficult to find decent, honorable people to serve in government. As long as we keep making government "the enemy", and as long as we see the vilification of people running for office as good sport, who is really going to want to be in public service?
It also worries me that this event may deter congresspeople from meeting with their constituents, and this would undermine our democracy. So I heartily agree with you, KareninWA.
Hemodoc, yes, I've heard that her surgeons are optimistic about her recovery. I dunno...maybe it takes something like this to remind our congresspeople (and the rest of us) that we cannot let anything interfere with the people's work. Everyone on both sides of the aisle seem to hold Rep Giffords in very high regard; it's really nice to hear one congressperson say good things about another.
-
What worries me the most is that it may become more and more difficult to find decent, honorable people to serve in government. As long as we keep making government "the enemy", and as long as we see the vilification of people running for office as good sport, who is really going to want to be in public service?
It also worries me that this event may deter congresspeople from meeting with their constituents, and this would undermine our democracy. So I heartily agree with you, KareninWA.
Hemodoc, yes, I've heard that her surgeons are optimistic about her recovery. I dunno...maybe it takes something like this to remind our congresspeople (and the rest of us) that we cannot let anything interfere with the people's work. Everyone on both sides of the aisle seem to hold Rep Giffords in very high regard; it's really nice to hear one congressperson say good things about another.
The fact that she is following commands and responding appropriately this early in the game is a very good prognostic sign and probably one of the reasons you are hearing "optimistic" reports from her doctors. I have taken care of several brain injury patients who I thought would be complete vegetables who did remarkably well with time. She certainly is not out of the woods by any means, but from the initial reports I am hearing, it does sound as if she will be more fortunate than many that fell today. I heard that he shot up to 19 people and that they are looking for a second suspect.
Has anyone heard what kind of weapons he had? With his background it is not likely he was the one that purchased the weapons.
-
I heard it was a Glock 9mm, whatever that is. Don't know much about guns. Does that sound right?
-
I heard it was a Glock 9mm, whatever that is. Don't know much about guns. Does that sound right?
Very common caliber and popular make. They are too large for my hands, feels like a brick, but it is one of the most commonly used and issued by police departments.
It is not at all the most powerful handgun caliber, but it is what is used by the military at present. When I joined the Army in 1987, we qualified with the .45 cal pistol and by the time I left the Army in 1996, we qualified with the 9 mm. Obviously it is still a deadly weapon especially up that close as he was.
Handguns do not generate the same type of tissue damage as does a high powered rifle. Essentially it puts a single small bullet sized hole only through the tissue with minimal disturbance of tissue outside of the initial cavity. I had heard earlier it might have been an M-16 which is a military only weapon which generates several inches of shock wave around the cavity leaving major damage when it passes through the tissues called hydrostatic shock. That is why they are so much more deadly.
The FBI keeps data on all shootings in America and the majority of people shot with a hand gun actually survive, up to 80% so this man must have been point blank on all of these people to have done such damage to so many people.
Once again, I would hope we could quit throwing around all of these political associated myths. That is MUCH more dangerous than anything that this man did today.
-
Myth???
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"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.
-
Myth???
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"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.
Sadly, I fear for this nation if only based on the comments I have seen today. This is a tragedy by a nut case. If folks wish to make more of that, then this nation will delve into political anarchy followed by loss of ALL rights.
I would think that instead of denigrating honest and hard working people like me that is being passed around with open and veiled comments about gun toting Republicans, I would hope we would stand back, pray for this nation which is on a path that none us wish to go.
I would also think that everyone that hates Palin so much would be in a complete state of glee since this pretty much seals her political destiny just as Teddy's escapade on Martha's Vineyard.
If any one can seriously look at the manifesto this man posted hours before he went out and killed all of these people and connect that with a political motivation, then I admire their imagination.
Once again, When Ronald Reagan was shot, I don't remember this polarity and absurd blame setting. When JFK was shot, yes, I am old enough to remember that, I don't remember this type of polarity. Perhaps we really are heading into a nation where we can no longer reason with those that we don't agree, but if that is the case, it will not be a nation any of us enjoy any longer. I hope we are not at that point. Have we no more common bonds any longer to rally behind a tragedy that we would use it for political bickering?
-
Interesting that you should mention, Hemodoc, that this weapon is used by the military because I heard that the shooter had been turned down by the Army. Now that could very well be a rumor.
When JFK was shot, it was the Communists that people believed were behind the assassination. We seem to always have to have a big bad enemy.
I don't know if we'll ever know why this guy shot those people, but if there was a political motivation, it is probably along the lines of wanting to bring down the government as opposed to wanting to send some deadly message to Democrats. We are the government, the government is us. We are the ones who send these people to represent us, and if someone does them harm, then it is all of us that are harmed.
-
Myth???
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"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.
Sadly, I fear for this nation if only based on the comments I have seen today. This is a tragedy by a nut case. If folks wish to make more of that, then this nation will delve into political anarchy followed by loss of ALL rights.
I would think that instead of denigrating honest and hard working people like me that is being passed around with open and veiled comments about gun toting Republicans, I would hope we would stand back, pray for this nation which is on a path that none us wish to go.
I would also think that everyone that hates Palin so much would be in a complete state of glee since this pretty much seals her political destiny just as Teddy's escapade on Martha's Vineyard.
If any one can seriously look at the manifesto this man posted hours before he went out and killed all of these people and connect that with a political motivation, then I admire their imagination.
Once again, When Ronald Reagan was shot, I don't remember this polarity and absurd blame setting. When JFK was shot, yes, I am old enough to remember that, I don't remember this type of polarity. Perhaps we really are heading into a nation where we can no longer reason with those that we don't agree, but if that is the case, it will not be a nation any of us enjoy any longer. I hope we are not at that point. Have we no more common bonds any longer to rally behind a tragedy that we would use it for political bickering?
Okay, hop on down from your high horse. Now focus...The point of this is that politicians (on both sides) have been making what I consider very reckless statements that could possibly endanger others without any recourse at all. I said that this could be a complete coincidence. I thought it was extremely reckless and possibly dangerous when she originally did it and was sickened by todays event. My question is that IF he was in any way influenced by Palin's map then should she be held accountable in any way? I am not saying in what manner, I was asking in ANY manner?
-
Myth???
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"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.
Sadly, I fear for this nation if only based on the comments I have seen today. This is a tragedy by a nut case. If folks wish to make more of that, then this nation will delve into political anarchy followed by loss of ALL rights.
I would think that instead of denigrating honest and hard working people like me that is being passed around with open and veiled comments about gun toting Republicans, I would hope we would stand back, pray for this nation which is on a path that none us wish to go.
I would also think that everyone that hates Palin so much would be in a complete state of glee since this pretty much seals her political destiny just as Teddy's escapade on Martha's Vineyard.
If any one can seriously look at the manifesto this man posted hours before he went out and killed all of these people and connect that with a political motivation, then I admire their imagination.
Once again, When Ronald Reagan was shot, I don't remember this polarity and absurd blame setting. When JFK was shot, yes, I am old enough to remember that, I don't remember this type of polarity. Perhaps we really are heading into a nation where we can no longer reason with those that we don't agree, but if that is the case, it will not be a nation any of us enjoy any longer. I hope we are not at that point. Have we no more common bonds any longer to rally behind a tragedy that we would use it for political bickering?
Okay, hop on down from your high horse. Now focus...The point of this is that politicians (on both sides) have been making what I consider very reckless statements that could possibly endanger others without any recourse at all. I said that this could be a complete coincidence. I thought it was extremely reckless and possibly dangerous when she originally did it and was sickened by todays event. My question is that IF he was in any way influenced by Palin's map then should she be held accountable in any way? I am not saying in what manner, I was asking in ANY manner?
We have at least two threads on the same subject. Okarol just posted one of his rants on the other thread. Once again, why are talking politics when a lunatic did this that probably is not only unstable but sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic. Will have to wait and see what his psychiatric diagnosis is, but to associate this with politics is not appropriate in my opinion. No high horse here, just saddened to see the association made at all in this tragic situation. Once again, have we really fallen that far? People sling accusations so quickly today that cause a great deal of harm. That is not a good trait for any nation. Once again, what about the absurd death threats against the Palin girl for being a finalist on dancing with the stars. This sort of talk is not going to help the situation and we become even more polarized and unable to reason with each other. Then we are ALL in trouble. Is that where all want to head?
-
Did Briston Palin really get death threats for being on Dancing with the Stars??? That's just beyond stupid. That's downright cruel. I despise cruelty in people. I am the first person to give someone the benefit of the doubt or to try to find the good in someone, but I truly cannot ever defend cruelty. And I also hate it when someone is out to humiliate someone else. I don't like seeing anyone being made fun of.
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
-
[/quote] From YL Guy
Give me a break. Someone with Sara's popularity should not be putting cross-hares on people. It is reckless. Politicians on both sides are rarely held accountable for their ludicrous statements. The shooter was caught. It could be that he never even heard of her map.
Imagine if one of your family members was "targeted"? Would you still feel the same way? Would you? Honestly!
[/quote]
YL Guy I think your post has put the subject of this thread in the right perspective. This thread has given me far more
background information than that reported in the English Media. I think that even if the incident had never taken place Sarah Palin's cross hair map was an act of gross irresponsibility.
Sarah Palin is a totally brainless airhead. Most people without a brain are not dangerous but she most certainly is! You had a male version as your last president remember? and we had the global village idiot Tony Blair.
It's a sad reflection of our western world that we elect people for public office based on personality cult rather than on a serious analysis on their home and foreign policies and their political and personal integrity. As for the shooting, shouldn't Americans be looking at their over liberal laws towards firearms possession?
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
Bill, as you know, I am not a fan of ANY of the politicians, right or left for the evidence of corruption on both sides is quite evident and the representation of the people is sadly few and far between. I won't list these things, people would just take them out of context of what I am saying.
Today, politics at the level of the street so to speak is filled with rhetoric and ignorance really on both sides, and stirring up anger to stimulate the respective base is the modus operandi of most politicians today, instead of the statesmen approach we had by many years ago. Audio-visual sound bites now predominate the landscape.
Interestingly, that sound bite mentality is probably in part what led Palin to use her ill fated target cross hair poster. It will likely go down in history as one of the greatest political mistakes in American history. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will never let her live this down. Coming from Alaska and understanding a bit of the frontier mentality of Alaska the Palin is likewise from, I really don't believe she ever meant to incite violence or anything that happened. Yet, again, I believe that this will be Palin's Nancy Kerrigan moment in Disneyland that echoes around the world.
The only way the Republicans will be able to get back on track is to offer up Palin as a sacrifice which many on the Republican side will gladly do.
So we all see through the glass of our own liking, but truly, the political rhetoric I hear in campaigns on both sides now truly sickens me since none of them address the real issues before us. As Europe burns in economic debt nearing collapse, both the Democrats and the Republicans have brought us to the the brink of that same abyss. They have both used the tax payers treasury as a slush fund for political favors to get reelected. How long shall a nation with these practices last? The history of democracies goes through many steps, all to the same end, a totalitarian dictatorship. I thought we had that with Bush and the Patriot Act, etc, then Obama comes in and starts government ownership of private corporations, firing CEO's from the White House. Who wins? Who loses? In my opinion, us grunts at the bottom of the system are not at all in the winners circle with this mess we call the American political system.
So, yes, I am a concervative, but I really couldn't name a single person that represents me. All I see is the large corporate influences and global influences in all of them.
In any case, not to ramble, but what do we really have of the political process that our founders left us as "we the people." I find it harder and harder to find that in all of this rabble day by day. Sadly, we the people are beginning to have less and less in common with each other. Unless all of this reverses, I don't see good outcomes for the future of my kids generation.
-
Give me a break. Someone with Sara's popularity should not be putting cross-hares on people. It is reckless. Politicians on both sides are rarely held accountable for their ludicrous statements. The shooter was caught. It could be that he never even heard of her map.
Imagine if one of your family members was "targeted"? Would you still feel the same way? Would you? Honestly!
[/quote]
YL Guy I think your post has put the subject of this thread in the right perspective. This thread has given me far more
background information than that reported in the English Media. I think that even if the incident had never taken place Sarah Palin's cross hair map was an act of gross irresponsibility.
Sarah Palin is a totally brainless airhead. Most people without a brain are not dangerous but she most certainly is! You had a male version as your last president remember? and we had the global village idiot Tony Blair.
It's a sad reflection of our western world that we elect people for public office based on personality cult rather than on a serious analysis on their home and foreign policies and their political and personal integrity. As for the shooting, shouldn't Americans be looking at their over liberal laws towards firearms possession?
[/quote]
Sadly, the rate of mass killings is the same in nations with and without strict gun restrictions. CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and the criminals have more guns than ever, yet the law abiding citizens are the only ones restricted. It is not Idaho that my wife was almost mugged my friend, but here less than a mile from home in CA. We walk around Idaho which allows ownership of machine guns and silencers without any problems at all. Can you imagine a thief doing a home invasion on people that own machine guns? Doesn't happen much at all in Idaho my friend. Here in CA with very restrictive gun laws, we had a home invasion robbery one block away from our house. By the way, Giffords is an outspoken advocate for access to guns and gun rights in Arizona. Once again, one more political discussion stemming from a lunatic out of control. But the current unthinking manipulative political system we have today shall certainly take advantage of this not immediately, but it will be there.
For those of us in America that are responsible gun owners used to protect us against truly wild animals and self defense as well, we are over all, guiet, unassuming in our adherence to this great privilege most nations no longer have. I don't recall England any more having bears, wolves, mountain lions or grizzly bears that are a part of the outdoors in northern Idaho and Alaska. Once again, it is a mindset that is becoming a lost way of life to live off of the land that is a part of the way people in these areas support their families with food and salmon for instance. The urban world has no clue to this sort of life anymore. Believe it or not, where I went to high school in Maine, people had rifles hanging on the back window of their trucks back in the 1970s and would sometimes come to school after going out hunting first. We didn't shoot up the schools back in those days.
So, a sad tragic event will most likely best be remembered by the political fallout and not the tragedy itself.
-
Maybe there is a thread about it somewhere else but Peter, with your background do you share the critique (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-06-column06_ST_N.htm) of Palin's Discovery Show that it revealed she had not spent much time hunting?
Back to topic I think the rhetoric of the Tea Party should be part of this discussion. You can see it in people's Facebook status. Just everyday connections who I don't think of as being very political painting political differences in terms of doomsday’s and Armageddons. They say or quote approvingly that it's not that their political opponents are wrong it's that they're illegitimate in the same way the monarchy was illegitimate. To me I don't know what to make of people's casting the last two years as undemocratic and not in keeping with our Republic's history.
It's like there is two different realities, that's the most worrying thing. I see a decisively won election and an issue central to the campaign getting passed and signed into law - health care access reform. I see that legislation being passed largely as it was described during the campaign and as being subject to one year of debate.
The debt is very relevant to this board because Medicare and the assumptions you make about Medicare spending is the biggest part of the problem - not the only part but the part that needs to be addressed if the debt is to be stabilized. Medicare is about our grandparents making us pay for their healthcare through the legislative process - we dialyzors got caught up in it but it isn't some great conspiracy. We inherited obligation along with all our nation's positive endowments. How to decide how much debt we can carry (at a time of near zero inflation and the dollar is the World's only credible currency for the foreseeable future) is a political problem, it is not a problem that calls for revolution.
-
Maybe there is a thread about it somewhere else but Peter, with your background do you share the critique (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-06-column06_ST_N.htm) of Palin's Discovery Show that it revealed she had not spent much time hunting?
Back to topic I think the rhetoric of the Tea Party should be part of this discussion. You can see it in people's Facebook status. Just everyday connections who I don't think of as being very political painting political differences in terms of doomsday’s and Armageddons. They say or quote approvingly that it's not that their political opponents are wrong it's that they're illegitimate in the same way the monarchy was illegitimate. To me I don't know what to make of people's casting the last two years as undemocratic and not in keeping with our Republic's history.
It's like there is two different realities, that's the most worrying thing. I see a decisively won election and an issue central to the campaign getting passed and signed into law - health care access reform. I see that legislation being passed largely as it was described during the campaign and as being subject to one year of debate.
The debt is very relevant to this board because Medicare and the assumptions you make about Medicare spending is the biggest part of the problem - not the only part but the part that needs to be addressed if the debt is to be stabilized. Medicare is about our grandparents making us pay for their healthcare through the legislative process - we dialyzors got caught up in it but it isn't some great conspiracy. We inherited obligation along with all our nation's positive endowments. How to decide how much debt we can carry (at a time of near zero inflation and the dollar is the World's only credible currency for the foreseeable future) is a political problem, it is not a problem that calls for revolution.
When did I ever call of for revolution? When did the Tea Party folks call for Revolution? Certainly not, they are instead calling for a return to the power of the people and that is what the overwhelming election in November of 2010 was all about, rejecting the approach that Obama took the last two years. Just because we have nut cases that wish to portray returning to constitutional standards as "revolution" that is no manner what the majority of us conservative folks are looking for. We simply want to be able to earn our living and support our families with out undo government interference. Yes there are fringe folks that people like to use as the example of what a Tea Party person, but Bill, when have you ever heard me, Peter Laird ever call for a revolution?
Once again, this is simple the type of political rhetoric that makes people angry at the opposition and not able to see that in reality, when it comes to day to day living, we all have the same stake in the same pie. Americans in general do not want to live under socialism the way that Europe and other nations have adopted. Most people in America simply want to go to work and support their own families without undo taxation and regulatory restrictions. Is that revolution? Sorry, but you really lost me on that Bill.
-
The political rhetoric of today is perhaps the biggest part of this tragic news story. Just the title of this thread speaks to that issue alone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/pima-county-sheriff-sets-debate-price-free-speech/
-
Another commentary on the danger of the political rhetoric, NY Times this time.
The problem here doesn’t lie with the activists like most of those who populate the Tea Parties, ordinary citizens who are doing what citizens are supposed to do — engaging in a conversation about the direction of the country. Rather, the problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences. . .
Contrast that with one of John McCain’s finer moments as a presidential candidate in 2008, when a woman at a Minnesota town hall meeting asserted that Mr. Obama was a closeted Arab. “No, ma’am, he’s not,” Mr. McCain quickly replied, taking back the microphone. “He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with.” Mr. McCain was harking back to a different moment in American politics, in which such disagreements could be intense without becoming existential clashes in which the freedom of the country was at stake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html?hp
-
Maybe there is a thread about it somewhere else but Peter, with your background do you share the critique (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-06-column06_ST_N.htm) of Palin's Discovery Show that it revealed she had not spent much time hunting?
Back to topic I think the rhetoric of the Tea Party should be part of this discussion. You can see it in people's Facebook status. Just everyday connections who I don't think of as being very political painting political differences in terms of doomsday’s and Armageddons. They say or quote approvingly that it's not that their political opponents are wrong it's that they're illegitimate in the same way the monarchy was illegitimate. To me I don't know what to make of people's casting the last two years as undemocratic and not in keeping with our Republic's history.
It's like there is two different realities, that's the most worrying thing. I see a decisively won election and an issue central to the campaign getting passed and signed into law - health care access reform. I see that legislation being passed largely as it was described during the campaign and as being subject to one year of debate.
The debt is very relevant to this board because Medicare and the assumptions you make about Medicare spending is the biggest part of the problem - not the only part but the part that needs to be addressed if the debt is to be stabilized. Medicare is about our grandparents making us pay for their healthcare through the legislative process - we dialyzors got caught up in it but it isn't some great conspiracy. We inherited obligation along with all our nation's positive endowments. How to decide how much debt we can carry (at a time of near zero inflation and the dollar is the World's only credible currency for the foreseeable future) is a political problem, it is not a problem that calls for revolution.
When did I ever call of for revolution? When did the Tea Party folks call for Revolution? Certainly not, they are instead calling for a return to the power of the people and that is what the overwhelming election in November of 2010 was all about, rejecting the approach that Obama took the last two years. Just because we have nut cases that wish to portray returning to constitutional standards as "revolution" that is no manner what the majority of us conservative folks are looking for. We simply want to be able to earn our living and support our families with out undo government interference. Yes there are fringe folks that people like to use as the example of what a Tea Party person, but Bill, when have you ever heard me, Peter Laird ever call for a revolution?
Once again, this is simple the type of political rhetoric that makes people angry at the opposition and not able to see that in reality, when it comes to day to day living, we all have the same stake in the same pie. Americans in general do not want to live under socialism the way that Europe and other nations have adopted. Most people in America simply want to go to work and support their own families without undo taxation and regulatory restrictions. Is that revolution? Sorry, but you really lost me on that Bill.
I didn't say you specifically Peter, I referenced the all too common language that people use, for instance in their FB updates (I don't recall you being much of a FB user so I"m not sure why you would take this to mean you). This is very common misuse of laguage and indeed you used some of that rhetoric here. Reread your language: "brink of that same abyss. They have both used the tax payers treasury as a slush fund for political favors to get reelected. How long shall a nation with these practices last? The history of democracies goes through many steps, all to the same end, a totalitarian dictatorship."
If I thought our polity was literally on the brink of an abyss or on the verge of a totalitarian dictatorship then I would be thinking about revolution. Loosing an election is not the same as living under a dictatorship. If you believe our politicians are unredeemably corrupt then that would seem to allow for any behavior. The example of this on the left would be in the '70s with the SLA and such. Do you really believe we are or were on the brink of a dictatorship? Do you believe that if the 2010 election had returned Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker we would be living under a defacto dictatorship?
-
With his background it is not likely he was the one that purchased the weapons.
Unfortunately, he was the person who purchased the gun:
"The court documents say that Mr. Loughner purchased the semiautomatic Glock pistol used at the shooting at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson on Nov. 30."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/politics/10giffords.html?hp
-
Bill, I spent nine years in the US Army for the purpose of paying for my education. When I joined the military, I was a Boston liberal voting fro Ted Kennedy and Mike Dukakis since I was from Massachusets and did my schooling in Boston. In the course of my time taking care of US soldiers, I had the opportunity to talk to hundreds if not thousands of them and what they had done in the military. I left the Army a changed man in part by learning of how many people value liberty for this nation and those around the world that they are willing to die for that freedom. It was a powerful message that I heard from so many.
Liberty I am afraid is a concept that few in this nation any longer understand and all too many take for granted. The type of polarization of political beliefs all tied to instant labels is a danger to this nation that was founded on the principles of the rule of law. If we disagree over those laws, then work together, LAWFULLY, to change them.
The current political theatre on both sides of the wagon undermine these principles and foundations. I like the example from the quote above about John McCain in the campaign from the NYT. We are losing our civility and our common bonds that we share as a nation. If you do look at the history of democracy which is about a 3000 year old concept, they followed very common paths to their end which was always a tyrannical dictatorship. It is one of the inherant deficiencies of a democracy and that is why the founding fathers rejected democracy for a republic, not based on the rule of the majority but based on the rule of law.
What has been the common failing path of democracies before us, when the people learned that they could raid the treasury through the power of the majority, the economics led down the wrong path to economic, then political and military ruin. The economics of the grand depts we have in my opinion are very dangeous and even Giffords made that as her primary concern when she returned to congress last week. Her last interview just happened to be on Fox news.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gabrielle-giffods-on-fox-news-2011-1
So, freedom and liberty are a very precious commodity that is very, very fragile as history has taught us. If Americans cannot reason amongst ourselves, how shall we rule over this land with liberty? The hatred and vitriol between the different political fractions of America are a great danger in the manner in which they are being manipulated, not by the grunts like you and me Bill that probably agree on 90% or more of our day to day interactions, but by those that will use our anger to achieve their political ends without thought or real fear of the long term consequences. I would say that I speak for the majority of the so called "Tea Party" who simply want government to restrain their excesses.
Once again, I really think that the NYT article I linked to above is a great starting point for this conversation.
God bless,
Peter
-
With his background it is not likely he was the one that purchased the weapons.
Unfortunately, he was the person who purchased the gun:
"The court documents say that Mr. Loughner purchased the semiautomatic Glock pistol used at the shooting at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson on Nov. 30."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/politics/10giffords.html?hp
That will only make it a further uphill battle for law abiding citizens like me to keep these wonderful privileges we have here in America of gun ownership and the right to keep and bare arms.
What can we do to keep nutcases like this from mulitplying like they appear to be doing lately. This man got close enough that he could easily have killed her with a knife if he didn't have access to a gun. In many nations, that is how political assasinations occur even today, look at Imelda Marcos with an attacker against her with a machete. Look at Julius Caesar, it is people that kill and will use what ever instrument they can secure to do so. Isn't that the real underlying problem even in nations with strict gun control?
-
But that's just it Peter, there is wide political agreement that our debt trajectory is unsustainable. However, I say we are not so delicate that having a mortgage in excess of our annual income is some existential problem. It just seems unjustified to be concerned for the very existence of our republic at a time of US hegemony. We, like our forefathers, will pass on financial obligations to the next generation but we are also passing on the ability to meet those obligations.
It's the overwrought language of the urgency needed to address our supposed loss of liberty that is so concerning. I don't believe having a certain level of national debt is cause for this much alarm. I don't believe that we are better off defaulting than raising the debt ceiling, for instance. But the point is that this is a political discussion. Figuring out a solution is well within the bounds of what our political system has dealt with in the past. Our level of debt isn't a sign that we are in the last crumbling days of Nero.
-
I agree that people who stand to gain power and influence (and, so, money) manipulate us. We need to guard against that.
A quick comment about "liberty"...there has been a lot of discussion in our politics about liberty and freedom and personal responsibility. The element that seems to be lacking in these discussions is the element of social responsibility, the good of people other than ourselves and the idea of looking after one another. I can't help but believe that when some people talk about "liberty", they are really saying, "Screw the rest of you." Our population is growing and and changing and we are becoming increasingly interconnected. It is not easy to live all alone in the North Woods somewhere without your existence in some way impacting that of someone else.
I think the mandate for everyone to buy health insurance is indicative of this. I can understand how someone might not want to be forced by the government to buy heath insurance. It does seem to fly in the face of "liberty". But I personally believe that it is our social duty to make sure we are all insured and contribute to the pot so that someone who does get sick or is hurt in an accident can have access to affordable care. We all pay our taxes so that we can have police and fire protection.
Re guns...we as a society have decided that barring certain restrictions, we have a right to own a gun. This is the choice that we have made, and we have to live with the consequences of that choice. If someone legally has a gun and flips out and shoots a bunch of people, we can mourn but we as a society have to take responsibility for that societal choice. We have a lot of laws in place that are supposed to keep people like this gunman from buying a gun, but people break laws every day so that they can make a buck. That's probably what happened here.
Re McCain, I did not vote for him, but I vastly admired his answer to the woman who questioned Obama's character. Something has happened to Senator McCain. He has lost his honor somewhere along the way since 2008. He has become angry and bitter, and I really hate to see that.
-
How others see us...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gabrielle-giffords-is-the-victim-of-a-debased-political-culture-2180268.html
-
Give me a break. Someone with Sara's popularity should not be putting cross-hares on people. It is reckless. Politicians on both sides are rarely held accountable for their ludicrous statements. The shooter was caught. It could be that he never even heard of her map.
Imagine if one of your family members was "targeted"? Would you still feel the same way? Would you? Honestly!
It wasnt reckless and it had nothing to do with what happened. In no way shape or form was it a reference to guns nor taking someones life.
In fact lets look at a little article from a couple years ago on the very liberal site, thedailykos
June 25 2008 dailykos
Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution Last week.
Ackerman, Gary (NY-05)
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Bean, Melissa (IL-08)
Berkley, Shelley (NV-01)
Berman, Howard (CA-28)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Bishop, Timothy (NY-01)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boucher, Rick (VA-09)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Boyda, Nancy (KS-02)
Brown, Corrine (FL-03)
Butterfield, G.K. (NC-01)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Chris (PA-10)
Castor, Kathy (FL-11)
Cazayoux, Don (LA-06)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-05)
Clyburn, James (SC-06)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cramer, Bud (AL-05)
Crowley, Joe (NY-07)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Dicks, Norman (WA-06)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Green, AL (TX-09)
Green, Gene (TX-29)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Hastings, Alcee (FL-23)
Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD-AL)
Higgins, Brian (NY-27)
Hinojosa, Ruben (TX-15)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Hoyer, Steny (MD-05)
Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)
Kildee, Dale (MI-05)
Kind, Ron (WI-03)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Lampson, Nick (TX-22)
Langevin, JIm (RI-02)
Lipinski, Dan (IL-03)
Lowey, Nita (NY-18)
Mahoney, Tim (FL-16)
Marshall, Jim (GA-08)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-04)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Meeks, Gregory (NY-06)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Murtha, John (PA-12)
Ortiz, Solomon (TX-27)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO-07)
Peterson, Colin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Rahall, Nick (WV-03)
Reyes, Silvestre (TX-16)
Richardson, Laura (CA-37)
Rodriguez, Ciro (TX-23)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Ruppesberger, Dutch (MD-02)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Sestak, Joe (PA-07)
Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Sires, Albio (NJ-13)
Skelton, Ike (MO-04)
Smith, Adam (WA-09)
Snyder, Vic (AR-02)
Space, Zach (OH-18)
Spratt, John (SC-05)
Stupak, Bart (MI-01)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Bennie (MS-02)
Udall, Mark (CO-02)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)
Yarmuth, John (KY-03
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568
From a former classmate of Loughner,
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
More from the daily kos. This was posted on their site a few days ago, they quickly pulled it after this incident. (Item attached)
So using that rational that Palin takes blame I guess we can put the blame before that on the dailykos for their "target list" and the Obama Administration since it was the one who ok'd the individual to buy the gun.
Or in reality it was the guy was a nut job who obviously did it of his own accord and his own accord alone. Personally I go with the reality thing.
-
:thumbup;
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
I love it, a left wing radical taking out the fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat for being too conservative :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup;
Well, is political rhetoric the way we should go? Then let's take the spin above and let it run its course if that is what folks wish to do.
No, forgive me for making fun of a terrible tragedy, but we are on a thread blaming a completely innocent person and this is a liberal nut job, not a conservative nut job. Should we now go forth in glee because it was one of your nut jobs?
No, I think that we should all stare into the face of the immature and de-humanizing myths folks are pushing on both sides of the aisle and act like adults if we can that anymore.
The rhetoric is dangerous and has consequences. Perhaps everyone in the world recognizes what we don't. I myself would like to see it end. If folks wish to discuss real issues with passion, so be it, but I am getting tired of all of the myths about people like me and vice versa.
-
I agree that people who stand to gain power and influence (and, so, money) manipulate us. We need to guard against that.
A quick comment about "liberty"...there has been a lot of discussion in our politics about liberty and freedom and personal responsibility. The element that seems to be lacking in these discussions is the element of social responsibility, the good of people other than ourselves and the idea of looking after one another. I can't help but believe that when some people talk about "liberty", they are really saying, "Screw the rest of you." Our population is growing and and changing and we are becoming increasingly interconnected. It is not easy to live all alone in the North Woods somewhere without your existence in some way impacting that of someone else.
I think the mandate for everyone to buy health insurance is indicative of this. I can understand how someone might not want to be forced by the government to buy heath insurance. It does seem to fly in the face of "liberty". But I personally believe that it is our social duty to make sure we are all insured and contribute to the pot so that someone who does get sick or is hurt in an accident can have access to affordable care. We all pay our taxes so that we can have police and fire protection.
Re guns...we as a society have decided that barring certain restrictions, we have a right to own a gun. This is the choice that we have made, and we have to live with the consequences of that choice. If someone legally has a gun and flips out and shoots a bunch of people, we can mourn but we as a society have to take responsibility for that societal choice. We have a lot of laws in place that are supposed to keep people like this gunman from buying a gun, but people break laws every day so that they can make a buck. That's probably what happened here.
Re McCain, I did not vote for him, but I vastly admired his answer to the woman who questioned Obama's character. Something has happened to Senator McCain. He has lost his honor somewhere along the way since 2008. He has become angry and bitter, and I really hate to see that.
Dear MooseMom, once again, it is a myth that conservatives are not caring and are simply cold hearted as have as you said, a screw you attitude. In fact, America is the most generous and giving nation in the history of the world, and that is not only with our money, it is with the blood of our children of America lest we forget the sacrifices this nation has given to freedom around the world. MooseMom, it is a simple myth to call people like me, a person who identifies and represents the average person in the so called Tea Party movement screw you people.
Now if you wish to say that we tell able bodied people to get up and pull your own weight, why not that is indeed a Bible principle itself:
II Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Is that too much to ask of able bodied people? We have far too many people taking advantage of the system for their gain. I live in an average community where a few years ago, someone rented out a house to section 8. Immediately there were over 20 people in the house, and then the crime wave hit our neighborhood. A criminal gang had moved in on the pretense of housing of their elderly grand parents. The only drug deal I have ever witnessed in my life occurred right in front of my house with a 13 or 14 year old punk kid looking me directly in my eyes with no fear what so ever. In fact, he walked over in front of my yard 15 feet away from, he could have walked 5 feet further and been hidden from my view, but he did it right in front of me glaring right at me. I surmised he was probably armed since he was just a short punk kid about 5 feet tall at most weighing probably 120 pounds at most, if even that.
We had break ins and we had fights right out in front of our house almost daily from the rival gang bangers and the government did nothing whatsoever despite the fact that they arrested the ring leaders of that house for drug trafficking and other felonies. It was only the recession and the foreclosure by the owner that gave us back our neighborhood. No one in any government agency did anything for our neighborhood to protect us from these people abusing the system even though it is illegal to have that many people in a section 8 house. Several people moved out of the neighborhood and we even considered doing the same. By the grace of the Lord, we have our neighborhood back since they are now gone and there is a new owner living in the house and taking care of it. By the way, I forgot to tell how they really destroyed this very nicely built house as well.
Is that the type of society we wish to promote in America? Are people fed up with government sponsored programs ruining neighborhoods such as my example and many others I know of personally. A brand new neighborhood became the center of gang activity about 3 years ago because developers bought up several homes and rented them all out to section 8. The shootings and gang activity led to a public outcry. My experience is unfortunately not an isolated incident, I wish it was.
Are there folks that do well with a hand up? Absolutely and I am glad that our system has the compassion to care for those that are in dire straights, such as dialysis patients for instance. But all I have to do is look three doors over to see the waste, and abuse and outright fraud of these public funds that many are simply playing the system. The LA gangs have found out how to play the system and this is their common way of getting a free drug house to work from.
So, we are not the screw you people, we may very well be the stand on your own two feet young man people, but isn't that the goal of a healthy society?
-
Hemodoc, I find it utterly fascinating that you assumed that I was talking about conservatives in general and you in particular as the "screw you" people. Not once did I use the word "conservative" or "tea party" in my post...not once. Why not? Because I do NOT believe that conservatives are "cold hearted". I don't make those kinds of generalizations because I know they are false. But I firmly believe that there is a group of Americans who are convinced that any and everyone who needs Medicaid or some other benefit are somehow inferior and, worse of all, are so defined as "them", ie, "surely, not us." Unfortunately, there is a vocal branch of the so-called Tea Party who seem to fear people who are not "like them."
I agree that people will game the system, but it is unfair to tarnish all people who may need support as lazy or deceitful or cheating. And I'm sure you don't view things that way. We have all kinds of laws targeted at people who defraud and demean our generous natures, but such fraud still happens. It's like gun laws...we have all kinds of laws targeted at people who are unfit to own a weapon, but nutcases like the guy in Arizona still find a way to wreak havoc. We just have to do a much better job in enforcing our laws.
I agree that all able-bodied people should pull their own weight, of course. But someone who is able bodied today may not be so tomorrow; you never know when you might be the one who needs help. It's easy to spout off about "self-reliance" and "liberty" and "personal freedom" if you have enough to eat, a place to sleep, have received a good education and are healthy and can see a doctor whenever you please.
Sure, we are a generous nation...when we feel like it. We'll send money to Haiti, but we balk at insisting that all of our fellow citizens have access to affordable health care. We glory in having the right to have a gun, but we don't seem to believe that all Americans have the right to access to health care. I had to buy an annual health insurance policy when I first returned to live in the US. One week before expiration, I became ill (not kidney related) and was hospitalized for five days. When my claims were filed, they were all denied AND my policy was cancelled retroactively. I had to sue the insurance company, and of course I won because the ins co just made crap up. No American should have to fight like that for something so basic as health care...I know I don't have to tell you that because I am aware of all the work you do in the dialysis advocacy field. So yeah..we like feeling virtuous when we send money to poor brown people whose entire country has been demolished, but when it comes to providing basic services for fellow Americans who shouldn't have to rely on charity, we sometimes really suck.
My son is autistic, and he lives with his dad in the UK because educational and employment opportunities are so much better there than here. My state, Illinois, ranks dead last in funding for adults with disabilities. If this is truly the most generous nation on earth...if benevolent generosity is the very definition of America..., no citizen should have to worry about bankruptcy in the face of catastrophic illness, no citizen should ever go hungry or homeless, no dialysis patient should EVER be subject to the reuse of an artificial kidney, no child should be denied the best education on the face of the earth, no parent should have to fight for services for their autistic kid, and there shouldn't be a shortage of donor organs.
The scenario you described re your neighborhood and the presence of gangs must have made you feel really frustrated. I'd feel the same. It's good that there was a public outcry...we all have a duty to protect our neighbors from this kind of activity. I do hate waste...it is sinful, and I think we all should fight hard to eliminate waste wherever we can. But what might seem wasteful to you might be a godsend to someone we don't even know. We just have to be careful when we make moral judgments about other people's needs. I'd rather have to deal with waste, though, than deal with corporate interests that are limited to making profit and not in serving the American people well.
I hope I have made sense because I didn't get one single second of sleep last night, I have a dreadful cold and I am medicated to the eyeballs.
-
Dear MooseMom,
My vote is to just stop all of this non-productive rhetoric, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
I actually worked at the May Institute for Autistic Children for about two years as a special education teacher. Autism can be quite tragic, but all of the kids at this residential center were paid by the school districts and the other programs. I thought that was the law everywhere but I guess I don't know.
http://www.mayinstitute.org/
Sorry to hear you have to go all the way to England to see your son.
I for one think that the way America is attempting health care reform is not being done with the wisdom that other nations have accomplished this transition. Switzerland has mandatory health insurance mandate for all citizens so that the costs are evenly spread across the population. Those that can't afford it are covered by government programs. All health organizations are by law non-profit. I see that as one of the biggest flaws in the American system. For-profit health is really a silly way to entrust our health and future, too many examples to back this up.
Do I see America getting a sensible system, not any time soon. Interestingly, the initial Blue Cross had only one price for all people, then other companies started preferential policy pricing which forced all of them into an insane competition and exclusion. Probably too late to put the genie back in, but we have already given up a better system years ago. We are unfortunately reaping the greed sown by a generation before us. I have seen the benefits of being a doctor at an ethical non-profit, Kaiser, Southern CA and I enjoy that now as a patient.
Interestingly, several years ago, many from the NHS looked at Kaiser as a model for the NHS because of better resource allocation and outcomes than the NHS for the same money involved. I think that speak of the possibilities of how we could do even better than the NHS. Will that ever happen, I doubt it.
-
Hemodoc, I agree with your entire post.
My son travels here to see me as I am not sure I am up for international travel anymore. I fear dialysis mostly because it will mean that travelling to the UK to see my son if there is an emergency will be hard...my insurance wouldn't pay for dialysis treatments in the UK, and, well...that's way off topic.
I am hopeful that the rhetoric will be toned down. I think there is a lot of soul searching these days in this regard. It may not come to anything, but at least we are pausing. I do have some hope.
-
It pains me to see you good folk arguing like this. I don't think we should allow political discussion that is severing friendships...moderator, where are you?
Yes, I know it's not my business, but I'm concerned.
-
It pains me to see you good folk arguing like this. I don't think we should allow political discussion that is severing friendships...moderator, where are you?
Yes, I know it's not my business, but I'm concerned.
I've been following this thread. I don't see any angry mud-slinging going on. To me, it is a civil discussion about many of the events that are goiing on in America today, from people who have differing thoughts and opinions, but are open to hearing those thoughts and opinions. The AZ shootings are hard to ignore, and need to be discussed. This is a much more civil and intelligent discussion than on many news boards out there. I am learning a lot from everyone here, and appreciate that. What would shut this down is name calling or profanity, and I see none of that here. I think both MooseMom and HemoDoc are not the kind of people to resort to that. They are both contributing to a needed thread on this board about a horrible tragedy here in the USA. Emotions in this country are running high right now. Discussing the issue is a way to cope.
What really makes me >:( is hearing the reports that the WBC is planning on protesting at the funerals of those shot and killed, including the 9-year old girl. WBC is some religious-fanatic group that thinks soldiers and others die because homosexuality is tolerated in this country. They celebrate deaths like these and say they are God's punishments for homeosexual sins. They stage these protests in hopes of getting their rights to free speech trampled on, then file lawsuits and sue. This is where responsibility for what one says comes into play. If I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and there is none, then I must be responsible for any mayhem I cause. Why isn't this true for this group of "people"? I just don't get it.
Sad time to be an American. :'(
KarenInWA
-
It pains me to see you good folk arguing like this. I don't think we should allow political discussion that is severing friendships...moderator, where are you?
Yes, I know it's not my business, but I'm concerned.
I've been following this thread. I don't see any angry mud-slinging going on. To me, it is a civil discussion about many of the events that are goiing on in America today, from people who have differing thoughts and opinions, but are open to hearing those thoughts and opinions. The AZ shootings are hard to ignore, and need to be discussed. This is a much more civil and intelligent discussion than on many news boards out there. I am learning a lot from everyone here, and appreciate that. What would shut this down is name calling or profanity, and I see none of that here. I think both MooseMom and HemoDoc are not the kind of people to resort to that. They are both contributing to a needed thread on this board about a horrible tragedy here in the USA. Emotions in this country are running high right now. Discussing the issue is a way to cope.
What really makes me >:( is hearing the reports that the WBC is planning on protesting at the funerals of those shot and killed, including the 9-year old girl. WBC is some religious-fanatic group that thinks soldiers and others die because homosexuality is tolerated in this country. They celebrate deaths like these and say they are God's punishments for homeosexual sins. They stage these protests in hopes of getting their rights to free speech trampled on, then file lawsuits and sue. This is where responsibility for what one says comes into play. If I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and there is none, then I must be responsible for any mayhem I cause. Why isn't this true for this group of "people"? I just don't get it.
Sad time to be an American. :'(
KarenInWA
Thank you Karen, I thought we were having a civil discourse on a tragic and heated topic. I have the greatest respect for all who have participated and I believe we have shared and learned from everyone's perspective.
As far as the nut job cult called WBC, they are not Baptist and they do not represent Christian ideals. I would hope folks are able to see that they do not present the gospel of Christ in any way. I suspect that they will not get any where near if folks simply turn out in large numbers and prevent their protest at the funerals themselves. That is a tactic that has worked well with these creeps before. As Baptist myself, these folks do not at all speak for me.
-
Lets blame Sarah come on.
Lets talk about personnel responsibility. We are all to be held accountable for OUR own actions.
When Bush was president i saw progressives or people on the left what ever you want to call them carrying signs of Bushes head in crosshairs on a regular basis. As well as bush looking like Hitler ect ect...
This guy was a whack job (does it matter if he was a rep or a Dem????) People are looking to label and place blame. Does one really have to look hard. The guy was a lunatic he did a terrable thing and he has been caught.
We can blame the music he listened to-his parnets-his school-his pastor-his sister his girlfriend ect ect. But HE is the one to blame. Not Sarah not Bush not Obama not peloszi.
Seems personnel responsibility like common sense has left America. It is always someone Else's fault.
-
Lets blame Sarah come on.
Lets talk about personnel responsibility. We are all to be held accountable for OUR own actions.
When Bush was president i saw progressives or people on the left what ever you want to call them carrying signs of Bushes head in crosshairs on a regular basis. As well as bush looking like Hitler ect ect...
This guy was a whack job (does it matter if he was a rep or a Dem????) People are looking to label and place blame. Does one really have to look hard. The guy was a lunatic he did a terrable thing and he has been caught.
We can blame the music he listened to-his parnets-his school-his pastor-his sister his girlfriend ect ect. But HE is the one to blame. Not Sarah not Bush not Obama not peloszi.
Seems personnel responsibility like common sense has left America. It is always someone Else's fault.
Paul,
I do agree with you that the gunman is fully responsible for his own actions. However, Sarah Palin is in a position of leadership in this country, in the sense that many look up to her. When one is in such a position, one also needs to take personal responsibility for the communications they put out there. We all know that there is political discourse in our nation, and a LOT of anger. Mixed in that are crazy people who have no boundaries. Yes, we still have no idea what brought this loon to the edge, but I for one am afraid of copy cats. There is also a list of nutjobs who have commited equally reprehensible crimes, citing certain media and political icons as their heroes. When in a position of leadership, be it political (especially) or media, one needs to take personal responsibility for the anger that may result. Personally, if I were Sarah Palin, I would apologize for my complete and utter stupidity in posting that poster with gun lingo, denounce any and all rhetoric that is like it, then go and hide and be done with it all. This would do me in.
Just like I would have to take personal responsibility for yelling "Fire" in a crowd, Ms. Palin needs to take responsibility for her severe poor lack of judgement and apologize for being less than intelligent. To many in this country, it is simply the right thing to do.
KarenInWA
-
Just like I would have to take personal responsibility for yelling "Fire" in a crowd, Ms. Palin needs to take responsibility for her severe poor lack of judgement and apologize for being less than intelligent. To many in this country, it is simply the right thing to do.
KarenInWA
Maybe this should be suggested to Obama, he has done much worse in this area. Dont recall any other President referring to the citizens that he is to serve as being the "enemy" because they oppose his policies.
Also how about CNN who said that Obama should channel his inner Al Capone and go "gansta" on the GOP or even the Huffington Post who outright wanted violence against Conservatives by saying what was needed was to "break their kneecaps".
-
Just like I would have to take personal responsibility for yelling "Fire" in a crowd, Ms. Palin needs to take responsibility for her severe poor lack of judgement and apologize for being less than intelligent. To many in this country, it is simply the right thing to do.
KarenInWA
Maybe this should be suggested to Obama, he has done much worse in this area. Dont recall any other President referring to the citizens that he is to serve as being the "enemy" because they oppose his policies.
Also how about CNN who said that Obama should channel his inner Al Capone and go "gansta" on the GOP or even the Huffington Post who outright wanted violence against Conservatives by saying what was needed was to "break their kneecaps".
Yep, that too. I don't know who or what started all of the violent rhetoric, but anyone who has participated in it who has been in a position of leadership, needs to take responsibility for their actions. I think Palin has been brought to the forefront because her map of "Crosshairs Across America", targeting specific congresspeople, actually resulted in a gun tragedy towards one of those congresspeople. When something that huge happens, and you have put such a thing on your website, here's the proof that it doesn't go unnoticed. Seriously, if I were her, or someone who supported her, I would feel completely and utterly stupid and embarrassed right now. Why hasn't she come out with anything other than a generic statement?
KarenInWA
-
:thumbup;
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
I love it, a left wing radical taking out the fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat for being too conservative :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup;
Well, is political rhetoric the way we should go? Then let's take the spin above and let it run its course if that is what folks wish to do.
No, forgive me for making fun of a terrible tragedy, but we are on a thread blaming a completely innocent person and this is a liberal nut job, not a conservative nut job. Should we now go forth in glee because it was one of your nut jobs?
No, I think that we should all stare into the face of the immature and de-humanizing myths folks are pushing on both sides of the aisle and act like adults if we can that anymore.
The rhetoric is dangerous and has consequences. Perhaps everyone in the world recognizes what we don't. I myself would like to see it end. If folks wish to discuss real issues with passion, so be it, but I am getting tired of all of the myths about people like me and vice versa.
I found this disturbing and had to read it several times to make sure I was understanding it. Those clappy, smiley icons and writing 'I love it' really upsets me. OK, I think I see where you were trying to go with it, but I don't see anyone (at least on here) reveling in one side or the other getting the blame. I also think that assuming that a person who admits she has not seen the perpetrator in over 3 years is some authority on this murderer is ludicrous. You yourself went through a dramatic political change, Peter, so anyone who knew you from that time might be able to make similar remarks about your liberalism (I am going to assume you were never obsessed with a completely fabricated Maya 'prophecy' though).
Now, more general comments:
Last night I watched a bit of Fox News because MSNBC was not on and CNN was at commercial. It wasn't horrible, but I think these were unique circumstances. They interviewed the mother of the 9-year-old and her parting words were to the effect of "These right-wing extremists have to be reigned in". Notable because she slipped it in on Fox which is a feat in itself, and also because it was left unremarked upon. I don't know her politics and really could not make a guess. She was not at this meeting, her daughter went with a family friend.
I think taking responsibility for one's actions includes Sarah Palin and other politicians who have made violent remarks. I agree with Karen's remarks completely in that regard. I am all for personal responsibility, but some people are incapable of exercising a proper degree of personal responsibility, and public figures, especially politicians, need to keep this in mind and act accordingly. If this person is as mentally ill as they suggest, it is a shame that he did not have proper mental health intervention back when the people around him were seeing ominous signs.
This country is far more violent than Britain and has a much higher murder rate. Last I checked when i was having this discussion in 2008, our murder rate was 4 times that of Britain's. Britain has strict anti-gun laws. Anyone who has spent any time over there can tell you that you can walk around just about any area at 3AM and it is perfectly safe. We are one of the most violent countries in the Western world, if not the most, and we have plenty of guns, so the idea that guns make us safer does not hold water.
I am so sad about this, though. I was hugging my son as I was explaining it all to him, and telling him that the little girl that died was only a year older than he is. He volunteered with us for the Obama campaign, and I could easily see us attending one of these functions and bringing Aidan along and encouraging him to ask a question of our congresswoman. The fact that Giffords was doing all the right things, making herself accessible to her constituents, and this is what she gets for her trouble just makes me want to cry. I told Aidan that this is one of the many reasons that I want to move back to Britain. (He doesn't want to go.)
-
Thank you Karen, I thought we were having a civil discourse on a tragic and heated topic. I have the greatest respect for all who have participated and I believe we have shared and learned from everyone's perspective.
As far as the nut job cult called WBC, they are not Baptist and they do not represent Christian ideals. I would hope folks are able to see that they do not present the gospel of Christ in any way. I suspect that they will not get any where near if folks simply turn out in large numbers and prevent their protest at the funerals themselves. That is a tactic that has worked well with these creeps before. As Baptist myself, these folks do not at all speak for me.
Hemodoc,
I *completely* agree with you that the WBC is not Baptist or Christian or a church in any way. That is why I refuse to spell out what they say WBC stands for. Westboro, sure, but the rest of it? Ew, not so much! I call them "religious" fanatics because they claim religion is behind what they do, and fanatics because, well, they are. Kind of like all the political fanatics out there. They may be political, but they don't speak for everyone they claim to "represent". The whole WBC thing is sick, though, and I wish they would just go away.
KarenInWA
-
Yep, that too. I don't know who or what started all of the violent rhetoric, but anyone who has participated in it who has been in a position of leadership, needs to take responsibility for their actions. I think Palin has been brought to the forefront because her map of "Crosshairs Across America", targeting specific congresspeople, actually resulted in a gun tragedy towards one of those congresspeople. When something that huge happens, and you have put such a thing on your website, here's the proof that it doesn't go unnoticed. Seriously, if I were her, or someone who supported her, I would feel completely and utterly stupid and embarrassed right now. Why hasn't she come out with anything other than a generic statement?
KarenInWA
As to that generic statement as you put it. At least she offered condolences.
Really now, still with the political rhetoric trying to blame her and those who support her.
Well that stupidity and embarrassment might be redirected to the left then since it was the liberal site the dailykos who painted this Congress lady to be a "target" and they were going to get her for betraying the Constitution years before Palins map came out and it was one of their very own on the hard left who actually committed this crime.
Maybe instead of relying on that political rhetoric, you might acknowledge the guy was a nutjob who did it if own accord and no "target list" or map had anything to do with it.
-
Well unless the killer had Palin posters all over his walls and shouted Allah Palin as he opened fire it looks like the liberal left as usual (maybe just maybe) started to play the blame game to soon. I could be wrong maybe he was a palin fanatic.
Just like the loser who flew his plane into a building last year it was all the tea parties fault people like him should be on a watch list or whatever the progressives were whining about just to find out it was one of there own (so to say).
Sometimes tragedies are just that. Not everyone needs a Sane reason to do an insane thing.
have you not seen that it is the left that attacks and the right who demonstrate in a civil way?? Look back a few years to the National conventions. Dems were protested peacefully by republicans at there convention.
When the Republicans had there convention well the dems protested but it was far from peaceful.
There doesnt always have to be a scapegoat. Insane people do insane things. Fingerpoitning without facts well that can and usually does backfire.
:twocents;
-
Maybe instead of relying on that political rhetoric, you might acknowledge the guy was a nutjob who did it if own accord and no "target list" or map had anything to do with it.
I never said the gunman wasn't responsible for his actions. He completely and totally is. But, in light of all of this. we need to change how we discuss politics in this country. Palin needs to acknowledge her crosshairs map and eat crow over it, simply because one of her "targets" was shot at. It does not mean she caused it, but she put the gun target on Gifford's district. It was noticed, and it spread like wildfire.
As for me calling Palin and her supporters stupid - I am a supporter of Obama. I voted for him. However, if his policies turn on me and make my life difficult - such as severly cutting funding for ESRD patients, or something not quite as specifically targeted - I too will feel stupid and embarrassed. One of the main reasons why I voted for him is healthcare, and how afraid I am for my future as a single woman with failing kidneys.
KarenInWA
-
:thumbup;
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
I love it, a left wing radical taking out the fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat for being too conservative :clap; :clap; :clap; :clap; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup; :2thumbsup;
Well, is political rhetoric the way we should go? Then let's take the spin above and let it run its course if that is what folks wish to do.
No, forgive me for making fun of a terrible tragedy, but we are on a thread blaming a completely innocent person and this is a liberal nut job, not a conservative nut job. Should we now go forth in glee because it was one of your nut jobs?
No, I think that we should all stare into the face of the immature and de-humanizing myths folks are pushing on both sides of the aisle and act like adults if we can that anymore.
The rhetoric is dangerous and has consequences. Perhaps everyone in the world recognizes what we don't. I myself would like to see it end. If folks wish to discuss real issues with passion, so be it, but I am getting tired of all of the myths about people like me and vice versa.
I found this disturbing and had to read it several times to make sure I was understanding it. Those clappy, smiley icons and writing 'I love it' really upsets me. OK, I think I see where you were trying to go with it, but I don't see anyone (at least on here) reveling in one side or the other getting the blame. I also think that assuming that a person who admits she has not seen the perpetrator in over 3 years is some authority on this murderer is ludicrous. You yourself went through a dramatic political change, Peter, so anyone who knew you from that time might be able to make similar remarks about your liberalism (I am going to assume you were never obsessed with a completely fabricated Maya 'prophecy' though).
Now, more general comments:
Last night I watched a bit of Fox News because MSNBC was not on and CNN was at commercial. It wasn't horrible, but I think these were unique circumstances. They interviewed the mother of the 9-year-old and her parting words were to the effect of "These right-wing extremists have to be reigned in". Notable because she slipped it in on Fox which is a feat in itself, and also because it was left unremarked upon. I don't know her politics and really could not make a guess. She was not at this meeting, her daughter went with a family friend.
I think taking responsibility for one's actions includes Sarah Palin and other politicians who have made violent remarks. I agree with Karen's remarks completely in that regard. I am all for personal responsibility, but some people are incapable of exercising a proper degree of personal responsibility, and public figures, especially politicians, need to keep this in mind and act accordingly. If this person is as mentally ill as they suggest, it is a shame that he did not have proper mental health intervention back when the people around him were seeing ominous signs.
This country is far more violent than Britain and has a much higher murder rate. Last I checked when i was having this discussion in 2008, our murder rate was 4 times that of Britain's. Britain has strict anti-gun laws. Anyone who has spent any time over there can tell you that you can walk around just about any area at 3AM and it is perfectly safe. We are one of the most violent countries in the Western world, if not the most, and we have plenty of guns, so the idea that guns make us safer does not hold water.
I am so sad about this, though. I was hugging my son as I was explaining it all to him, and telling him that the little girl that died was only a year older than he is. He volunteered with us for the Obama campaign, and I could easily see us attending one of these functions and bringing Aidan along and encouraging him to ask a question of our congresswoman. The fact that Giffords was doing all the right things, making herself accessible to her constituents, and this is what she gets for her trouble just makes me want to cry. I told Aidan that this is one of the many reasons that I want to move back to Britain. (He doesn't want to go.)
Dear Cariad, the smileys and I love it is an attempt at sarcasm to show how many of us in the conservative camp were offended by this entire thread.
If you read my commentary below, i thought I had made that point pretty obvious. If I have offended with my attempt at sarcasm, I apologize.
Yes, I am offended at this entire thread and the many references to conservatives and Republicans that are myths. That hasn't stoppe 5 pages of accusations against the Tea Party and the right for what a messed up nut job did that was completely outside of any reality, let alone political reality. Yet, we have MUCH more in common than what the political pundits imply with their 10 second sound bites designed to inflame the passions of their supporters. Yes, I understand you are offended by that and I did it by design to call attention to this entire absurd thread, but do you not realize how the many comments form the liberal camp about the myths of people like me have likewise offended? Perhaps it is time to move on past on all of this absurd rhetoric and realize a simple truth, we are all going to have to work together to sort out this mess we call America today, we have no other choice.
-
Maybe instead of relying on that political rhetoric, you might acknowledge the guy was a nutjob who did it if own accord and no "target list" or map had anything to do with it.
I never said the gunman wasn't responsible for his actions. He completely and totally is. But, in light of all of this. we need to change how we discuss politics in this country. Palin needs to acknowledge her crosshairs map and eat crow over it, simply because one of her "targets" was shot at. It does not mean she caused it, but she put the gun target on Gifford's district. It was noticed, and it spread like wildfire.
As for me calling Palin and her supporters stupid - I am a supporter of Obama. I voted for him. However, if his policies turn on me and make my life difficult - such as severly cutting funding for ESRD patients, or something not quite as specifically targeted - I too will feel stupid and embarrassed. One of the main reasons why I voted for him is healthcare, and how afraid I am for my future as a single woman with failing kidneys.
KarenInWA
This man will more than likely NOT be held responsible for his actions since there is much evidence already that he probably is a paranoid schizophrenic. If that comes to pass, that this man is not held responsible for his actions because of mental illness and that his actions were outside of any known reality, then please explain to me how Sarah Palin or anyone is responsible for incoherent actions of a madman?
Once again, he is NOT a right wing activist, and as much as people are disputing that, we don't want him either. Conservatives don't take kindlly to people that burn the American flag or enjoy watching it burnt. He is instead a dangerous, psycho nut job. What part of politics does that invoke? Sorry, but this entire thread is rediculous and I am not really sure we are going anywhere with it. The myths of the fiery rhetoric will persist and this country will become more polarized making the creeps behind the scenes able to keep manipulating the masses for their own political ends. Is that really the America that people want? Not me, but I don't know where else to run anymore.
-
Working together to solve our country's problems was why Obama was elected in the first place. "Working together" did not come easily, so in the mid-terms, people once again used the ballot box to state their wishes, which were "find a way to work together and get things done."
I will give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt. She comes from a culture where people use guns for sport and probably does not have a lot of experience with people who use guns for far more sinister purposes. On the campaign trail, she tended to go to rallies that reflected her own values and experiences. That is not a criticism, but it might have been good for her political education if she had ventured away from "small town America". This is why she is unelectable...she has never presented herself as someone who can represent ALL Americans because I suspect that she doesn't yet fully understand people who are not like her. Whether or not you love or hate Obama, love or hate his policies, he at least was the one who told us that there is no red American or blue America, only the United States of America. His message was one of unity. Palin's was not.
I would like to think that Sarah Palin looks back on her map and sees that it was perhaps unwise. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure candidates on both sides have used weapon imagery in their messages, and I hope those people are feeling a bit of contrition, too. It's perhaps unfair to zero in on Sarah Palin for criticism in this regard, but she has made herself into a very high profile person, and with that comes a modicum of duty. If she would surface and would state in no uncertain terms that she would never again use this sort of imagery and would challenge others to do the same, that might go a long way to easing tensions. If she wants to be a leader, this would strategically be a golden opportunity for her.
As for the WBC, they are evil and God is watching them.
-
@Hemodoc, I suspect this incident took on a political tint because the congresswoman was shot while on a "political duty", so to speak. The killer had targeted her for some time. We unfortunately are in a period where when politics and violence collide, the media who loves a good conspiracy theory put two and two together and get five. The comments made by the sherrif, while heartfelt and probably true, further linked the gunman to a political agenda. I'm not really sure that that was the appropriate time or venue for those comments, but on the other hand, I'm sitting up here in Chicago and he's down there in Arizona, the epicenter of a very very angry atmosphere particularly over the issue of illegal immigration; maybe he has more insight into this whole thing than we do. The congresswoman I know had worked a lot on that issue, favoring better border security coupled with providing a path to citizenship (considered a "leftist" view but one shared by Pres Bush), so if it is true that this guy was in with some white supremacist group, perhaps that is something that contributed to his motive...I don't know.
If what comes out of all of this is a general push toward more civil political discourse, then we should have conversations like this. I respect opinions that are different from mine, but I am guilty of sometimes not having faith in the leadership of the other side. I honestly am not sure that anyone who says that his party's main goal is to defeat the sitting President of the United States has the interests of the American people as his top priority. If I can trust that those who have differing opinions really do want to heal this country and solve it's problems for the sake of ALL citizens, I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure I trust their motives.
-
Working together to solve our country's problems was why Obama was elected in the first place. "Working together" did not come easily, so in the mid-terms, people once again used the ballot box to state their wishes, which were "find a way to work together and get things done."
I will give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt. She comes from a culture where people use guns for sport and probably does not have a lot of experience with people who use guns for far more sinister purposes. On the campaign trail, she tended to go to rallies that reflected her own values and experiences. That is not a criticism, but it might have been good for her political education if she had ventured away from "small town America". This is why she is unelectable...she has never presented herself as someone who can represent ALL Americans because I suspect that she doesn't yet fully understand people who are not like her. Whether or not you love or hate Obama, love or hate his policies, he at least was the one who told us that there is no red American or blue America, only the United States of America. His message was one of unity. Palin's was not.
I would like to think that Sarah Palin looks back on her map and sees that it was perhaps unwise. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure candidates on both sides have used weapon imagery in their messages, and I hope those people are feeling a bit of contrition, too. It's perhaps unfair to zero in on Sarah Palin for criticism in this regard, but she has made herself into a very high profile person, and with that comes a modicum of duty. If she would surface and would state in no uncertain terms that she would never again use this sort of imagery and would challenge others to do the same, that might go a long way to easing tensions. If she wants to be a leader, this would strategically be a golden opportunity for her.
As for the WBC, they are evil and God is watching them.
Dear MooseMom, one of the greatest reasons for the outcomes of the 2010 elections is that Obama shut out the Republicans entirely for two years except for photo ops from time to time. Working together never happened. The Democratic majority did what ever they pleased.
For the Repblicans, Obama's comment was to the back of the bus. If we have adverse rhetoric, Obama is not at all without guilt himself.
http://renwl.org/news/black-republicans-want-obama-to-apologize-for-back-of-the-bus-crack
-
But the Republicans never disguised the fact that they refused to work with him. We Americans were told by the Republican leadership that they were never invited to the party. The Dems told us that the Republicans were the "party of no." So what are we to do? We did the only thing we could do...use the ballot box to once again try to get Congress to work together!
Everyone so far seems to be saying all the right things, that they've heard the American people speak and will heed the message. But people often hear only what they want to hear, and I worry that the true message won't get through. I don't know how much more plainly we can tell our government to stop with the bipartisanship, stop with the stunts and get on with it and find areas in which to compromise.
As for the back of the bus comment, you know, I'm really tired of people (usually media pundits) getting all lathered about one thing one person said...the use of one particular word or phrase...and being so obtuse as to not look at the intention of the comment in its entirety. It's stupid and it's being purposely dim.
-
@Hemodoc, I suspect this incident took on a political tint because the congresswoman was shot while on a "political duty", so to speak. The killer had targeted her for some time. We unfortunately are in a period where when politics and violence collide, the media who loves a good conspiracy theory put two and two together and get five. The comments made by the sherrif, while heartfelt and probably true, further linked the gunman to a political agenda. I'm not really sure that that was the appropriate time or venue for those comments, but on the other hand, I'm sitting up here in Chicago and he's down there in Arizona, the epicenter of a very very angry atmosphere particularly over the issue of illegal immigration. The congresswoman I know had worked a lot on that issue, favoring better border security coupled with providing a path to citizenship (considered a "leftist" view but one shared by Pres Bush), so if it is true that this guy was in with some white supremacist group, perhaps that is something that contributed to his motive...I don't know.
If what comes out of all of this is a general push toward more civil political discourse, then we should have conversations like this. I respect opinions that are different from mine, but I am guilty of sometimes not having faith in the leadership of the other side. I honestly am not sure that anyone who says that his party's main goal is to defeat the sitting President of the United States has the interests of the American people as his top priority. If I can trust that those who have differing opinions really do want to heal this country and solve it's problems for the sake of ALL citizens, I'm fine with that. But I'm not sure I trust their motives.
Thank you MooseMom, you are right, if we are going to look at Sarah Palin, understanding her culture and her symbols puts these things in context. Nevertheless, although I readily understand her culture since I am a product of that same culture, the cross hairs is a stupid political blunder, who can say anything otherwise. I suspect it will the fellow Republicans that use this blunder in the next campaign more than anyone else because they won't be accused of liberal bias in their views. This will be Sarah Palin's Nancy Kerrigan moment I am sure. Actually, for her sake, stay in Alaska and forget about all of those that wish to truly revile this woman. Folks, she is not Hitler, the devil or Stalin. She is just a lady fed up with bloated out of control government and so are a lot of the rest of us. Yet, for those that hate this woman, you need worry no more, just as Teddy never got over his episode, this shall be the "defining moment" no matter how she tries to push it aside, in part because the Republicans have little choice but to throw her to the dogs so to speak to keep this from sticking to them. So be it, she has a great message, but she is indeed politically naive, would anyone without indepth national experience not be naive as well?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110110/ts_yblog_theticket/giffords-tragedy-could-be-a-defining-moment-for-palin
The message of a less restrictive government resonates well in the conservative world, but I do not believe that the message barer is necesarrily the best person to bring it to fruition. If people can't take a look at Greece and Ireland and see that that future of continued unsustainable debt and high taxes is a failed experiement into socialism, then I am not sure where we will go in this nation.
Jerry Brown is going to increase taxes for the next 5 years in CA. In case no one is noticing, companies in CA are vacating this state in droves. It used to be a terrible ordeal to go to downtown LA for my monthly visits, but now the traffic moves along at over 50 miles an hour in places that it used just creep along, bumper to bumper. People are already leaving which is a well documented exodus. His raising taxes in the middle of an economic down turn will only worsen that situation. Is this really the answer to a failing economy. I already pay nearly a thousand dollars a year for my two auto registrations, and he wants to raise this even higher. In Idaho, it is only about $40/car and that state is not broke like CA.
The Democratic governor will ask voters in a June special election to approve higher tax rates on sales, vehicles and income for five years. In his statement today, Brown referred to it as "a five-year extension of several current taxes so that we can restructure in an orderly manner." But critics are sure to call them tax hikes since taxes would be lower without any further action by the Legislature or voters.
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/01/brown-to-ask-for-deep-cuts-fiv.html#ixzz1AfKFpEPX
-
But the Republicans never disguised the fact that they refused to work with him. We Americans were told by the Republican leadership that they were never invited to the party. The Dems told us that the Republicans were the "party of no." So what are we to do? We did the only thing we could do...use the ballot box to once again try to get Congress to work together!
Everyone so far seems to be saying all the right things, that they've heard the American people speak and will heed the message. But people often hear only what they want to hear, and I worry that the true message won't get through. I don't know how much more plainly we can tell our government to stop with the bipartisanship, stop with the stunts and get on with it and find areas in which to compromise.
As for the back of the bus comment, you know, I'm really tired of people (usually media pundits) getting all lathered about one thing one person said...the use of one particular word or phrase...and being so obtuse as to not look at the intention of the comment in its entirety. It's stupid and it's being purposely dim.
Dear MooseMom, is it OK to make such statements about the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives, but when your OWN president says these words and is criticized by his own party, then why is that shrugged off? If you look at the link, it was the black caucus that criticized him the most for these comments. Isn't that at the heart of this entire thread?
I would really like to go back to gridlock myself and not let any of these bozos do much at all in Washington. I don't like the Patriot Act any more than the what has happened in the last two years. Gridlock is probably the best I can hope from them.
-
"Obama comes in and starts government ownership of private corporations, firing CEO's from the White House."
I do realize that this doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion, but I don't know where else to ask you about this. I understand that many people hated the bailout of the auto industry. I wasn't really pleased about it. I felt some sympathy with the argument that if a company can't make it in this market, then it should be allowed to fail. If terrible mismanagement puts a company on the road to bankruptcy, then so be it.
But I also had some sympathy with the opposite argument, that in this time of terrible unemployment, to allow the auto industry to collapse wasn't necessarily good for the US as a whole. Our manufacturing base is shrinking as it is, and I didn't like the idea of allowing it to shrink any further.
I'm still not sure whether the course of action Obama took was the right one or not. It may have been the right one because the auto industry still survives here...I guess we will never know. But as I went back and forth about whether or not I supported this move or not, one thing that never occurred to me was that the Obama administration desired to overtake the ownership of any private corporation. Obama himself said that he didn't want to own a car company! That struck me as a truth founded in logic...President Obama had enough on his plate without going around and taking over big American corporations. Why would he want to take on MORE? So I have to ask you, do you really believe that the current administration WANTS to overtake American businesses?
-
"Obama comes in and starts government ownership of private corporations, firing CEO's from the White House."
I do realize that this doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion, but I don't know where else to ask you about this. I understand that many people hated the bailout of the auto industry. I wasn't really pleased about it. I felt some sympathy with the argument that if a company can't make it in this market, then it should be allowed to fail. If terrible mismanagement puts a company on the road to bankruptcy, then so be it.
But I also had some sympathy with the opposite argument, that in this time of terrible unemployment, to allow the auto industry to collapse wasn't necessarily good for the US as a whole. Our manufacturing base is shrinking as it is, and I didn't like the idea of allowing it to shrink any further.
I'm still not sure whether the course of action Obama took was the right one or not. It may have been the right one because the auto industry still survives here...I guess we will never know. But as I went back and forth about whether or not I supported this move or not, one thing that never occurred to me was that the Obama administration desired to overtake the ownership of any private corporation. Obama himself said that he didn't want to own a car company! That struck me as a truth founded in logic...President Obama had enough on his plate without going around and taking over big American corporations. Why would he want to take on MORE? So I have to ask you, do you really believe that the current administration WANTS to overtake American businesses?
Dear MooseMom, it wasn't just the auto industry that they took over and his biggest allies in this are the unions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2224853/government_takeover_of_the_private.html?cat=3
http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/housing-general/federal-governments-takeover-of-the-mortgage-business/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/MicheleBachmann/2009/09/17/government_to_take_over_all_student_loans
http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/09/27/afl-cio-prez-trumka-we-need-tore-establish-popular-control-over-private-corporations/
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101229_It_is_a_government_takeover.html
-
Re the back of the bus comment...I've just read that link, and I am struck by how people can read the same words but come up with wildly different interpretations. Mr. Obama never even used the word "bus". When you start accusing someone of racism, you get into very difficult territory because how can you defend yourself against that? How do you prove a negative? Why is it that if a black Republican says that Obama or anyone else is "racially insensitive", then it surely must be true?
Years ago when I lived in England, Tiger Woods won his first Masters tournament. One of his friends on the tour (you may remember this), a fellow competitor, said something about how this meant that they would all be having greens and fried chicken for the celebratory meal. I remember thinking, "Ooooh...I'd LOVE me some greens and fried chicken! Put some black-eyed peas with it, and I'm there!" I was really shocked to find out later that this had caused a big racial ruckus in the US, and the only reason I found out about the brouhaha was because a British newspaper had to explain that black people ate greens and fried chicken. And remember the photo that went out showing the White House garden filled with watermelons? I saw that and thought, "Oh, that's cool! What a great idea that neatly dovetails with Mrs Obama's idea of starting a garden." But no, that was supposed to be a racial slur that I just didn't get. My husband had to explain it to me.
My point is that people will twist someone's words in any way that suits them. It's what we've been talking about...the manipulation of us for the gains of the ambitious.
-
it isnt saving a company that struck americans like me as crazy. it was that the ones making out in the whole mess isnt me and you and the average Joe it is/was BIG UNIONS>
if Unions would concede some of there crazy ways of doing business alot of things would smooth out over time. But unions want more and more even at the expense of there own workers. We cant keep up at the rate we are going. Unions and oversturffed pensions are going to be our own dome. Rasing taxs to pay for other peoples pensions is crazy and has proven not to work. I pay plenty in taxs but that just isnt enough. They want more to pay for teachers. Well actualy here in Jersey the teachers said they would gladly accept some concessions to ease the burden of everyone. The unions SAID NO we will not give concessions. WANT WANT WANT AND MORE MORE MORE is the union way. Obama is the unions biggest fan he is in bed with them.
As for Obama wanting to own a company sure he doesnt. He just wants to dicatate to them what they can or cant do what to make and how much to pay people. He wants to set regulations so he can stay in control of every aspect of what the company does.
We got strong by being inventiveness in america. But who wants to open a new business when to even start the process you could go broke. Less government means more oppertunity for all. When government gets SO BIG there is no one paying taxs for all the giveaway programs so many people are use to getting.
-
I do not trust anything Michele Bachman has to say, ever. I happily listen to anyone who has a different point of view, but that woman lies. I'm sorry, but I will not believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
Don't get me wrong..I do not like the idea of big government swallowing up everything in its path. But reading the Washington post story, I have to wonder if there are some industries that might benefit from government intervention in the short term. I would like to think that no, there aren't, but in times as these, we should be openminded to all possible solutions. I just don't buy the idea that this administration WANTS government to get bigger and bigger and control more and more of our lives. I really don't believe that. I know some do, but I just don't. Now, there may be those in CONGRESS who want more and more power and want to see that power in the hands of big corporations...I just might believe THAT!
-
I do not trust anything Michele Bachman has to say, ever. I happily listen to anyone who has a different point of view, but that woman lies. I'm sorry, but I will not believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
Don't get me wrong..I do not like the idea of big government swallowing up everything in its path. But reading the Washington post story, I have to wonder if there are some industries that might benefit from government intervention in the short term. I would like to think that no, there aren't, but in times as these, we should be openminded to all possible solutions. I just don't buy the idea that this administration WANTS government to get bigger and bigger and control more and more of our lives. I really don't believe that. I know some do, but I just don't. Now, there may be those in CONGRESS who want more and more power and want to see that power in the hands of big corporations...I just might believe THAT!
Dear MooseMom, is it working for Europe right now?
-
paul.karen, I don't disagree with you about the unions. Some, if not many, have veered away from their goal of ensuring good working conditions and wages for their workers to grabbing power for their leadership. I've seen this in action.
In thinking about this particular part of this discussion, it strikes me that there is a fundamental lack of trust that people will do the right thing. How many of us gripe about our big corporate dialysis providers? These companies are making millions, but are the clinics well staffed and well run? No, because that costs money and cuts into profits. So what happens? Government has to step in and create all sorts of regulations because we can't trust a private corporation to give us excellent, safe care. As a result, government gets bigger, and we gripe about that, too.
I believe that we all have this deep feeling that someone is out to cheat us, that big business (ie big pharma, etc) isn't interested in anything but profit, and that we are all being snookered. Where do we put our trust...in our government or in big corporations because those are the two entities with all the power. Big money is what rules. We can't get good candidates to run for office unless they have lots and lots of money. Our Supreme Court has given first amendment rights to corporations and tell us that these corporations have the same rights as PEOPLE. It's not "We the People" anymore, it's "We the Corporations."
I don't know how this answers the question "Is Sarah Palin accountable?" :rofl; Talk about veering off topic...!!!
-
Dear MooseMom, is it working for Europe right now?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I moved to Britain in 1985 during the Thatcher years, and at that time, she was privatizing most previously state-held industries, ie coal and the trains. So I'm unclear as to your point.
Urp, I'm still sick, so I'm going back to bed. I for one think this has been a really cool discussion! I enjoy hearing other people's views; I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I've looked at issues from all possible sides.
-
Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/
-
Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/
The main difference that has been pointed out is that these maps don't name specific candidates, nor is it from a specific candidate with specific contact information on it. Doesn't mean I neccesarily condone it, and let's all hope that going forward, such rhetoric (from BOTH sides, and any third or fourth ones that may crop up!) will no longer be tolerated. Saturday in AZ was a wake-up call, and I hope and pray that ALL of us in this country will turn over a new leaf and start discussing our politics and government in civil, adult ways. On a totally unrelated note, is it any wonder that drivel such as Jersey Shore on MTV is one of the hottest shows on cable TV? (and no, I don't watch it - I refuse!) No wonder our political discussions have turned into such crap! Again, I don't know where it started, but it (finally) needs to STOP!!! Keep crosshairs in gun ranges and targets on dart boards!
KarenInWA
-
Well, for all those that are taking Sarah Palin to task, how about the 2004 Democratic ad as well and other democratic ads using crosshairs and targets?
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/
The main difference that has been pointed out is that these maps don't name specific candidates, nor is it from a specific candidate with specific contact information on it. Doesn't mean I neccesarily condone it, and let's all hope that going forward, such rhetoric (from BOTH sides, and any third or fourth ones that may crop up!) will no longer be tolerated. Saturday in AZ was a wake-up call, and I hope and pray that ALL of us in this country will turn over a new leaf and start discussing our politics and government in civil, adult ways. On a totally unrelated note, is it any wonder that drivel such as Jersey Shore on MTV is one of the hottest shows on cable TV? (and no, I don't watch it - I refuse!) No wonder our political discussions have turned into such crap! Again, I don't know where it started, but it (finally) needs to STOP!!! Keep crosshairs in gun ranges and targets on dart boards!
KarenInWA
I agree.
-
Oh, and I should add, I hope they don't use the insanity defense for this guy. I strongly feel he deserves the death penalty. Why should we taxpayers pay $$ to keep his sorry butt alive in prison for the rest of his long, dreary life? He's only 22! I am left-leaning in my politics, but I have a hard time with the idea of not sentencing a cold, hard criminal to death when he/she has commited such vile evil. What's the point of keeping someone like that alive? (I'm talking about those who have witness(es) or forensic evidence that cleary points them to the crime.)
KarenInWA
-
I've thought long and hard about the death penalty. There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore. However...
I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in. Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me. I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was. Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father. She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity. She had a bit of an epiphany. She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.
I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree. The death of one person affects many. Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.
Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment. He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again. What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh. Death would release him from pain. Life in prison would not. Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.
Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true. But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone. Is it just to save the taxpayer money? I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.
Maybe the debate shouldn't focus so much on politics. If he is indeed mentally ill, perhaps we should be looking at our mental health care system. Did he and his family have insurance that covered mental health checkups and/or treatment? Did the system somehow fail him? If so, how do we fix that? Were there any signs of mental illness that were ignored?
Arizona should also be looking at their gun laws. It has been reported that he bought the gun legally, but perhaps that should be under closer inspection. Did someone turn a blind eye to the current laws and sell him this gun?
-
I never said the gunman wasn't responsible for his actions. He completely and totally is. But, in light of all of this. we need to change how we discuss politics in this country. Palin needs to acknowledge her crosshairs map and eat crow over it, simply because one of her "targets" was shot at. It does not mean she caused it, but she put the gun target on Gifford's district. It was noticed, and it spread like wildfire.
KarenInWA
Acknowledge what? That the map merely laid out districts to target to unseat democrats? Crosshairs are routinely used to mark the spot of something. In no way shape or form was it referring to a "gun target" as you suggest. In fact crosshairs are used in far more than in just guns scopes.
If anything that particular crosshair used on that map is not commonly used, if at all, in the reticle of gun scopes.
In fact its the symbol used to mark floor drains.
-
BigSky, as has been pointed out by various people in this thread, lots of candidates/political figures have used weaponry imagery. It's certainly not confined to one person, one time or one side. But Sarah Palin is sort of the woman of the moment. She has a passionate following. She has made herself incredibly visible. She quit her governor's job so that she could use her time to becoming even MORE visible, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (although I'm not sure that quitting the job that you were elected to do is a morally or politically good idea). She portrays herself as a huntress who certainly knows her way around guns. She portrays herself as being aggressive, and you pair that with her gun imagery, and she is set up for just this sort of mayhem. I do think that some smart PR people who do not like her have taken this opportunity to put all of those elements together and try to make her the villain of the piece, but she gave them a lot of ammunition (see how easy it is to speak in weaponry terms)?
I'll give Sarah Palin one thing...she usually has her finger on the pulse of a particular part of the nation. I'm a little surprised that she has not made more of a statement either in her defense, an apology or an exhortation to get back to civil political discourse. Like I said before, she is very well placed to show some leadership in this regard, but she has said next to nothing, and that surprises me. No doubt she is aware of the debate surrounding the Arizona killings. Granted, I don't think she OWES anyone anything, but she could make a lot of difference if what we really want is reason. What do you think? Like it or not, she has been identified as a player in this whole thing...do you think that making a more detailed statement would be a good thing, or do you think it's best for her to just lie low?
-
I've thought long and hard about the death penalty. There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore. However...
I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in. Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me. I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was. Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father. She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity. She had a bit of an epiphany. She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.
I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree. The death of one person affects many. Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.
Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment. He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again. What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh. Death would release him from pain. Life in prison would not. Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.
Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true. But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone. Is it just to save the taxpayer money? I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.
Maybe the debate shouldn't focus so much on politics. If he is indeed mentally ill, perhaps we should be looking at our mental health care system. Did he and his family have insurance that covered mental health checkups and/or treatment? Did the system somehow fail him? If so, how do we fix that? Were there any signs of mental illness that were ignored?
Arizona should also be looking at their gun laws. It has been reported that he bought the gun legally, but perhaps that should be under closer inspection. Did someone turn a blind eye to the current laws and sell him this gun?
Actually, he passed the Federal gun clearance, NICS, but I am wondering if there were not missed opportunities such as the story I heard today that he was investigated for making death threats against another person. Those people are not allowed to own a gun. He sounds like a paranoid schizpophrenic to me by the little we know so far, those people are not legally able to own a gun. He has had drug encounters with the law and apparently that was the reason why he was rejected by the military. A CONVICTION for drug use within one year means those people are not allowed to own a gun. He was likewise positive for some as yet unnamed drug at the time of his arrest, those people are not legally allowed to own a gun.
I don't see this as a need for new laws, but better enforcement of what we already have. Just as with the Virginia tech weirdo, there are going to be many missed opportunities with in the laws we have today. Obviously in retrospect, someone somewhere didn't help this weirdo with his own mental illnes as well as report it to the authorities. Quite similar to VA tech where the schools in both cases had concerns over the mental health of the individual. Both acted in bizarre and scary manners in college before these events.
Unfortunately, there is no law against being crazy in this country, only laws about whether a person is a danger to himself or others. If it is really confirmed he made death threats in another jurisdiction, then is that a problem with the laws in place already, or is it a matter of the system failing all involved including this mixed up kid?
-
BigSky, as has been pointed out by various people in this thread, lots of candidates/political figures have used weaponry imagery. It's certainly not confined to one person, one time or one side. But Sarah Palin is sort of the woman of the moment. She has a passionate following. She has made herself incredibly visible. She quit her governor's job so that she could use her time to becoming even MORE visible, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (although I'm not sure that quitting the job that you were elected to do is a morally or politically good idea). She portrays herself as a huntress who certainly knows her way around guns. She portrays herself as being aggressive, and you pair that with her gun imagery, and she is set up for just this sort of mayhem. I do think that some smart PR people who do not like her have taken this opportunity to put all of those elements together and try to make her the villain of the piece, but she gave them a lot of ammunition (see how easy it is to speak in weaponry terms)?
I'll give Sarah Palin one thing...she usually has her finger on the pulse of a particular part of the nation. I'm a little surprised that she has not made more of a statement either in her defense, an apology or an exhortation to get back to civil political discourse. Like I said before, she is very well placed to show some leadership in this regard, but she has said next to nothing, and that surprises me. No doubt she is aware of the debate surrounding the Arizona killings. Granted, I don't think she OWES anyone anything, but she could make a lot of difference if what we really want is reason. What do you think? Like it or not, she has been identified as a player in this whole thing...do you think that making a more detailed statement would be a good thing, or do you think it's best for her to just lie low?
Would ANYTHING she says keep people from vilifying her as a target of political annialation even before this event? Perhaps you haven't really paid attention to the types of targeted accusations against her whole family.
One of the reasons that she quite as governor was because she had to fight dozens of frivolous lawsuits that she couldn't afford on her governors salary and they submitted more lawsuits when she tried to raise money while in office. She has been singled out by both Republican opponents and democrates for political destruction way before this event.
When you walk in those sort of shoes, you must be very circumspect about every action, every word you state or it will be pounced upon immediately. If people simply took a few minutes to look at her message, most would really say what is all of the fuss about this lady. The fuss comes not in her message which is echoed by many, even some conservative democrats, what is different is that she is a powerful speaker able to motivate folks and draw a crowd. For that ability, she is a target and will remain a target to be silenced on both sides, remember, she came to power battling her own party.
-
I've thought long and hard about the death penalty. There are such good argument on both sides of this issue that I can't ignore. However...
I wish I could remember more of the details of the story I'm about to tell; maybe one of you could fill some in. Right before the execution of Timothy McVeigh, a woman wrote an article that has stayed with me. I don't remember if she had any direct relationship to any of the victims; I am assuming she did, otherwise she wouldn't have been where she was. Anyway, she had the opportunity to speak briefly with McVeigh's father. She was struck by this man's grief, bewilderment and quiet dignity. She had a bit of an epiphany. She knew how much the victims' families were suffering in their loss, and it suddenly occurred to her that when McVeigh was finally put to death, one more family would know such dreadful loss, and she felt that that wasn't right.
I've thought about that article for many years, and I think I have to agree. The death of one person affects many. Killing a man who has himself killed brings more loss to more people, and I am not sure that should be the intent of any sort of punishment.
Depriving a person of his liberty is no insignificant punishment. He has spent 22 years out in the sunlight, but once he is sentenced, he will rarely see the sun again. What he has to look forward to from a life imprisonment (which is what he should get) is devastatingly harsh. Death would release him from pain. Life in prison would not. Life in prison is by far the harsher punishment, in my mind.
Keeping a person alive in those circumstances is very expensive to the taxpayer...that is true. But we have to be very clear about why we are killing someone. Is it just to save the taxpayer money? I'm not sure that is good enough reason in God's eyes.
Actually, it has historically been much more expensive to kill a person, because of the cost of appeals, and when it gets to the level of taking someone's life, the appeals have been automatic. My information is outdated, though, so perhaps it is cheaper now to execute. I know that legislation has been enacted to limit appeals.
I heard an NPR interview on The Story several years ago from a warden. He said that the death penalty punishes everyone but the criminal. He is haunted by the executions he had to oversee and became anti-death penalty as a result. I believe he is one of many who have stated that most death penalty prisoners want to be executed, that in fact their greatest fear is living out their time in prison. I wouldn't know, but trust the source.
The guy is probably profoundly mentally ill. I would have a hard time seeing him sentenced to death. A neighbour of his on Fox News (yes, in the 10 minutes of it that I watched) said that his father had expressed concern about him. Then there were the students and faculty that knew there was something amiss with him. We have a despicable mental health system in this country. The people who work in it are by and large great people, but in California at least, and especially LA, I would not wish mental illness and the lack of help out there on anyone. So, yes, I do think that mental health care should be called into question in this country.
-
Hemodoc, I agree with you about the gun laws. There are plenty of laws already in place, I'm sure. But if someone is bound and determined to do something like this, there's not always anything you can do about it.
I am not a fan of Sarah Palin's for reasons I have mentioned, but I do recognize the fierce attacks on her and her family, and I don't like it. I listened very closely to her resignation speech, and to be honest, I didn't understand it. I have an uncle who is a big fan of hers, and he told me to read her book to understand why she quit (he referenced the lawsuits). I don't think anyone should have to pay to buy her book to understand why she resigned. I think she resigned because she recognized the extent of her political power, she wanted to make some money and she figured that being governor of Alaska would provide her with the opportunity to become more visible. Frankly, those are pretty good reasons...quit one job and get another that advances your career. People do it all the time. But I don't think she was being entirely honest with her constituents. But that's just my opinion and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it.
I have to admit that I am not very clear on what her message actually is. In all sincerity I ask you...could you please explain it to me? I am someone who looks at details, and she speaks in a very different way that is hard for me to interpret...she speaks in grand, sweeping terms about what she doesn't like. I am not sure where she stands on any specific issue or what kinds of policies she would implement that she feels would be better for all Americans. I just don't understand what she is trying to say. I do listen, I really do, but I can't make sense of it.
PS..It is probably that anything Sarah Palin might have to say would be vilified by somebody; she is a very polarizing figure, but she made herself that way. But the possibility of being vilified isn't good enough reason to stay mute. That's a coward's way out. But I do recognize that a lot of her popularity comes from the fact that she is NOT big on civil discussion because civil discussion isn't good theatre. She engages in the rhetoric because she knows that's what her base has come to expect, so I could see how she might stay quiet for that reason. It's all just speculation, anyway.
-
OMG, I just saw the killer's photo taken in court, and it is truly chilling. I have a feeling that we will never really find out what happened and why.
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.
This false equivalancy has been the talking point of the day on this thread. But really the most astonishing spin is that Palin is a victim in all this and if only we of the left understood guns we'd be in on the joke and know that having campaign events featuring assault rifles and silhouetted targets isn't meant to be taken literally and we should just lighten up.
David Frum makes some good points in this post (http://www.frumforum.com/what-palin-needed-to-say-after-giffords-shooting):
Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”
He then goes on to run through the elements of a response that would have met todays low bar of political leadership.
It isn't a question of civility. It's what Kruegman called today the eliminationist rhetoric (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1) of the right that is dangerous. It was dangerous on Friday and it continues to be dangerous today. I think it is centered on the delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama but it extends to local members of Congress and any other federal official who gets their name in the paper.
-
I saw an interesting interview on CNN with Ms Giffords campaign manager. Apparently there is some list that ranks the 435 members of the House in order of their liberalness/conservatism (I don't quite understand who does this list or if No 1 has the most conservative or the most liberal voting record, but anyway), and she was ranked 217th...right straight in the middle. If this kid did have a political agenda, it was one fuelled by extremism, and THAT's the worrying thing.
-
I saw an interesting interview on CNN with Ms Giffords campaign manager. Apparently there is some list that ranks the 435 members of the House in order of their liberalness/conservatism (I don't quite understand who does this list or if No 1 has the most conservative or the most liberal voting record, but anyway), and she was ranked 217th...right straight in the middle. If this kid did have a political agenda, it was one fuelled by extremism, and THAT's the worrying thing.
I would say that what led this mixed up, probably psychotic kid is irrationality, not extremism. That should be obvious to all.
I will bow out of further discussion at this point as did Karol.
I would just note that if the Democrats wanted to gain points, all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and allow the natural sympathies of such an event to generate it's own political good will.
That is not going to happen apparently. I do know one thing, impugning conservatives who have nothing to do with a psychotic nut jobs action shall, like I have taken, have indignation of such a false association. It will only give us more resolve to follow through on our own political activism. There will be a backlash for such absurd accusations not just against Palin, but against all so called Tea Party people. If anyone thinks that any of us condone the actions of this nut job, think again. Instead of taking an opportunity to unite behind a tragic event, some are taking this as an opportunity for political advantage that shall not work.
God have mercy on this nation.
-
OK, I'll admit I have NOT read 7 pages of postings on this thread and Epoman Hated when people just jumped in without reading all the posts.
But, just from reading the title..... It is not illeagle to be a nut job and until you actually DO something to someone you are not held accountable. That is free speech. My GOD if everyone was dead that I've wanted to kill there would be bodies all over the place, but I have presence of mind to not want to go to prison so I can control myself. This creep could not. So the congress woman didn't answer his question the way he wanted 4 years ago..... BFD!
The whole thing is sad but you can't blame anyone but him. And gun control will not keep people like him from getting them. It will only keep people like that guy that held him down from having one.
:twocents;
-
Hemodoc, hold up...I was just making an innocuous observation. I was just quoting what her campaign manager said, that she was the very definition of "moderate". I have reread my post 3 times, and not once could I fathom where anyone could get the idea that I was pointing the blame at any one political group. Since she is a "moderate", the killer could have been a LEFT wing extremist for all I know!
Look, it is all speculation, but the value of the conversation for this whole nation right now is that we are recognizing that our political tone is harsh. OUR CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO...PROBABLY HAS NOTHING TO DO...WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN ARIZONA. But at least politicians from Obama to Boehner are ALL saying that we need to be more civil with each other. The congresswoman had just emailed a Republican friend of hers (the loser to Rand Paul in Kentucky) congratulating him on the new job he DID get and telling him she wanted to discuss with him ways to calm the current political atmosphere.
Maybe I don't understand the definition of "extremism", but to me, extremists are usually nutjobs. IF IT IS TRUE that this kid killed Ms Giffords because he didn't like the answer to one of his questions asked at a political gathering, then I don't think it is completely bonkers to consider the possibility that this guy didn't like her policy on a specific issue, and if he killed her because of that, then that's "extremism", don't you think? It's irrational, sure, but it is also awfully extreme.
I'm really sorry that you've taken anything I've said and took it to mean that I was pointing fingers at any group of people. I've spent a lot of time and thought in doing exactly the opposite. And I'm not just making this stuff up. This is what the whole nation is talking about. You yourself have stated so many times that you hate the nasty rhetoric, and from what I can see, that seems to be the general consensus of the vast majority of people!
I thought we were having a really interesting discussion, so I am baffled by this sudden turn. I don't think I've fundamentally disagreed with you on any point you've made. I really honestly thought we were having the kind of discussion that we are hoping that this nation will have going forth...open, respectful and thoughtful.
God Bless.
-
Hemodoc, hold up...I was just making an innocuous observation. I was just quoting what her campaign manager said, that she was the very definition of "moderate". I have reread my post 3 times, and not once could I fathom where anyone could get the idea that I was pointing the blame at any one political group. Since she is a "moderate", the killer could have been a LEFT wing extremist for all I know!
Look, it is all speculation, but the value of the conversation for this whole nation right now is that we are recognizing that our political tone is harsh. OUR CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO...PROBABLY HAS NOTHING TO DO...WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN ARIZONA. But at least politicians from Obama to Boehner are ALL saying that we need to be more civil with each other. The congresswoman had just emailed a Republican friend of hers (the loser to Rand Paul in Kentucky) congratulating him on the new job he DID get and telling him she wanted to discuss with him ways to calm the current political atmosphere.
Maybe I don't understand the definition of "extremism", but to me, extremists are usually nutjobs. IF IT IS TRUE that this kid killed Ms Giffords because he didn't like the answer to one of his questions asked at a political gathering, then I don't think it is completely bonkers to consider the possibility that this guy didn't like her policy on a specific issue, and if he killed her because of that, then that's "extremism", don't you think? It's irrational, sure, but it is also awfully extreme.
I'm really sorry that you've taken anything I've said and took it to mean that I was pointing fingers at any group of people. I've spent a lot of time and thought in doing exactly the opposite. And I'm not just making this stuff up. This is what the whole nation is talking about. You yourself have stated so many times that you hate the nasty rhetoric, and from what I can see, that seems to be the general consensus of the vast majority of people!
I thought we were having a really interesting discussion, so I am baffled by this sudden turn. I don't think I've fundamentally disagreed with you on any point you've made. I really honestly thought we were having the kind of discussion that we are hoping that this nation will have going forth...open, respectful and thoughtful.
God Bless.
Dear MooseMom, sorry to imply I am dropping out of this thread because of you. I have the greatest respect for your views. I am just angered that there is a such a rush to associate good willed people like me and the majority of the so called Tea Party people with a nut job psycho like this man obviously is, not only on IHD, but the entire media spectrum. I am tired of having to defend our good motives for our positions because of a false assocation, which is really nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
If that is the approach that the left, or the democrats or whatever label people wish to use just know that when people are impugned by false associations, that anger lasts a long time and motivates folks to remain involved in the political system. I would only point out that the people that don't like to be being maligned by this false association are in the political majority at this time. Any expected benefit of trying to associate good willed folks with this psycho nut job will only serve to encourage our future political activism.
-
I know this is a bit unrelated to the exact topic of this forum, but, what I want to know is, why isn't anyone asking anything about the parents of this kid? Yes, I know he is a legal adult and responsible for his actions and all of that - BUT. He lived with his parents. I saw one headline where his father was concerned about him. I am not a parent, and never will be, but at what point does a parent start to question their adult child who is displaying disturbing tendencies? Should they have tried to get more involved in their son's life? Maybe they did? We don't know.
I only ask these questions because the shooter lived with his parents. I'd be asking questions of any roommates if he lived with those, although roommates don't generally spend 18+ years raising him like his parents did. What do you all think, especially those of you who are parents?
KarenInWA
-
As a parent who has raised two children to adulthood.....as close as I am to my girls, sometimes their actions blow my mind- not always bad, but not always good.
I would bet if his parents knew before hand- they would have tried to stop it-BUT troubled people are often secretive, and their is no way to predict what your troubled adult child will do. They may have even been a little afraid of him, and until he does something seriously wrong there is no way to 'preempt him'.
I feel sorry for them too.
All this back and forth is such BS- I think most regular people wish all this bickering would just stop-I am so sick of "the left said-and the right said" just get on with running the country and fixing healthcare and growing jobs!!
-
I think it's great that you asked this question, Karen, rather than making assumptions about the parents which many, many people, some with kids and some without, will do.
It's funny that you ask this question now, as I've just finished reading an article about how we should reserve judgment on the parents. It linked to this article, written by the mother of one of the Columbine perpetrators. http://www.oprah.com/world/Susan-Klebolds-O-Magazine-Essay-I-Will-Never-Know-Why (http://www.oprah.com/world/Susan-Klebolds-O-Magazine-Essay-I-Will-Never-Know-Why)
My heart just breaks for the author of the article. I think it is so easy to look back and say "this would have changed things" or "I could have done" but this woman is an example of every parent's worst nightmare in that she was doing everything you are told you need to do - seek counseling, talk with the kids, spend time with them, etc. and still the results were devastating. I think people who blame the parents without really knowing the full story are really trying to convince themselves that it could never happen with their children and that they've happened upon some magic formula that others are too lazy to use. We all make mistakes as parents, I've certainly made many regrettable errors and my older child is only 8. All I can do is try to do better moving forward and own up to my mistakes - to my children - when I make them.
I am certain that the parents are torturously reviewing their every past action as we speak. The article that I read said that the father has written a statement but is waiting to release it. They both have apparently been holed up in their home crying since Saturday. I imagine if I were in their situation, I would be doing exactly the same thing.
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.
This false equivalancy has been the talking point of the day on this thread. But really the most astonishing spin is that Palin is a victim in all this and if only we of the left understood guns we'd be in on the joke and know that having campaign events featuring assault rifles and silhouetted targets isn't meant to be taken literally and we should just lighten up.
David Frum makes some good points in this post (http://www.frumforum.com/what-palin-needed-to-say-after-giffords-shooting):
Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”
He then goes on to run through the elements of a response that would have met todays low bar of political leadership.
It isn't a question of civility. It's what Kruegman called today the eliminationist rhetoric (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1) of the right that is dangerous. It was dangerous on Friday and it continues to be dangerous today. I think it is centered on the delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama but it extends to local members of Congress and any other federal official who gets their name in the paper.
Bill, not to beat a dead horse, but I agree, we shouldn't be using cross hairs or targets as symbolisms in politics. Yet, it just occurred to me that one of the latest websites on dialysis uses cross hairs as its logo!! Fix Dialysis!!
http://www.fixdialysis.com/Art/fix-dialysis.jpg
Crosshairs Design
A key feature of the four-quadrant model is the crosshairs that separates the quadrants. The severity of its distortion also represents the severity of dysfunction in the dialysis care system. The model is especially powerful for exploring how to return the crosshairs to a more balanced position.
http://www.renalweb.com/writings/New_Model-Oct10f.htm
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html#210_nearly-50-of-mental-health-service-recipients-in-giffords-county-were-dropped-in-2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughner-court_n_807096.html#201_reporting-odd-behavior-in-arizona
-
I did not read all of the responses, (I know, my bad) but I just want to say that I don't think Palin can be held responsible for something she didn't do. However, I think she needs to change her behavior because of what HAS happened.
When Palin first stepped onto the scene, I actually liked her. I could relate to her as my sister has Downs Syndrome just as her son does and I was happy that we had a femaile candidate who could possible be in office.
Shortly thereafter I lost respect for her. She is very divisive. I truly think that she does not care one bit about coming together as a nation to overcome the current problems. All she wants to do is create contoversy. It was VERY irresponsible for her to have a map with certain states in it's cross hair. Shame on her for even going there. So yes, when some crazy person hears all of this rhetoric and sees all of this nonsense, it leads to people doing stupid and horrible things.
Is it her fault that these people are dead? No. But I think her and many others out there in division mode need to knock of all of the negativity and focus on the issues.
-
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/01/if_dean_and_the_other_boohoo_hampsters_w.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/listen-up-lefties-the-difference-between-the-dncs-bulls-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/
Those links drive home the point of hypocrisy by the left in attacking Palin over the crosshairs. Especially the youtube video of the democrat who actually uses the crosshairs of a rifle scope on his opponent. Not to mention the crosshairs over the map of the nation the dems used in 2008 in the third link.
Or their silence on this back in October from Democrat Representative Paul Kanjorski who actually said that the Republican running for Gov of Florida should be killed.
"That (Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.
-
I'm in two minds about President Obama going to Arizona tomorrow. On the one hand, it is a nice gesture and I am assuming that the families of the victims will appreciate it. But on the other hand, well, I'm just going to sit back and wait to see who will be first in their criticism of him.
I lived in the UK during most of President Bush's administration. I know that particularly toward the end, there was a lot of vilification of him; the Brits absolutely hated him from day one. So I do understand that there were many, many people in this country who didn't like him and often voiced their opposition in ways made me really uncomfortable. But I didn't see a lot of that first hand, so I can't make any accurate judgments. Since the 2008 election, I've heard so many long-time Washington insiders say that in all of their years in DC, they've never seen such personal hatred directed toward a person as they've seen directed at Obama. If their assessment is accurate, I have to wonder if having the President go to Arizona is a good idea. What do you all think? I think most people feel that this killer did not act out of any political belief or position, but will having the President speak at the memorial service turn this tragedy into another opportunity for political fighting?
(I ask this because I've just been flipping around the tv channels, and there are people wondering how "political" the President's speech is going to be. It had not occurred to me that it would be political at all, but it just sort of feels like some are already lining up waiting to pounce. I could be wrong, though.)
It might have been a nice idea if John Boehner could go, too, to represent the US House. Show some unity, that sort of thing. It could be a potent symbol. Sorry...just musing.
-
I think this review of political violence is very helpful.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147/)
Peter I think you're putting forward a false equivalencey to say the rhetoric is the same on both sides of the aisle. That Cantor situation case in point (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html): "A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction". A bullet is randomly fired in the air somewhere in Ohio Virginia and the left is as vitriolic as the right? The rhetoric on the right, from the most prominent figures on the right, is of a magnitude difference than anything that was said by the left against Bush through an election decided by the Supreme Court, and the long 8 years of improbable bungling. The language of delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama are in a different league.
That is the milieu that this happened in, just as the Kennedy assassination happened in the milieu of hatred that was Dallas 1963.
This is very nicely stated and I agree with it totally. I was in hospital following my transplant when all of this was unfolding and watched CNN for roughly 10 hours a day, so remember this better than most news stories. Eric Cantor seemed a little too eager to prove that the right were also targets of extremism.
This false equivalancy has been the talking point of the day on this thread. But really the most astonishing spin is that Palin is a victim in all this and if only we of the left understood guns we'd be in on the joke and know that having campaign events featuring assault rifles and silhouetted targets isn't meant to be taken literally and we should just lighten up.
David Frum makes some good points in this post (http://www.frumforum.com/what-palin-needed-to-say-after-giffords-shooting):
Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”
He then goes on to run through the elements of a response that would have met todays low bar of political leadership.
It isn't a question of civility. It's what Kruegman called today the eliminationist rhetoric (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1) of the right that is dangerous. It was dangerous on Friday and it continues to be dangerous today. I think it is centered on the delegitimization and demonization of Barack Obama but it extends to local members of Congress and any other federal official who gets their name in the paper.
Bill, not to beat a dead horse, but I agree, we shouldn't be using cross hairs or targets as symbolisms in politics. Yet, it just occurred to me that one of the latest websites on dialysis uses cross hairs as its logo!! Fix Dialysis!!
http://www.fixdialysis.com/Art/fix-dialysis.jpg (http://www.fixdialysis.com/Art/fix-dialysis.jpg)
Crosshairs Design
A key feature of the four-quadrant model is the crosshairs that separates the quadrants. The severity of its distortion also represents the severity of dysfunction in the dialysis care system. The model is especially powerful for exploring how to return the crosshairs to a more balanced position.
http://www.renalweb.com/writings/New_Model-Oct10f.htm (http://www.renalweb.com/writings/New_Model-Oct10f.htm)
LOL
Jeez if anyone shoots dialysis Gary is going to have some 'splaining to do.
-
:rofl;
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
-
"The lead photo is from an effort by the Democrat National Committee. If you notice, rather than use surveyor’s crosshairs, as the graphics in Sarah’s ad did, they use traditional bull’s-eyes. the symbols for targets and target shooting."
from: The Difference Between The DNC’s Bull’s-Eyes And Sarah Palin’s Surveyor’s Crosshairs | A Time For Choosing: http://bit.ly/ezzuXi
Blame the shooter.
-
I have to admit that I didn't "get" the "blood lust" reference. I guess I'm culturally ignorant.
The only real quibble I have with her statement is that I fundamentally disagree with her/President Reagan's sentiments about how it's the individual to blame, that every time the law is broken, it doesn't mean that society is collectively guilty. We may not be "guilty", but perhaps as a society we are "responsible." I understand the idea behind "personal responsibility", and it is a laudable one, but not all of us are all the time able to be "personally responsible". Sometimes we have a responsibility to each other and to our society as a whole.
Sometimes you have to get past the noise in order to hear the message. I'd wager at this time that this was not a political assassination as we would normally define it, rather, it was the action of someone who was mentally ill. Many, MANY people thought that this person was unwell, and perhaps the message is that our mental health system is broken, tainted with shame and lack of education and lack of proper funding.
-
I have to admit that I didn't "get" the "blood lust" reference. I guess I'm culturally ignorant.
The only real quibble I have with her statement is that I fundamentally disagree with her/President Reagan's sentiments about how it's the individual to blame, that every time the law is broken, it doesn't mean that society is collectively guilty. We may not be "guilty", but perhaps as a society we are "responsible." I understand the idea behind "personal responsibility", and it is a laudable one, but not all of us are all the time able to be "personally responsible". Sometimes we have a responsibility to each other and to our society as a whole.
Sometimes you have to get past the noise in order to hear the message. I'd wager at this time that this was not a political assassination as we would normally define it, rather, it was the action of someone who was mentally ill. Many, MANY people thought that this person was unwell, and perhaps the message is that our mental health system is broken, tainted with shame and lack of education and lack of proper funding.
blood libel ... very different usage history than blood lust
How could both of these statements be true? Either words and actions are connected or they are not:
1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."
2. "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
However, if she goes with #1 then I suppose it means she'll come out in support of the lower Manhattan mosque, which would be good.
-
My apologies...I meant to write "blood libel". Still, I didn't understand that reference, either.
I don't have an answer to your other question...
-
Some should send Palin this link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blood+libel
-
blood libel ... very different usage history than blood lust
How could both of these statements be true? Either words and actions are connected or they are not:
1. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."
2. "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
However, if she goes with #1 then I suppose it means she'll come out in support of the lower Manhattan mosque, which would be good.
Bill, I was thinking of the mosque kerfuffle as well, but hesitated to bring that up as it caused such acrimony on here. Surely the people who are making statements to the effect of 'you cannot blame any one group for the actions of a terrorist' could see that this applies to Muslims just as surely as it applies to political parties.
Also, Sarah Palin referred to her crosshairs as 'bullseyes' on Twitter. All of a sudden, now that there's been a shooting of an individual whose name appeared on that map, her spokespeople are essentially saying 'crosshairs? As in gun sights? WHEREVER did you get that idea?!' It undermines ones credibility to wait until now to start back peddling.
Karol, that site you linked to was pretty hateful toward liberals. He called liberals stupid and said they have been 'indoctrinated since birth' which is a bizarre criticism as anyone with kids knows that you are naturally going to raise them with your own values, religion, and so on. Yes, from birth. That's a good time to start raising kids!
I don't think Sarah Palin is to blame for the shooting. I think the violent rhetoric does us no favors and contributes to these incidents and she should be admonished, like any other politician/pundit, to not so brazenly talk in violent terms as if it's just the cutest thing in the world. She reveled in the attention and controversy until it turned on her. The media has an unwritten rule that they will not report suicides unless it is someone famous. It is because suicide is considered 'contagious'. When Kurt Cobain killed himself, there was real worry about the emotionally fragile people who admired him. The head of LA Public School's Suicide Prevention - responsible for suicide prevention for approximately 800,000 students - once told us "When Kurt Cobain died, I learned where all of my grunge kids were." Why is this seen so differently?
I think Sarah Palin will survive this just fine. I do think that Harry Reid probably had a point when he said that the Tea Party will fade when the economy rebounds. I am not sure how they differ from libertarians. But Sarah Palin was here before the Tea Party, and I dare say she'll be here after.
-
Still blaming Sarah.
The more you blame a person for something that isnt PROVEN the more you divide the nation.
Did Sarah ask him to shoot someone?
Looks like the liberals lost Bush to Bash and Sarah has just filled the BASH A PERSON role.
It was fine and dandy for Obama to tell his people to bring a gun to a knife fight? Its Ok cause the media and liberals Kiss his ass needless of what he says.
if your not with Obama your a racist right? Isnt that the slant the liberals have so proudly decided to paint as the picture.
Im no Sarah supporter but give me a break with all this it is Sarah's fault. The news tore her up and down but they wont say a bad word about Obama or his dear wife.
Remember Rev. Wright Obama went to his racist church for 20 years. Oh sorry we dont talk about oboma like that. Cause if we were to talk bad about Oboma we would be racists.
This lunatic killer could say he had never heard of Sarah Palin. And i bet many would still say it is her fault.
-
Paul, to whom are you directing these comments? I really do not see any of what you are talking about being played out here, nor have I seen it on the news and I watch MSNBC, the most liberal of the news channels.
-
THere is nothing that gets me more motivated to become active in politics than the last several days of people implying that people such as me associated with the Tea Party movement, not in actions, but in the spirit of retaining what little remains of our liberties and freedoms, are in some way shape or form somehow responsible for the actions of a madman.
Obama has the opportunity today to either be a statesman and bring some healing to this land, or be a partisan politician that strokes the heat of the flames already brewing. We will have to wait and see who shows up.
As far as blaming Sarah, go for it folks, she is not as popular with the right as the left fears, but continued false allegations will cause people to rally behind her. I would think some one some where with some sense would get that message out to folks.
-
Peter, I do not speak for all liberals, but I do not fear her popularity in the slightest. I am certain she is unelectable as President, and if she were to run, most democrats would take this as excellent news.
-
paul.karen, I do know a couple of people who would call themselves "liberals" who do see the Tea Party as populated by racists. Labelling people in such a way usually means that you now don't have to bother listening to the message. As I've said before, how does anyone defend themselves against such a charge? That said, however, I do have a relative who I am embarrassed to say is very conservative and does not hide the fact that he does not like having a black man as President. But I will not extrapolate that to mean that all "Tea Partiers" are racist as that is vastly unfair.
On the other hand, I do think that there are elements within the Tea Party movement that imply that if you do not agree with them, then you are un-American and unpatriotic. Once again, how does one prove their patriotism? How do you disprove a negative? So, if you don't agree with the President, then you're racist. If you don't agree with Sarah Palin, you're unAmerican. None of this helps in promoting constructive and even passionate debate over what is good for Americans, however you may define them.
In my extremely humble opinion, Sen McConnell's vow that the GOP's top priority is to defeat the President and get him out of office is unAmerican and borders on treason. It is two years until the election, and now is not the time for campaigning, although the US now seems to be in permanent campaign mode. I wouldn't have been so bothered if the Senator had said that the top priority would be to defeat the President's policies, but to declare, in this time of real economic struggle, that his top priority is to defeat and remove the duly and democratically elected President of the United States is so beyond unpatriotic that it is staggering.
Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing. I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are. I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days. If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park. I cannot hang my laundry out to dry. My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID. You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun. I can't sunbathe nude. My stepson can't watch certain movies. I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling. I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take. I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me. When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way. I have to have a license to drive. I have to take a test to get a license. I have to get my car inspected.
I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government. How do you define "big government"? By the size of the budget? The debt? If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it. We can vote people in and we can vote people out. I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want. What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need. The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for. I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place. If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations and insinuations using the blood of those involved with this tragedy. Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Quote from Alan Dershowitz:
"The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. 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. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."
-
Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did. Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.
-
Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did. Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.
If you read the whole thread, I think you'll find that the general consensus is that no, she is not to blame. Using gun/shooting/target/weapon terms in our political discourse has been around for a long time, but Sarah Palin used these sorts of terms to a great degree and with great success. She is popular and vocal and is working at being a "king-maker", and when you put yourself out there like she has, it makes it harder to duck criticism. It goes with the territory, unfortunately. If she wants to continue to be a high-profile political personality, she's going to have to take the rough with the smooth. President Obama can certainly attest to that. It may be unfair, but that's the way it is in American politics today...a way that she helped to create.
It would be foolish to just walk away from this tragedy, saying "Only the killer is to blame" without taking the opportunity to look at things that might have been done to prevent this from happening. Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, nothing could have stopped this." Well, an awful lot of people saw that this guy was a walking time bomb, and he was able to buy a gun and ammunition, so perhaps something COULD have been done to prevent it. It's not about apportioning blame, rather, it's about trying to understand what happened and why, and how this young man could have been stopped before he killed so many people. It never hurts to be a bit introspective.
-
No, Palin is not responsible for the shootings. However..... in light of that, her map with the crosshairs targeting named congresspeople (including Ms. Giffords, the victim, and who stated that Palin's doing that could have consequences) complete with the gun lingo obviously did not go unnoticed. Given that, she had an opportunity to address it in a mature way, renounce any and all rhetoric that is like that (and on BOTH sides, I might add) and actually proven herself an intelligent leader. Instead, she did the opposite, layed low for a few days, then came out with her long, 8-minute speech that did have some good points, but instead was overtaken by her use of "blood libel" and "oh woe is me" language. Crazy, deranged man is completely and totallly responsible, but with that, he also brought to light all of the craziness going on in our politics today. If he had done his shooting at a non-political event, we would not be having this discussion.
KarenInWA
-
Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing. I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are. I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days. If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park. I cannot hang my laundry out to dry. My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID. You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun. I can't sunbathe nude. My stepson can't watch certain movies. I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling. I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take. I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me. When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way. I have to have a license to drive. I have to take a test to get a license. I have to get my car inspected.
I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government. How do you define "big government"? By the size of the budget? The debt? If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it. We can vote people in and we can vote people out. I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want. What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need. The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for. I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place. If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.
Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.
There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?
-
Sara Palin did not pull the trigger, that mentally disturbed man did. Im am so sorry for looking at this topic, because always put the blame on someone else instead of the person that commited the crime.
If you read the whole thread, I think you'll find that the general consensus is that no, she is not to blame. Using gun/shooting/target/weapon terms in our political discourse has been around for a long time, but Sarah Palin used these sorts of terms to a great degree and with great success. She is popular and vocal and is working at being a "king-maker", and when you put yourself out there like she has, it makes it harder to duck criticism. It goes with the territory, unfortunately. If she wants to continue to be a high-profile political personality, she's going to have to take the rough with the smooth. President Obama can certainly attest to that. It may be unfair, but that's the way it is in American politics today...a way that she helped to create.
It would be foolish to just walk away from this tragedy, saying "Only the killer is to blame" without taking the opportunity to look at things that might have been done to prevent this from happening. Sure, you can throw up your hands and say, "Oh, nothing could have stopped this." Well, an awful lot of people saw that this guy was a walking time bomb, and he was able to buy a gun and ammunition, so perhaps something COULD have been done to prevent it. It's not about apportioning blame, rather, it's about trying to understand what happened and why, and how this young man could have been stopped before he killed so many people. It never hurts to be a bit introspective.
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
-
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
CNN
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations and insinuations using the blood of those involved with this tragedy. Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.
By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
CNN
That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?
-
Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing. I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are. I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days. If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park. I cannot hang my laundry out to dry. My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID. You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun. I can't sunbathe nude. My stepson can't watch certain movies. I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling. I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take. I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me. When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way. I have to have a license to drive. I have to take a test to get a license. I have to get my car inspected.
I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government. How do you define "big government"? By the size of the budget? The debt? If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it. We can vote people in and we can vote people out. I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want. What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need. The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for. I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place. If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.
Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.
There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?
It goes back much longer than just the last two years. Let's start with the Patriot Act and the 2007 Warner Defense Bill over turning Posse Commitatis which the Supreme Court over turned a year later. Taking over the banking, mortgage, student loans, auto and many other industries is complete anathema to our manner of government for the last two hundred years.
I live most of the time in CA and let's not even get going on the regulations and taxation with those regulations. Yet, with all of these laws and regulations, are we a more civil and safe society? I think not, that comes from the personal responsibilities of individuals, a concept that has made this nation a great and unique nation that we are rapidly losing. But for sake of argument, let's just look at 60% of the economy now under government control as an issue of great concern to many people.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations and insinuations using the blood of those involved with this tragedy. Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.
By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
CNN
That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?
I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today. She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road. It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term. No one will remember anything she said except those two words. Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down. Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today. The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list. Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.
-
Hemodoc, I am still unclear as to which liberties and freedoms the Tea Party movement is so frightened of losing. I agree with you in that we are not as free as we think we are. I can water my lawn in summer only on odd numbered days. If there are three or more inches of snow, there are certain places I cannot park. I cannot hang my laundry out to dry. My husband couldn't buy me a cold remedy without showing a photo ID. You can't drink alcohol until you are 21, but you can buy a gun. I can't sunbathe nude. My stepson can't watch certain movies. I have to use certain colored bins when I put out my recycling. I have to have a prescription for each of the 10 meds I take. I couldn't see a renal dietician until my nephrologist referred me. When I put out my garden refuse, it has to be stacked in a certain way. I have to have a license to drive. I have to take a test to get a license. I have to get my car inspected.
I am not sure I understand the Tea Party's antipathy toward government. How do you define "big government"? By the size of the budget? The debt? If we do not like the government we have, we can replace it. We can vote people in and we can vote people out. I don't know why government has to be labelled "the enemy" if we, as a democratic people, can vote in whomever we want and can make whatever laws we want. What concerns me is not so much "big government" but, rather, "big corporations" which may help to create a bigger government than we want or need. The reason I have to get a prescription from a doctor is not because Congress is interested in my med list but, rather, because this is what the big pharmaceutical companies lobbied for. I am not convinced that "government" wants to be that involved in our lives because I am not sure that "government" cares that much about our lives in the first place. If your definition of "big government" is government contorted by big corporate interests and by Wall Street's desire for unfettered control of American monetary policy, then I'm right there with you.
Many of those restrictions you rightly list MM are local or like driving a car hard to credit a freedom based alternative (but once you give in to the man and get a license having a car is very freeing). If you wanted to you could live out in Wyoming and spend your days neckid and burning your trash out back but if you want live in a city then you and your neighbors can make the rules.
There are many ways we are more free than any other people in history - free to live from Nome to Key West, to communicate with anyone in the world at any time. We can't go to Cuba or N Korea but that doesn't really come up much in my day to day but if it was up to me we would have changed our Cuba policy a long time ago but that isn't what the right is talking about either. So yeah, what freedoms are under threat from legislation passed in the last two years?
It goes back much longer than just the last two years. Let's start with the Patriot Act and the 2007 Warner Defense Bill over turning Posse Commitatis which the Supreme Court over turned a year later. Taking over the banking, mortgage, student loans, auto and many other industries is complete anathema to our manner of government for the last two hundred years.
I live most of the time in CA and let's not even get going on the regulations and taxation with those regulations. Yet, with all of these laws and regulations, are we a more civil and safe society? I think not, that comes from the personal responsibilities of individuals, a concept that has made this nation a great and unique nation that we are rapidly losing. But for sake of argument, let's just look at 60% of the economy now under government control as an issue of great concern to many people.
Take over? Under government control?
Banking. We just had a financial meltdown that manifested under the laissez-faire approach constructed by Greenspan at the Fed and Republicans running all branches of government. Right? A 500 trillion - trillion with a T - derivatives market made a lot of people a lot of money but it was a scam. An unregulated market turned a person's signiture into a mortgage baked securities. A criminal scam. Today, due to the legislation that made its way through Congress (it is important to make note that the President does not write the legislation he can choose to sign or not sign or veto. The legislation has to get 60 votes in the Senate thus it reflects in its details, its choices, the biases of swing senators - Lincoln, Nelson, Collins, Brown, et al) this scam had light shined on it and a hundred other ways the system failed have been addressed in a way that got the votes of Brown, Collins and Nelson. Is it really true to say the government has taken over banking? or the mortgage industry? To a degree that was unneeded? And hasn't the federal government always had a key role in regulating banking and mortgages?
What value were private banks bringing to student loan transactions? Why did we need to pay banks to serve as middlemen in transactions that are primarily conducted via computers. Computers have made many service providers obsolete - just ask travel agents.
The auto industry? In what way does the government control the auto industry? There is a company called GM, it still exists because of federal intervention but the old big three are not the industry and the government isn't "controlling" auto production at GM. GM's bailout saved an industry and thousands of jobs, Ford announced they're hiring 7,000 people this year. For putting up money we have a chance to get back, entire regions have avoided a local depression. In an era that has seen pallets of money, literal pallets of money, being shipped to the twin Asian land wars, that is money well spent. But a waste of money or smart investment, it can not be fairly described as the government controlling the auto industry.
I assume healthcare is part of the 60%. The feds finance over half the healthcare delivered in this country. The legislation only increased that in the sense that people who were relying on ERs now might be on Medicaid but that's good. No question Medicare has a lot of rules but isn't that good? What would dialysis look like if government took a laissez-faire approach? No thanks. I appreciate Medicare's influence on the provision of dialysis. I think Medicare's involvement in the provision of dialysis has been a positive. The absence of regulation would have been worse.
-
Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics. We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least 99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.
By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout. Why isn't GM hiring 7000?
I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.
God bless,
Peter
-
Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics. We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least 99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.
By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout. Why isn't GM hiring 7000?
I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.
God bless,
Peter
I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?
The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.
-
Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics. We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least 99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.
By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout. Why isn't GM hiring 7000?
I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.
God bless,
Peter
I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?
The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.
Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US. Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong. I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.
I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress. So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.
Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me. The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway. The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities. It was the government regulations that brought this about. The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.
So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust? Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom. What part of that equation should I be pleased with? I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.
Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution. I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits. I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do. You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations and insinuations using the blood of those involved with this tragedy. Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.
By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
CNN
That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?
I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today. She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road. It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term. No one will remember anything she said except those two words. Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down. Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today. The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list. Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.
I think an important part of her speech (why give it today in the first place?) that I haven't heard comment about and is relevant tothis discussion, was at the 4:15 mark when she lauds our founder's genus for "devising a system that allows us to settle disagreements in civil ways". I don't think she was trying to be funny, I think many people on the right do not view the constitution in light of the Civil War but I think you have to. I think you have to view the work the founders did as leading inexorably to a civil war or disunion. As with the rest of this thread you can't say Madison caused 600,000 deaths between 1861 and 1865 but the Constitution, as it was constructed, was flawed.
The men who wrote the Constitution were flawed men that left future generations a far greater debt to pay than anything that has been created in this century. The document's genus is that it allows people to govern ourselves. Govern ourselves. We need to govern ourselves and that is exactly what happened during the 111th Congress.
Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics. We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least 99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.
By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout. Why isn't GM hiring 7000?
I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.
God bless,
Peter
I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?
The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.
Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US. Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong. I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.
I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress. So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.
Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me. The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway. The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities. It was the government regulations that brought this about. The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.
So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust? Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom. What part of that equation should I be pleased with? I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.
Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution. I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits. I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do. You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.
It was under Madison that the First National Bank didn't have its charter renewed (thanks Wikipedia) but the subsequent National Banks were created because their absence was worse. The 1913 act was a response to the devastating bank panics that plagued the US for decades. Panics are very costly, one of the great assets of this country in the post WWII period of the 20th century was our well regulated finance sector but if we want that asset back we'll need to reearn it.
What is the alternative National Bank model - the US Federal Reserve is private/public blend but the part that sets policy is on the public side. Ben Bernake is a federal employee.
Edited to add: You haven't addressed where the evidence of this take over can be seen, saying our current condition is socialistic, if true, does justify using the term but in what way is the federal government controlling the means of production? What decisions has the government forced on GM? What freedom would you have today if the 111th Congress had passed no legislative changes?
And the finance system didn't crash based on the transaction of an individual getting a mortgage. The system crashed because that turd of a mortgage was then used in the expanded derivatives market - you can see it happen in 2002 - for bets to be made. I could bet the turd was a golden nugget and you could bet it was a turd and then others could bet on our bets and that mortgage has now multiplied into a giant nest on bets - those bets were called derivatives and that multiplier effect is why Iceland is broke, there is no Bear Sterns, Lehman, etc and why the federal government owns AIG or whatever it is called. We could have handles millions of forclosures if there wasn't a derivatives market based on them.
-
Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US. Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong. I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.
I don't think this is true. The UK embarked on privatization of major industries back when Thatcher was Prime Minister. It was revolutary at the time. Surely you remember the unrest, particularly surrounding coal. The privatization of British Rail was cataclysmic and ultimately completely ineffective. The only thing "socialized" is the National Health Service which the British consider to be sacrosanct. That said, many people in Britain also have private medical insurance. When I lived there, I had private medical insurance (BUPA) through my employer. The idea was to go private for acute maladies and NHS for chronic conditions. British Airways is a private company unlike what most people here think.
The collapse of the Irish economy was due to the same real estate disaster we saw here in the US.
I am not entirely sure what Americans mean when they talk about "socialized government." Could someone define that for me? Thanks.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Wouldn't you think that before using the term "Blood Libel' (http://vimeo.com/18698532) in this context the person who writes Sarah Palin's stuff would have Googled the term?
Why,? the very fact the the liberal media and liberal pundits did make false accusations and insinuations using the blood of those involved with this tragedy. Now the liberal media and liberal pundits want to make a stink over a term that labels them perfectly to what they tried to do.
By bringing it up she refudiates (the lamestream spell check doesn't think that's a word) her own argument that words have no responsibility for the actions they inspire. Jews rightly see blood libel as a problem because it can create an environment where everyone wants to kill the Jews. So I guess thanks for the example but I thought Palin was trying to make the opposite argument.
Can someone show me where the "Lamestream" media blamed Palin? I'm sure bloggers did, but the highest profile person to say there could be violence because of the cross hairs was Gifford months ago. Of course its an issue but it isn't a new issue, Giffords talked about it and was acting on in her role as a Representative leading up to the shooting. How hard is it to say I regret my choice of words? This thread posses a question and to large degree asking the question is what has set off those on the right. That's what is hard to understand - of course Palin's map was brought up in the context of the shooting. I mean of course! Yet Peter, the question itself has you angrier than I've ever known you to be - just the question. How is that explained?
CNN
That isn't really a link. What did they do ask the question?
I wasn't happy at all with the speech of Sarah Palin today. She should have stopped her speech half way through and ended without bringing up any of her own personal difficulties with the entire incident and taken the high road. It was not a time to defend or unfortunately as she did, stir up more controversy with a highly charged term. No one will remember anything she said except those two words. Unfortunately, to be an effective leader, you have to be able to deliver the statesman approach when the chips are down. Quite simply, she didn't help herself at all today. The great leaders of the past have always been able to pull off the right speech at the right time, even Nixon with his Checkers speech would have to be right up there on that list. Palin simply didn't reduce the heat, she turned it up a notch.
I think an important part of her speech (why give it today in the first place?) that I haven't heard comment about and is relevant tothis discussion, was at the 4:15 mark when she lauds our founder's genus for "devising a system that allows us to settle disagreements in civil ways". I don't think she was trying to be funny, I think many people on the right do not view the constitution in light of the Civil War but I think you have to. I think you have to view the work the founders did as leading inexorably to a civil war or disunion. As with the rest of this thread you can't say Madison caused 600,000 deaths between 1861 and 1865 but the Constitution, as it was constructed, was flawed.
The men who wrote the Constitution were flawed men that left future generations a far greater debt to pay than anything that has been created in this century. The document's genus is that it allows people to govern ourselves. Govern ourselves. We need to govern ourselves and that is exactly what happened during the 111th Congress.
Bill, I don't believe we will come to a meeting of the minds as far as politics. We will just have to stick to dialysis related issues which we seem to have at least 99% agreement or maybe something of that sort.
By the way, Ford didn't take the government bailout. Why isn't GM hiring 7000?
I wish you the best in all things Bill as always, but we just will have to agree to disagree on politics.
God bless,
Peter
I'm not asking you to agree with me I'm asking you in what way has the government taken over the auto industry? I'm asking you to explain the word choice. I gave my account of the specific industries you mentioned to say that by my account those words are not accurate. I think the tone of this thread has generally been very good. Why is this uncomfortable to talk about?
The part suppliers support all manufactures if GM went it would have impacted all three of the legacy manufactuers. GM announced they were hiring 1,000s as recently as last month, the year is young.
Bill, looking at the example oversees of government owned/controlled industries and the indebtedness as the result of a socialized government society should be fair warning to us in the US. Many nations are now once again privatizing their industries and going away from a system that the US is embracing headlong. I believe it is a failed philosophy of government.
I would further point out that many of the things that led to the housing meltdown occurred with Democrat support, especially that of Barney Frank and Senator Dodd. It was Roosevelt that gave us Fannie and Freddy in the first place, taken off the government budget by under Johnson, empowered in 1978 by Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton encouraging the sub prime mortgages in the early 1990s despite warnings from the Republican congress. So to call this just a Republican issue underlies the decades it took to come together in the perfect storm it was and still is. It is a mess starting back with Roosevelt in the 1930's that we are reaping today.
Bad loans are simply bad loans and pushing them onto the banking industry that we have now just taken over smacks of government tyranny to me. The banks were forced into bad loans under threat of civil rights litigation, and now the government controls them anyway. The fact that it was across multiple administrations D or R does not mitigate the impact that this imparts and loss of respect and trust in these government entities. It was the government regulations that brought this about. The Sarbanes/Oxley act led to perverted stock market assessments that contributed greatly to this crises by speculators driving the stock market down with the mark to market accounting rules that still have not been suspended.
So I ask, what part of government is it that I should trust? Much of this entire mess is a manufactured crises by our banking, accounting and stock market regulations that has now led to the government taking over private industry to save us from financial doom. What part of that equation should I be pleased with? I would go back even further to the Federal reserve banking act of 1913 placing private bank in control of our entire economy.
Most people do not understand that America does not own the Fed and that it is not a government institution. I had one of my patients that worked at the LA Fed and she couldn't recall why she is not covered as Federal employee for benefits. I had to explain to a person that worked at the Fed that she was not working for the Federal Government, but instead for a private bank that tells our government what to do. You mentioned Greenspan, I would point out that he remained through both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. It is not a simply or situation at all. Both parties are complicit with these regulations and oversight going all the way back to Roosevelt.
It was under Madison that the First National Bank didn't have its charter renewed (thanks Wikipedia) but the subsequent National Banks were created because their absence was worse. The 1913 act was a response to the devastating bank panics that plagued the US for decades. Panics are very costly, one of the great assets of this country in the post WWII period of the 20th century was our well regulated finance sector but if we want that asset back we'll need to reearn it.
What is the alternative National Bank model - the US Federal Reserve is private/public blend but the part that sets policy is on the public side. Ben Bernake is a federal employee.
Edited to add: You haven't addressed where the evidence of this take over can be seen, saying our current condition is socialistic does justify using the term. In what way is the federal government controlling the mens of production? What decisions has the government forced on GM? What freedom would you have today if the 111th Congress had passed no legislative changes?
And the finance system didn't crash based on the transaction of an individual getting a mortgage. The system crashed because that turd of a mortgage was then used in the expanded derivatives market - you can see it happen in 2002 - for bets to be made. I could bet the turd was a golden nugget and you could bet it was a turd and then others could bet on our bets and that mortgage has now multiplied into a giant nest on bets - those bets were called derivatives and that multiplier effect is why Iceland is broke, there is no Bear Sterns, Lehman, etc and why the federal government owns AIG or whatever it is called. We could have handles millions of forclosures if there wasn't a derivatives market based on them.
Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.
In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue. Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families. Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.
We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances. The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today. I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman. If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation. He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him. Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.
-
Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War)
BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.
In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress)
Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue. Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families. Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.
We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances. The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today. I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman. If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation. He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him. Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.
There are a number of National Bank iterations but Wikipedia says Jackson Kiboshed the Second, Madison the First which was constituted in 1791. All this history is interesting but you can't seem to give an example of evidence that what you say is going on is going on ... so where's the beef?
Really the 112th Congress? Why would anything get passed by 60 Senators that repealed anything let alone get signed by the President. I think I gave a realist view of the importance of the 58th through 62 Senator, you're telling me the 112th is going to repeal something passed last session ... how?
Edited to add: And don't you think the Founders left future generations a huge debt to pay?
-
Hemodoc, what do you see as the things that the 112th congress will reverse? Which things did not most Americans appreciate?
I know the Republicans will work first on repealing the healthcare reform bill. Are there any elements of it that you see should be kept? What will the Republicans want to replace it with?
You are right..most of us just want to be left alone to provide for our families and live our lives without interference from either government or big corporate influences on our government. I don't see what is peculiarly "conservative" about that. The role of the government has always been a topic for debate, but I do wonder if now their main purpose is to regulate big business so that consumers are treated fairly and our country is protected against cavalier practices (like big oil companies ignoring drilling regulations. Government shouldn't HAVE to regulate such things, but since companies seem to work with less and less care, our waters are fouled and unique cultures are being destroyed.)
-
Hemodoc, what do you see as the things that the 112th congress will reverse? Which things did not most Americans appreciate?
I know the Republicans will work first on repealing the healthcare reform bill. Are there any elements of it that you see should be kept? What will the Republicans want to replace it with?
You are right..most of us just want to be left alone to provide for our families and live our lives without interference from either government or big corporate influences on our government. I don't see what is peculiarly "conservative" about that. The role of the government has always been a topic for debate, but I do wonder if now their main purpose is to regulate big business so that consumers are treated fairly and our country is protected against cavalier practices (like big oil companies ignoring drilling regulations. Government shouldn't HAVE to regulate such things, but since companies seem to work with less and less care, our waters are fouled and unique cultures are being destroyed.)
That is covered under anti-trust legislation for over a hundred years ago that the dialysis industry is almost completely exempted.
-
Bill, you are missing a bit of history that actually is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, that of Andrew Jackson who got rid of the National Bank which did not emerge again until 1913 under Wilson who also gave us the income tax as well, thank you very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War)
BTW, the 112th congress is set to start reversing much of what the 111th congress did to America that the majority didn't appreciate in the last election.
In the November 2, 2010 elections, the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives, while the Democrats kept their Senate majority, although reduced from the previous Congress.[2] This is the first Congress in which the House and Senate have opposing majorities since the 107th Congress of 2001-2003 and the first elected that way since the 99th Congress of 1985-1987. In this Congress, the House of Representatives has the largest number of Republican members, 242, since the 80th Congress of 1947-1949.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress)
Not trying to be argumentative Bill, well I guess I don't have to try to be, but Americans in general cherish independence and self reliance as a virtue. Most of us just want the opportunity to get up in the morning and seek our own employment and provide for our own families. Most of us unless are not looking to the government to solve our problems that we just wish to solve for ourselves without undo government interference.
We are straying quite a ways from the original post, but I didn't think that Palin helped herself today and came off sounding angry, a quick lose, lose situation for any politician who must rise above all circumstances. The blood libel phrase is all that will be remembered today. I didn't see Obama's speech, but from what I heard, he turned up as a statesman. If that is true, he trumped Palin and that is what we would expect of a national leader to do in the situation. He is after all the president for all people in this nation, not just those that like him. Nevertheless, I don't think I will be voting for him in 2012.
There are a number of National Bank iterations but Wikipedia says Jackson Kiboshed the Second, Madison the First which was constituted in 1791. All this history is interesting but you can't seem to give an example of evidence that what you say is going on is going on ... so where's the beef?
Really the 112th Congress? Why would anything get passed by 60 Senators that repealed anything let alone get signed by the President. I think I gave a realist view of the importance of the 58th through 62 Senator, you're telling me the 112th is going to repeal something passed last session ... how?
Edited to add: And don't you think the Founders left future generations a huge debt to pay?
Obviously the senate is not as strong for the democrats as it was during the last two years. We will have to wait and see what is going to happen, but Obama will not be able to just do as he pleases for the last two years.
I am at a loss why you think that the founders left us a debt? Isn't it past our bed times?
-
Bill, what about Illinois with a 66% increased state tax?
Maybe some one should tell Rich to turn the lights out after every one else leaves.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=238113&catid=3
-
I am at a loss why you think that the founders left us a debt? Isn't it past our bed times?
The Founder's slavery work around was not sustainable, the Founders weren't able to come to grips with the disconnect between their ideals and political reality so they left the question of slavery in the hands of the states but they knew it was going to be a problem and indeed it was - we had a civil war about it.
Palin and I think the right generally imagine the Constitution as a pristine unflawed document which I think is wrong. Palin's statement in the speech is wrong that the Founders gave us the tools to solve our problems peaceably - slavery could not be solved within the confines of the constitution, that's the debt. The Founders left future generations, their grandkids, to solve a problem they could not. The Civil War is a rather large event to gloss over.
This is where I part ways with calls to "go back to" the Constitution. I think we need to keep the Constitution we have, as amended. I am not interested in going back to before the 13th, 14th, 17th amendments.
-
Bill, what about Illinois with a 66% increased state tax?
Maybe some one should tell Rich to turn the lights out after every one else leaves.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=238113&catid=3 (http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=238113&catid=3)
What about it? Paying two more percent of your income to the state would suck but at least you can walk along Chicago's beautiful waterfront to try and find some perspective. I doubt loosing use of two percent of a person's income is going to cause a mass migration to Indiana.
-
We should have NO increases in taxs. We the people regular joes didnt spend the money we didnt have. Instead of raising taxs on regualr people why not stop spending on things that arnt needed. Cut costs stop spending. But liberals want more spending and if it means raisning taxs well that sucks but so what take a walk along the waterfront?? Why cut spending when we can just raise taxs and life will go on.
How much is to much? Shoudl the govt. take 40% of my check? 60% 80%?
-
The Founder's slavery work around was not sustainable, the Founders weren't able to come to grips with the disconnect between their ideals and political reality so they left the question of slavery in the hands of the states but they knew it was going to be a problem and indeed it was - we had a civil war about it.
Palin and I think the right generally imagine the Constitution as a pristine unflawed document which I think is wrong. Palin's statement in the speech is wrong that the Founders gave us the tools to solve our problems peaceably - slavery could not be solved within the confines of the constitution, that's the debt. The Founders left future generations, their grandkids, to solve a problem they could not. The Civil War is a rather large event to gloss over.
This is where I part ways with calls to "go back to" the Constitution. I think we need to keep the Constitution we have, as amended. I am not interested in going back to before the 13th, 14th, 17th amendments.
The right views the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. That changes are to be done with the tools left to make those changes, via amendments, not through ordinary laws.
-
I'd like to say a word about taxes. I live in Illinois, so this big tax increase will affect me. This state ranks dead last for just about everything...services for veterans, funds for special education...it's awful. My favorite local charity is the Association for Individual Development...it supports adults with disabilities, providing them with education, employment opportunities and even housing when able. The Association lost $1,000,000 in funding last year, the result being that 450 of their clients now don't have access to those kinds of services.
Last year our town didn't have enough money to pay for sufficient road salt. I live at the end of a wooded cul-de-sac-, and my damn road never got salted, and all winter just getting to the store was a wilderness adventure. Thank God I didn't have to drive to dialysis. If I have to pay more in tax to retain basic services, I'll do it.
When the governor was reelected, we knew that tax increases were on the way because we knew that the state had no money. There have been drastic cuts in spending that no one liked, and now there's tax increases we are not thrilled about, but we happen to believe that we need enough money to function and to look after people who can't always look after themselves. We believe in social responsibility, and sometimes you have to pay for that.
No one's moving from Chicago to (urp) Indiana. Have you been to Indiana? (Don't mean to insult those in Indiana... :rofl;)
Oh, much of downstate is farms. Why don't they cut farming subsidies BIGTIME?
-
We here in WA had a Tea Party candidate who wante to run for Senator. His name was Clint Didier. His mantra was we should NOT support the weak, because that will bring down the strong. I took that personally, since at this time, I do not know what my eventual kidney failure will do to me, so does that mean people like me should be left out to shrivel up and die? Meanwhile, he was lambasted for receiving years worth of farming subsidies. Needless to say, he didn't make it past the primary.
KarenInWA
-
I'd like to say a word about taxes. I live in Illinois, so this big tax increase will affect me. This state ranks dead last for just about everything...services for veterans, funds for special education...it's awful. My favorite local charity is the Association for Individual Development...it supports adults with disabilities, providing them with education, employment opportunities and even housing when able. The Association lost $1,000,000 in funding last year, the result being that 450 of their clients now don't have access to those kinds of services.
Last year our town didn't have enough money to pay for sufficient road salt. I live at the end of a wooded cul-de-sac-, and my damn road never got salted, and all winter just getting to the store was a wilderness adventure. Thank God I didn't have to drive to dialysis. If I have to pay more in tax to retain basic services, I'll do it.
When the governor was reelected, we knew that tax increases were on the way because we knew that the state had no money. There have been drastic cuts in spending that no one liked, and now there's tax increases we are not thrilled about, but we happen to believe that we need enough money to function and to look after people who can't always look after themselves. We believe in social responsibility, and sometimes you have to pay for that.
No one's moving from Chicago to (urp) Indiana. Have you been to Indiana? (Don't mean to insult those in Indiana... :rofl;)
Oh, much of downstate is farms. Why don't they cut farming subsidies BIGTIME?
Dear MooseMom,
Here in CA we have had a steady exodus for the last two years of major businesses because of our tax structure and a fact that Illinois has not caught on to, many states are competing for this exodus with tax breaks to the companies. Davita for instance left CA and went to CO due to tax considerations. As I read in an article today, the surrounding states to Illinois are gleefully applauding the Illinois tax hike.
Sadly, the tax cut will ultimately lower revenue to the state, not increase it over time due to an exodus. I think you are underestimating the negative effect of adverse taxes.
-
Sadly, companies don't want to do business in a state that has crap schools, crap roads, crap city services and a crap infrastructure.
Here's a bit more information on the situation in Illinois.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0112/Illinois-tax-increase-why-lawmakers-passed-66-percent-income-tax-hike
-
Sadly, companies don't want to do business in a state that has crap schools, crap roads, crap city services and a crap infrastructure.
Here's a bit more information on the situation in Illinois.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0112/Illinois-tax-increase-why-lawmakers-passed-66-percent-income-tax-hike
I think it has more to do with their bottom line and how the tax liability affects that.
In any case, I hope all works well for Illinois, our middle boy lives there as well.
-
I'd like to say a word about taxes. I live in Illinois, so this big tax increase will affect me. This state ranks dead last for just about everything...services for veterans, funds for special education...it's awful. My favorite local charity is the Association for Individual Development...it supports adults with disabilities, providing them with education, employment opportunities and even housing when able. The Association lost $1,000,000 in funding last year, the result being that 450 of their clients now don't have access to those kinds of services.
Last year our town didn't have enough money to pay for sufficient road salt. I live at the end of a wooded cul-de-sac-, and my damn road never got salted, and all winter just getting to the store was a wilderness adventure. Thank God I didn't have to drive to dialysis. If I have to pay more in tax to retain basic services, I'll do it.
When the governor was reelected, we knew that tax increases were on the way because we knew that the state had no money. There have been drastic cuts in spending that no one liked, and now there's tax increases we are not thrilled about, but we happen to believe that we need enough money to function and to look after people who can't always look after themselves. We believe in social responsibility, and sometimes you have to pay for that.
No one's moving from Chicago to (urp) Indiana. Have you been to Indiana? (Don't mean to insult those in Indiana... :rofl; )
Oh, much of downstate is farms. Why don't they cut farming subsidies BIGTIME?
Dear MooseMom,
Here in CA we have had a steady exodus for the last two years of major businesses because of our tax structure and a fact that Illinois has not caught on to, many states are competing for this exodus with tax breaks to the companies. Davita for instance left CA and went to CO due to tax considerations. As I read in an article today, the surrounding states to Illinois are gleefully applauding the Illinois tax hike.
Sadly, the tax cut will ultimately lower revenue to the state, not increase it over time due to an exodus. I think you are underestimating the negative effect of adverse taxes.
I think the appeal of CO v CA may be that it is a lot cheaper to run for Senate in CO - ever notice a certain CEO has "political" hair?
-
Hemodoc you letting us know that when you were younger you were a Dem and know that you are a doctor you are a Rep is not a surprise what so ever. It didn't need to be said. Please do not lead us to believe you changed for any other reason except your tax bracket.
The House is about to embark on a waste of time and energy. Trying to repeal the health care is stupid. It won't make it through Congress so why waste the time?
-
Hemodoc you letting us know that when you were younger you were a Dem and know that you are a doctor you are a Rep is not a surprise what so ever. It didn't need to be said. Please do not lead us to believe you changed for any other reason except your tax bracket.
The House is about to embark on a waste of time and energy. Trying to repeal the health care is stupid. It won't make it through Congress so why waste the time?
Actually my friend I live quite modestly. My politics changed when I became a born again Christian. I was still a democrat even after becoming a doctor. I would point out that there are many, many liberal democratic physicians in this country so please don't make assumptions about mine or other people motives, as in most cases, you will simply be in error.
I would hope people would not make assumptions about people without knowing the individual and what motivates him or her.
By the way, I am not happy with most Republicans either.
As far as Health Care Repeal, Obama and his cohorts didn't make the health system here better, what a wasted opportunity really. As I have stated many times in conversations with Bill, I am not adverse to true health care reform but is that what we got? Sorry, I believe that they really botched the whole thing. That is the view of the majority of people in the US today and that is one of the single most important issues of the last election in 2010 and why you no longer have a super majority in both houses of congress.
Yes, Obama will not sign it, nor will the Senate ratify it at a veto proof margin, but does it now my friend open up the debate to hear the other side of this whole debate that the Democrats shut out of any debate the last time around? It is more than symbolic my friend and congress does have the power to defund what ever was already passed. So perhaps some real debate can happen around these issues instead of just pushing something through because of the super majority the Democrats did enjoy, but no longer do.
-
:rofl;