DVD Talk
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson [Archive] - Page 3 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Deftones
01-11-11, 08:56 AM
Tucson residents apparently going to try and literally block them off



http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

I'm glad more people have started blocking them like this

shit, if i weren't out of town this upcoming weekend (when I assume the funeral will be), i'd probably go down to tucson to help out. i fucking hate Phelps.

Groucho
01-11-11, 09:07 AM
The entire discussion about this (including this thread) is sickeningly partisan. What's funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) is that if Giffords were a Republican we'd have the exact same posters in this thread, and the exact same comments would be being made -- just by the opposite sides.

Dr Mabuse
01-11-11, 09:14 AM
I think it's clear that Groucho's heated, hate-filled rant can be blamed squarely on Sarah Palin, or the Daily Kos, depending on which appeals to your ideological prejudice via your unused intellect.

CRM114
01-11-11, 09:15 AM
How do these Phelps characters get to protest at funerals? Aren't cemeteries private property?

Groucho
01-11-11, 09:15 AM
I think it's clear that Groucho's heated, hate-filled rant can be blamed squarely on Sarah Palin, or the Daily Kos, depending on which appeals to your ideological prejudice via your unused intellect.Thank you. You hit it right on the surveying symbol!

starman9000
01-11-11, 09:17 AM
Yeah, the only lesson learned (granted, it's not a new lesson) is that any tragedy = proof my side is right.

Venusian
01-11-11, 09:30 AM
The entire discussion about this (including this thread) is sickeningly partisan. What's funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) is that if Giffords were a Republican we'd have the exact same posters in this thread, and the exact same comments would be being made -- just by the opposite sides.

she used to be a Republican if that helps

wishbone
01-11-11, 09:30 AM
I'm the first one that would be all over Palin and Angle IF this guy had any association with them at all. As the information unraveled, there was not a single indication that he was motivated by tea party or right wing politics. Sure, he rambled about currency and government but he also rambled about small bibles and illiterates. THe dude was certifiable and from his mugshot, you can tell. Walmart could tell. Why do bars deny service to drunk people? Because their drunkenness is obvious.This is Walmart's statement on that item:However, Walmart later told the Journal that that Loughner was not turned away from the first store, but left before completing the purchase.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41014125/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Unless there is CCTV from the Walmart store showing Loughner acting crazy then he likely appeared like any other customer buying ammunition. Sounds like he may have had second thoughts but proceeded with his heinous act anyway.

His family should have been more engaged and noticed the warning signs but apparently they were loners just like their son.The Journal reported that Smith did not think Randy Loughner had worked since his son was born, but raised the child while Amy Loughner had a steady job.

Smith told the paper that he did not know the couple's last name until Saturday, despite having lived across the street since 1972.

Despite this, he described himself as probably one of closest neighbors to Randy Loughner.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41014125/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There was a brief interview with one of Loughner's fellow students last night. He was afraid of Loughner and tried to befriend him for fear of his own safety.

There are probably a lot more details yet to follow in this case. Thank you for clarifying your rationale in this discussion CRM. :up:

kvrdave
01-11-11, 10:15 AM
How do these Phelps characters get to protest at funerals? Aren't cemeteries private property?

They generally protest just outside the cemeteries.

DGibFen
01-11-11, 10:31 AM
How do these Phelps characters get to protest at funerals? Aren't cemeteries private property?

I think cemeteries owned by the state or country are considered public property. The private ones are governed by state laws, as shown in this example from Virginia:

Virginia has the most detailed statute. It provides for broad rights of access by relatives of the decedent and researchers:

A. Owners of private property on which a cemetery or graves are located shall have a duty to allow ingress and egress to the cemetery or graves by (i) family members and descendants of deceased persons buried there; (ii) any cemetery plot owner; (iii) any person engaging in genealogy research, who has given reasonable notice to the owner of record or to the occupant of the property or both. The landowner may designate the frequency of access, hours and duration of the access and the access route if no traditional access route is obviously visible by view of the property. The landowner, in the absence of gross negligence or willful misconduct, shall be immune from liability in any civil suit, claim, action, or cause of action arising out of the access granted pursuant to this section.

B. The right of ingress and egress granted to persons specified in subsection A shall be reasonable and limited to the purposes of visiting graves, maintaining the gravesite or cemetery, or conducting genealogy research. The right of ingress and egress shall not be construed to provide a right to operate motor vehicles on the property for accessing a cemetery or gravesite unless there is a road or adequate right-of-way that permits access by motor vehicle and the owner has given written permission to use the road or right-of-way of necessity. . . .

Va. Code Ann.§ 57.27.1 (1993).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/property/2006/03/grave_matters_1.html

There are 17 states that passed laws making it illegal to conduct any formal protest before and after funerals. However, one in Kentucky was overturned, and the ACLU has filed lawsuits in Ohio and Missouri against the respective state laws, citing "free-speech issues" in both.

http://www.acluohio.org/pressreleases/2006_press_releases/2006.05.08.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

There's also the Snyder v. Phelps case, which is currently on the docket of the Supreme Court. This is the one that resulted in the infamous Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that Albert Snyder had to pay $16,150 in court costs for Phelps' organization. (Bill O'Reilly offered to pay the costs, but that is pending on the results of the Supreme Court decision.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

In cases of funerals held at private cemeteries, the WBC stood across the street and heckled the attendees during proceedings.

General Zod
01-11-11, 10:51 AM
The entire discussion about this (including this thread) is sickeningly partisan. What's funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) is that if Giffords were a Republican we'd have the exact same posters in this thread, and the exact same comments would be being made -- just by the opposite sides.

Who's the opposite of Palin?

Groucho
01-11-11, 10:55 AM
Who's the opposite of Palin?Tannen, of course.

movielib
01-11-11, 10:57 AM
The entire discussion about this (including this thread) is sickeningly partisan. What's funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) is that if Giffords were a Republican we'd have the exact same posters in this thread, and the exact same comments would be being made -- just by the opposite sides.
:up: In other words, like always.

movielib
01-11-11, 10:59 AM
Tannen, of course.
Funny Groucho is back!

Nugent
01-11-11, 11:00 AM
Interesting. I saw this on the web:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8058/jllrsc.jpg

I guess either the pic is a fake or CNN screwed up its reporting.

So you saw this on CNN?

If so, nice reporting. Seems like this would have been an obvious target for some double checking of the validity.

I am crushed. I thought only Fox was feeding me lies. :sad:

Superboy
01-11-11, 11:03 AM
I'm glad we're back to this kind of discussion again. After years of hearing idiots talk about how videogames incite violent shootings, I've realized how much i miss it.

starman9000
01-11-11, 11:11 AM
So you saw this on CNN?

If so, nice reporting. Seems like this would have been an obvious target for some double checking of the validity.

I am crushed. I thought only Fox was feeding me lies. :sad:

No, CNN said he had no affiliation, and he thought maybe that was wrong.

Nugent
01-11-11, 11:16 AM
No, CNN said he had no affiliation, and he thought maybe that was wrong.

Thanks, that wasn't at all clear or stated in the post. I don't see any post stating that "he" said it was wrong.

"I guess either the pic is a fake or CNN screwed up its reporting."

starman9000
01-11-11, 11:25 AM
Come on. He quoted someones post on the CNN story. It was perfectly clear what he meant.

DGibFen
01-11-11, 11:37 AM
I included a link to the story above, but here's the picture of his registration card as shown on the CNN site:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/10/t1larg.loughner.registration.pima.jpg

(If the image is missing, it's located here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/accused-gunman-had-no-party-affiliation/?hpt=T2 )

Liver&Onions
01-11-11, 12:02 PM
Toast is not in the Constitution.

Toasters make toast.

Toasters are unconstituional

Loughner Logic


I rarely come into this side of the forum...but I saw this and it reminded me of what I was reading yesterday. On one of those "whack job conspiracy" forums, this dude was a poster, and even there was on the outside.

Either you knew that before posting this - or it's one hell of a coincidence.

Actually - looks like Slate has picked it up now. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/11/the-erad3-dialogues.aspx

Sample posts of his
If the NASA Space Shuttle is able to reenter from the orbit of the Earth then the NASA Space Shuttle is able to reenter because of the heat of 1,500 °C.
The NASA Space Shuttle isn’t able to reenter because of the heat of 1,500 °C.
Hence, the NASA Space Shuttle isn’t able to reenter the orbit of the Earth.

If the NASA Space Shuttle is able to reenter from the orbit of Earth then the NASA Space Shuttle is in orbit.
The NASA Space Shuttle isn’t in orbit.
Therefore, the NASA Space Shuttle isn’t able to reenter from the orbit of Earth. "

grrr
01-11-11, 12:13 PM
Tucson residents apparently going to try and literally block them off


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

I'm glad more people have started blocking them like this

From that same link, the AZ legislature is going to pass an emergency law keeping all protesters 300 feet away from funerals.

I don't follow the different states' Phelps laws closely, but don't laws such as these get struck down on a regular basis? I guess it doesn't matter too much to Tucson if the law is still in effect at the time of the funerals, though.

edit: missed DGibFen's post above.

JasonF
01-11-11, 01:12 PM
So you saw this on CNN?

If so, nice reporting. Seems like this would have been an obvious target for some double checking of the validity.

I am crushed. I thought only Fox was feeding me lies. :sad:

No -- apologies for being unclear. CNN reported he was an independent, but I had seen that picture elsewhere on the internet. I knew both CNN's reportage and the picture couldn't both be true, and I was asking which one was true. It turns out the picture is a photoshop. CNN did good reporting on this issue.

Groucho
01-11-11, 01:23 PM
CNN did good reporting on this issue.More liberal distortions!

DGibFen
01-11-11, 01:35 PM
Another positive update on Giffords' status:

Dr. Michael Lemole, the chief of neurosurgery at the hospital, told reporters in a noon briefing that Giffords continues to respond to simple commands and remains on a breathing apparatus only in order to “protect her airway.”

“She’s holding her own,” Lemole said. “We’ve been able to back off on some of that sedation and in fact she’s generating her own breaths. She’s breathing on her own.”

Urging the public and members of the media to be “extremely patient” with Giffords’s recovery, Lemole emphasized: “She’s going to take her recovery at her own pace. I’m very encouraged by the fact that she’s done so well.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47414.html#ixzz1AkzZLlS6

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-11, 01:39 PM
Let's hope and pray the progress continues. :up:

DGibFen
01-11-11, 01:52 PM
Bill Clinton's opinion on the political issues involved:

Former President Bill Clinton called Tuesday for a change in the American political climate in his first remarks on the Saturday shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is still in critical condition at the University of Arizona Medical Center three days after being shot in the head near Tucson.

In an interview with the BBC, Clinton avoided laying blame on anyone for the weekend attack, but sided with other voices suggesting that it’s time to reconsider the tone of political debate.

“Nobody intends for this kind of thing to happen,” Clinton said, “but we do need to be careful about things we say.”

Clinton’s response to the 1995 domestic terror attack in Oklahoma City has been cited as a model for how politicians - including President Barack Obama - might react to the assassination attempt on Giffords.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47414.html#ixzz1Al2qdngh


And here's how that model worked, in this revealing article from New York Magazine (article was published April 19th, 2010):

Fifteen years ago today, militia sympathizer Timothy McVeigh blew up a truck full of explosives at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding more than 600 in the worst terrorist attack to hit the United States before 9/11. And for more than a few observers, there's a smell similar to 1995 hanging in the air today. In her Sunday Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker asked, "Is the political environment becoming so toxic that we could see another Timothy McVeigh emerge?" This morning, blogger Steve Benen wrote, "For those of us who follow American politics closely, the developments are common enough to become dizzying." And in the New YorkTimes, Bill Clinton just reminded us that, “In the current climate, with so many threats against the President, members of Congress and other public servants, we owe it to the victims of Oklahoma City, and those who survived and responded so bravely, not to cross [the line crossed in Oklahoma] again.”

Indeed we do. But few analysts have ever acknowledged that Clinton himself was resurrected by the bombing. That McVeigh murdered 168 Americans is only part of his legacy: He also detonated his own fringe, and the aftermath of Oklahoma City should stand as a lesson to politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Exactly 15 years ago yesterday, then-President Clinton was forced to declare at a press conference, "I'm relevant. The Constitution gives me relevance." Health-care reform was dead, and Hillary Clinton seemed discredited. Both houses of Congress had gone Republican, and the GOP was rolling out its legislative plans.

The next morning, the Oklahoma City Federal Building exploded. Pundits would go on to write that it was the government shutdown later that year that allowed Clinton to trump the Republicans, but it was actually Oklahoma City that first allowed him to step forward as a national leader. As speechwriter Michael Waldman wrote in his book POTUS Speaks: "It was the nation's first exposure to Clinton as mourner in chief ... In fact, it was the first time Clinton had been a reassuring figure rather than an unsettling one."

Even more than that, Oklahoma City created a huge political opportunity, which Clinton quickly seized. On April 27, a little more than a week after the bombing, Dick Morris, then a little-known but influential Clinton adviser, presented the President a fantastically naked political memo that, as you can find in his book Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds, said: "Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans." Morris suggested using "extremism as issue against Republicans," not by "direct accusations," but via a "ricochet theory."

Clinton should "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," Morris wrote, and then "implement intrusive policy against extremist groups." Morris predicted that radical right-wingers would write their local Republican congressmen, and that in turn "this will provoke criticism by right-wing Republicans which will link right-wing of the party to extremist groups."

"Net effect," Morris concluded: "Self-inflicted linkage between party and extremists."

The Clinton Justice Department didn't go as far as Morris wanted, but it didn't matter. Republican members of Congress soon made fools of themselves defending militias. And Clinton found his voice. At a Michigan State commencement address shortly afterward, he told graduates, "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government."

In his memoirs, Clinton didn't mention the Morris memo, but wrote: "The haters and extremists didn't go away, but they were on the defensive, and, for the rest of my term, would never quite regain the position they had enjoyed after Timothy McVeigh took the demonization of government beyond the limits of humanity." Indeed, Oklahoma City gave Clinton the chance to pull his presidency together by advancing a positive agenda of triangulated social issues. And that strategy reached full flower in his 1996 State of the Union speech, where Clinton introduced a man named Richard Dean, a Vietnam vet who had worked in the Oklahoma City Federal Building and who re-entered the building four times to rescue people after it blew up. As everyone, including Republicans, stood to applaud, Clinton went on:

But Richard Dean's story doesn't end there. This last November, he was forced out of his office when the government shut down. And the second time the government shut down, he continued helping Social Security recipients, but he was working without pay … I challenge all of you in this chamber: Never, ever shut the federal government down again.


That's how much Clinton got it: He explicitly linked the terror of Oklahoma City to the federal shutdown, and both to the Republican Congress. After that, Clinton barely needed to look over his shoulder to get reelected.

These days, Republicans are allowing the likes of Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh to speak for the party, while Newt Gingrich is talking about shutting down the federal government all over again. GOP leaders are unwilling to denounce the "lunatic right" on their merits. Today is a day to remember how terribly that ended before.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/remembering_oklahoma_city_and.html

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-11, 01:56 PM
I knew that if Sarah Palin was to blame, Clinton was too.

The Edit King
01-11-11, 02:10 PM
Let's hope and pray the progress continues. :up:Amen to that. :up:

I just heard she was shot in the forehead and the bullet went through her brain and exited out the back of her head. :eek:

(...at first I heard she was shot temple to temple.)

DGibFen
01-11-11, 02:16 PM
The Arizona Republic weights in on Sheriff Dupnik's commentary:

On Saturday afternoon, with his friend Gabby Giffords in surgery fighting for her life, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik railed against the tense partisan politics - "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry" - that prompted the mass murders outside Tucson, in his view.

And, jarring as such claims may be, we understood. Or tried to understand, despite the spectacle of a lawman - an official whose very job it is to dispassionately gather facts and to maintain order and calm - tying the attack on Rep. Giffords and others to political speech in Arizona, which he considers prejudiced and bigoted. There is no evidence that the state's politics in any way contributed to this atrocity.

Was Dupnik unnecessarily inflammatory? It seemed so. But it came mere hours following a horrific, bloody mass murder. If you weren't on edge, you weren't being human. But then, on Sunday, the venting continued anew. And a horrified nation began paying closer attention to the Pima County sheriff.

The world's eyes, once again, focused on Arizona for the worst of reasons. And Dupnik stood before the cameras interpreting the shootings as politically motivated, despite an increasing weight of evidence depicting the shooting suspect, Jared Loughner, as a mentally ill young man who rambled incoherently about pervasive bad grammar and other apolitical obsessions. Even Dupnik has observed that Loughner had made death threats against others and that they had been investigated by police.

Still, Dupnik used the opportunities to blame Arizona's lax, new gun laws and, again, the angry "rhetoric" of talk radio. The shootings were spurred, he suggested, by "the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates."

Dupnik took up his cause again on Monday. And, in response, we have to say at last . . . enough. Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty.

With each passing hour, we learn more about the 22-year-old suspect. And everything we learn adds to the profile of a deeply troubled young man detached from reality. There is nothing to date that suggests any partisan motivation for his crimes, whether right-wing or left.

Dupnik needs to recall that he is elected to be a lawman. With each additional comment, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County is revealing his agenda as partisan, and, as such, every bit as recklessly antagonistic as the talk-show hosts and politicians he chooses to decry.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html#ixzz1Al9WYip8

covenant
01-11-11, 02:28 PM
Amen to that. :up:

I just heard she was shot in the forehead and the bullet went through her brain and exited out the back of her head. :eek:

(...at first I heard she was shot temple to temple.)

I can't imagine she was shot front to back and survive.

X
01-11-11, 02:29 PM
Yeah, that sheriff is more like the one we have in S.F. than what I would expect in AZ. Maybe he's trying out to be our new police chief.

Dr Mabuse
01-11-11, 02:36 PM
That sheriff is a pathetic fool who is more worried about getting attention for himself than anything else.

wishbone
01-11-11, 02:43 PM
excerpt

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: If you are in law enforcement and you are not a right winger, you will get all kinds of heat from the right wing nuts.

Katie Couric: But some people would say you are overly-politicizing this situation. That it appears at this juncture, although it's unclear, that this was a lone, deranged individual that might not have been inspired to do this at all for political reasons.

Dupnik: We'll never know the answer to that because there's no way to get into the heart and soul of a person to find out what their true motive is. And second of all, we're dealing with a very troubled personality

Couric: You stand by what you said over the weekend.

Dupnik: I am not a political person, by nature. I've been a police officer my entire life. I had no agenda. But I was very, very angry. And I think that here are millions of people in this country that are very concerned about the tenor of things in this country particularly when it comes to politics.

Couric: How does this community heal?

Dupnik: I think this country needs to tone it down. When I was growing up, it was a different country.

Couric: There are also laws that allow you to take concealed or non-concealed weapons and carry them with you at all times. Is that correct?

Dupnik: That is absolutely correct. That's the height of insanity. I don't know what else they can do. Maybe they could pass a law that would require that every child have an Uzi in their crib.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/10/eveningnews/main7232585.shtml

:rolleyes:

grrr
01-11-11, 03:21 PM
Yeah, that sheriff is more like the one we have in S.F. than what I would expect in AZ. Maybe he's trying out to be our new police chief.

Tucson is a funny place. The middle-class demographics and political beliefs are pretty much the same as the rest of the state but on top of that you have a large university in the middle of town and a sizable retired hippie demographic to the north. Surprisingly, the only 9/11 conspiracy theorists I've ever encountered outside of the Internet all lived in posh homes in north Tucson.

So, yeah, it doesn't surprise me that this particular city would elect a particularly weird Democrat Sheriff.

General Zod
01-11-11, 03:46 PM
That sheriff is a pathetic fool who is more worried about getting attention for himself than anything else.

The sheriff is a tough spot here. He had a nightmare scenario play out where someone in his jurisdiction killed a judge, a member of congress, and a 9 year old girl and 3 others and wounded even more. His office knew this guy was a danger but they couldn't really hold him for anything.

So he has no answers. He has nothing but to hold his hat in his hand and say this terrible thing happened on his watch. So he's looking for someone or something else to blame. Oddly enough he's guilty of the very same antagonistic type finger pointing as he's trying to rally against - and it isn't based in any real logic .. just emotion.

In a country of free speech people should be encouraged, not discouraged, to disagree. We should not let the violent actions of a few nutbags change the very core of what we are. I'm sure once the smoke clears this sheriff will agree but right now I think he's just mad and upset.

The Edit King
01-11-11, 04:17 PM
I can't imagine she was shot front to back and survive.Well, I could 'imagine' it, but I agree it sounds UTTERLY UNBELIEVEABLE!!! :eek:

More will be revealed...

(I would think it would leave me personally in a Vegetablic State at best.)

The Edit King
01-11-11, 04:21 PM
That sheriff is a pathetic fool who is more worried about getting attention for himself than anything else.I heard THAT! :up:

(Although at this point I'd say he's just treading water and trying to cover his arse.)

Doesn't he have a job to do instead of wasting tax dollars defending himself on TV?

eXcentris
01-11-11, 04:36 PM
In a country of free speech people should be encouraged, not discouraged, to disagree. We should not let the violent actions of a few nutbags change the very core of what we are. I'm sure once the smoke clears this sheriff will agree but right now I think he's just mad and upset.

I'm baffled by that statement.

But then again, I'm just a lowly Canuck. :)

Mabuse
01-11-11, 04:36 PM
Doesn't he have a job to do instead of wasting tax dollars defending himself on TV?That won't get him a book deal.

SkullOrchard
01-11-11, 04:51 PM
I blame:

Heavy Metal music
Violent video games
A lack of faith in God
Drugs, especially marijuana
Violent movies
Hateful Left-Wing rhetoric
Obama (a Muslim terrorist from Kenya)
Democrats (all of them)
The Liberal/Progressive agenda
Homosexuals
Negroes
Mexicans
The United Nations
Ben & Jerry's
No good dirty Hippies
Comic books
That fat kid from The Goonies
Girls who won't have sex with me (Yeah, I'm talking about you, bitch)
Damn dirty apes
Every retailer except Walmart
Every actor who ever played Batman who wasn't named Adam West
People who won't admit that tits and boobs are the same damn thing

crazyronin
01-11-11, 05:17 PM
The photo is actually a PK nail. It is used by surveyors to mark intermediate points, important to a survey, but a lower status than a "benchmark." However, your main point that "crosshairs" have uses other than a telescopic sight on a weapon is correct.

They are also used on printed circuit boards, where they are called "fiducials." They are easily picked up by vision systems to guide component placement, soldering (with solder paste), visual inspection, etc. I did not realize that my printed circuit boards were "death panels" but I suppose they are. Designs varied, we favored two concentic circles with a cross that extended very slightly beyond the outer circle. Others use a circle divided into quadrants, with two (opposite) quadrants filled in.

Apparently, the term fiducial is widely used in the graphic arts business (it has a different meaning in banking); there is even a Wikipedia article.

Up here Parker-Kalons are driven into wood. They're also marked "PK" in the hopes that stupid hippies won't pull them out. Benchmarks are marked with crooshairs and preferred to be monumented in bedrock, if possible.

I realize that flatlanders may have different habits.

I rarely come into this side of the forum...but I saw this and it reminded me of what I was reading yesterday. On one of those "whack job conspiracy" forums, this dude was a poster, and even there was on the outside.

Either you knew that before posting this - or it's one hell of a coincidence.


I just used it as a moment of levity. Everyone at work has seen Loughner's videos and we wile away time "Loughner logicing" what people say (it beats saying, "That's what she said!"

grundle
01-11-11, 05:59 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Important note, just to make things perfectly clear: I did NOT make any of the signs depicted on this page, nor do I approve of them, nor do I have any information about any of the people who made them. I am reposting these images not in order to threaten Bush but rather to express my disappointment that such threats seem to have never been investigated.

http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2416.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/saveearthkillbush.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/hangbushringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbush.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/onlydoperingo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/headshotringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9676.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2393.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/bushbeheaded.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/BushWhackerElMarco.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/headbasketElMarco.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004/signs/125-2584_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/012005aaguillotineFredAskew.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_april_10_2004/characters/120-2044_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/143-4350_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/busheffigyburnyoutube.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/09192006lynchFredAskew.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9660.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/leeharvey.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/elmarcolouisxvi.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/noosepuppetringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/shouldhangringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/nooseLastMohican.jpg

Venusian
01-11-11, 06:01 PM
What does your post have to do with this thread?

Mabuse
01-11-11, 06:06 PM
I think he's pointing out that Democrats, liberals, (and even anarchists) accelerated the hateful rhetoric and violent calls for federal blood long before some obscure crosshairs on a map on some website.

wm lopez
01-11-11, 06:07 PM
What rioting is that, exactly?
The ones happening in Europe because the government isn't going to give the people their entitlements anymore because of lack of money.
The entitlements Obama and Nancy Polsi want for America.

wm lopez
01-11-11, 06:08 PM
I blame:

Heavy Metal music
Violent video games
A lack of faith in God
Drugs, especially marijuana
Violent movies
Hateful Left-Wing rhetoric
Obama (a Muslim terrorist from Kenya)
Democrats (all of them)
The Liberal/Progressive agenda
Homosexuals
Negroes
Mexicans
The United Nations
Ben & Jerry's
No good dirty Hippies
Comic books
That fat kid from The Goonies
Girls who won't have sex with me (Yeah, I'm talking about you, bitch)
Damn dirty apes
Every retailer except Walmart
Every actor who ever played Batman who wasn't named Adam West
People who won't admit that tits and boobs are the same damn thing

The main stream media and Hollywood don't agree with you.

arminius
01-11-11, 06:08 PM
What does your post have to do with this thread?
I think those pictures are far more indicative of hate than anything Palin has done. Of course if the proper people are being killed it's all good.

grundle
01-11-11, 06:28 PM
What does your post have to do with this thread?

I think he's pointing out that Democrats, liberals, (and even anarchists) accelerated the hateful rhetoric and violent calls for federal blood long before some obscure crosshairs on a map on some website.

Right.

Kind of like this:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y-Elr5K2Vuo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y-Elr5K2Vuo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

starman9000
01-11-11, 06:31 PM
Sweet, so now we've finally got the blame properly pegged.

shadowhawk2020
01-11-11, 06:35 PM
I think those pictures are far more indicative of hate than anything Palin has done. Of course if the proper people are being killed it's all good.

Sure, but you didn't have a prominent Democratic figure calling for those things... You just had nutjobs on the fringe saying stupid things.

If you buy the crosshair argument (which I don't) you have a few Republicans that are/were running for office telling the nutjobs we need 2nd amendment solutions to problems, while locking and loading, and targeting members of an opposing political party...

grrr
01-11-11, 06:48 PM
Out of curiosity, when public faces beg for a return to civility, which era of American politics are they speaking of? My memory only goes back to the mid-80s, but I don't recall that Reagan and Bush/Quayle/Perot were treated any better than Clinton, W, or the current generation of politicians.

Whenever the halcyon days occurred, though, I'm sure it had to be after the Civil War, as I don't recall Preston Brooks or Abe Lincoln being terribly shy with their opinions of political enemies.

starman9000
01-11-11, 06:49 PM
Yeah, it's largely just "the good old days" mentality me thinks.

RoyalTea
01-11-11, 06:50 PM
I agree with you that this likely had nothing to do with Palin directly

it really sounds like you're suggesting that Palin had an indirect role in the shooting in Tuscon.

starman9000
01-11-11, 06:56 PM
Why is the media reporting his mother's wage and his parent's property value?

CharlieK
01-11-11, 07:21 PM
Because we must know every last, minute detail of the people who created this monster!

The Edit King
01-11-11, 07:33 PM
I blame:

Heavy Metal music
Violent video games
A lack of faith in God
Drugs, especially marijuana
Violent movies
Hateful Left-Wing rhetoric
Obama (a Muslim terrorist from Kenya)
Democrats (all of them)
The Liberal/Progressive agenda
Homosexuals
Negroes
Mexicans
The United Nations
The Edit King
Ben & Jerry's
No good dirty Hippies
Comic books
That fat kid from The Goonies
Girls who won't have sex with me (Yeah, I'm talking about you, bitch)
Damn dirty apes
Every retailer except Walmart
Every actor who ever played Batman who wasn't named Adam West
People who won't admit that tits and boobs are the same damn thing:(

mosquitobite
01-11-11, 07:36 PM
Sure, but you didn't have a prominent Democratic figure calling for those things... You just had nutjobs on the fringe saying stupid things.


What about Rep Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)? Is he a nutjob &/or fringe or is a congressman a prominent Democratic figure?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/dem-congressman-who-called-gop-gov-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n#ixzz1AlK9CYJG
*
The whole blame game over this shooting is stupid! I'm sure Loughner is loving it though!

This is far from the nastiest political climate we've ever had in this country!

Bluelitespecial
01-11-11, 07:38 PM
Bill O Reily did a good job on last nights show, calling out all the people so quick to politicize the crimes, but the people at MSNBC, and the New York Times spew just as much hate to people who don't share their same left leaning views.

JasonF
01-11-11, 07:42 PM
it really sounds like you're suggesting that Palin had an indirect role in the shooting in Tuscon.

It really sounds like you're spoiling for a fight. Feel free to have it without me.

The Edit King
01-11-11, 08:05 PM
Bill O Reily did a good job on last nights show, calling out all the people so quick to politicize the crimes, but the people at MSNBC, and the New York Times spew just as much hate to people who don't share their same left leaning views.Speaking of William O:

Bill just played a clip of Jon Stewart who said, 'We live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame Heavy Metal Music for Columbine.'

RoyalTea
01-11-11, 08:06 PM
It really sounds like you're spoiling for a fight. Feel free to have it without me.
then why even add the word "directly" if you're not looking for an argument?

Hiro11
01-11-11, 08:19 PM
Out of curiosity, when public faces beg for a return to civility, which era of American politics are they speaking of? My memory only goes back to the mid-80s, but I don't recall that Reagan and Bush/Quayle/Perot were treated any better than Clinton, W, or the current generation of politicians.

Whenever the halcyon days occurred, though, I'm sure it had to be after the Civil War, as I don't recall Preston Brooks or Abe Lincoln being terribly shy with their opinions of political enemies.Exactly. Read some of the campaign literature from the early 1800s. It was, if anything, much more personal and brutal back them. It's been like this since since the dawn of time, I'm sure the Greeks were effective muck rakers. Everyone is so hyper-sensitive these days that the mildest political offense is interpreted as nuclear warfare by the press.

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-11, 08:23 PM
Jon Stewart who said, 'We live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame Heavy Metal Music for Columbine.'

That's called CYA. ;)

The Edit King
01-11-11, 08:26 PM
:eek:It really sounds like you're spoiling for a fight. Feel free to have it without me.:eek:then why even add the word "directly" if you're not looking for an argument?:eek:

Deep Breaths, fellas. :)

OtterVille is a FIGHT-FREE ZONE.

The Edit King
01-11-11, 08:30 PM
That's called CYA. ;)Canadian Yachting Association???

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 08:43 PM
Bill O Reily did a good job on last nights show, calling out all the people so quick to politicize the crimes, but the people at MSNBC, and the New York Times spew just as much hate to people who don't share their same left leaning views.

O'Reilly was on fire. I haven't seen him that worked up in a long time.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aGWrPALkono" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Since the Jon Stewart commentary was mentioned, here's the clip. He did a pretty good job with a thoughtful, restrained response.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction'>Arizona Shootings Reaction<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:370499' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog&lt;/a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

The Edit King
01-11-11, 09:02 PM
Talk about G-R-E-A-T Clips!

(I actually watched both all the way through. I missed Bill's talking Points tonight.)

Thanks for posting 'em, BIG D! :up:

-Paul

Jason
01-11-11, 09:07 PM
it really sounds like you're suggesting that Palin had an indirect role in the shooting in Tuscon.

How could she possibly have? I doubt most people had even heard of Sarah Palin until the soros smear machine dredged all this up.

DGibFen
01-11-11, 09:16 PM
"Die, Bitch."

(CBA/AP) TUCSON, Ariz. -- The 22-year-old man accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a deadly shooting rampage wrote "Die, bitch" in a note found at his home, a sheriff's official told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Investigators believe the handwritten message was a reference to Giffords, Pima County Chief Rick Kastigar said. The note was found in a safe alongside other ones, including "I planned ahead," "My assassination" and the name "Giffords."

Authorities revealed other new information on Tuesday about the events leading up to the Saturday shooting that killed six people and injured 14 others, including the three-term Democrat.

On Saturday morning, Jared Loughner's father saw him take a black bag out of a car trunk, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told the AP.

The father approached Loughner, and he mumbled something and took off running, Dupnik said. The father got in his truck and chased his son as he fled on foot.

Loughner took a taxi cab to the supermarket where the three-term Democrat was holding a meeting to hear the concerns of her constituents, authorities said earlier. Among those killed were a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.

Tuesday afternoon, Loughner's parents released a statement saying that they don't understand why the shooting happened and that they can't express their feelings in words.

"This is a very difficult time for us," read the statement from Randy and Amy Loughner, parents of suspected shooter Jared Loughner, 22, that was handed out to reporters standing in a shady driveway outside their Tucson home. "We ask the media to respect our privacy. There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better. We don't understand why this happened."

Both parents have been interviewed extensively by the FBI as part of the investigation into Saturday's shooting in which six people, including a federal judge, died and 14 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were wounded.

Earlier, the parents told federal investigators they knew their son was becoming increasingly troubled but were not aware how much he had drifted and were "completely surprised" that he actually committed a violent act, a law enforcement source told CBS News investigative producer Pat Milton Tuesday.

The source told Milton that one of the critical questions investigators initially tried to determine is whether Loughner was spurred on by hate groups or pushed or directed by some other individuals or groups. So far there has been no information that is the case.

The source also told Milton that investigators are looking into whether Loughner may have conducted surveillance on Giffords’ district office and campaign rallies.

Loughner's parents are devastated, according to neighbor Wayne Smith, 70.

Smith shocked the Loughners with the news of their son's arrest this weekend as they returned from shopping. He told Tracy the parents can't stop crying.

"They're devastated," said Smith. "How would you feel if your son did it? You'd feel like that you're to blame for the people getting shot. They are just deeply grieved about it."

On another topic, is Dupnik still actively involved with questioning Loughner? With the way he's talking to the media, I'd be worried he might taint the investigation at this point. Then again, I'd imagine the Feds have taken total control, considering Loughner has yet to be charged with the deaths of the 4 citizens and numerous others injured, which would occur on the state level (assuming he gets a trial, pending his metal evaluation.)

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 09:42 PM
is Dupnik still actively involved with questioning Loughner?

I doubt it. He's too busy trying to get a job at MSNBC.

NotThatGuy
01-11-11, 09:46 PM
Amen to that. :up:

I just heard she was shot in the forehead and the bullet went through her brain and exited out the back of her head. :eek:

(...at first I heard she was shot temple to temple.)

If it was temple to temple she'd be in a vegetative state or dead. Outside of a grazing, there are very few GSWs that don't end in significant impairment.

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 10:37 PM
It was only a matter of time before someone linked this to heavy metal music:

As predictably as the sun's rising and setting, when a young person goes off the rails and commits a horrific act of violence, attention swiftly turns to the type of music he or she was a fan of.

In particular, a pounding metal song used as the soundtrack for the lone video Loughner marked as a favorite on YouTube -- one in which an American flag is burned by a hooded man -- contains lyrics that reference bodies hitting a floor. The video for the song itself -- a 2001 release from the band Drowning Pool titled "Bodies" -- features one of the band's members screaming instructions to what appears to be a mental patient housed in an insane asylum.

"You're never sure what caused an individual to commit a specific act," Brad Bushman, a communications and psychology professor at Ohio State University, told the Washington Post's J. Freedom du Lac. "But I've been doing research on violent media for 20 years, and the evidence is that it leads to aggressive behavior. It's not the only factor that leads to violence, but it's one of them."

The Loughner case isn't the first time "Bodies" has been plunged into controversy. In 2003, Joshua Cook of Oakton, Va., reportedly listened to the song repeatedly at high decibels to motivate himself to murder his parents.

FULL ARTICLE - http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110111/ts_yblog_thelookout/a-new-forum-for-culture-war-debate-jared-loughners-musical-taste

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sO_QntXc-c4" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Statement from the band:

Response to the Arizona Tragedy

“We were devastated this weekend to learn of the tragic events that occurred in Arizona and that our music has been misinterpreted, again.

‘Bodies’ was written about the brotherhood of the mosh pit and the respect people have for each other in the pit. If you push others down, you have to pick them back up. It was never about violence. It’s about a certain amount of respect and a code.

We’ve performed for the troops overseas several times in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Through our song ‘Soldiers,’ we were able to create a petition that helped pass the Lane Evans Mental Health Care Reform Bill, which we presented to then-Senator Barack Obama.

We’ve been lucky enough to have some of the biggest success of our career with our new album and we want to continue to spread positivity for the future, not dwell on negativity. For someone to put out a video misinterpreting a song about a mosh pit as fuel for a violent act shows just how sick they really are. We support those who do what they can to keep America safe.

Our hearts go out to the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy.”

http://www.drowningpool.com/index.cfm/pk/view/cd/NAA/cdid/413027/pid/400028

X
01-11-11, 10:39 PM
On another topic, is Dupnik still actively involved with questioning Loughner?I believe Loughner got hustled off to Phoenix very quickly. I can imagine Dupnik was one of the reasons.

kvrdave
01-11-11, 10:47 PM
If you buy the crosshair argument (which I don't) you have a few Republicans that are/were running for office telling the nutjobs we need 2nd amendment solutions to problems, while locking and loading, and targeting members of an opposing political party...

And Obama responding that if they bring a knife to the fight, then they [Democrats] should bring a gun.

It's stupid to see these as anything other than political ramblings. You'll never stop the crazy from hearing what they want, and you'll never stop politicians from trying to pounce on a tragedy.

eXcentris
01-12-11, 12:21 AM
The point shoudn't be "we've always had vitriolic political rhetoric", it should be "what impact does it have on the population today, in this era of 24 hour news networks, shit trowing pundits, the internet, etc...". Even if these murders were not politically motivated, considering the extreme rhetoric that ensued, perhaps this is the right time for a little introspection instead of shrugging it off as business as usual.

kvrdave
01-12-11, 01:31 AM
That sounds like a nice thought experiment, and I'd like nothing more, but it is naive. We are in this era now, and extreme rhetoric won't stop. Crazy people do things and we try to make sense of it. We want there to be a reason for it. But this type of thing happened before this era as well.

But we do seem to be in a new era of extreme reactionism as well, so I am sure that there will be talk of a new Brady Bill, renamed of course, and there will be a few other laws passed in reaction to this, and at some point some crazy person will do something else that makes no sense while we frantically search for the culprit by pointing fingers.

It's sad, but it is also reality.

grrr
01-12-11, 01:42 AM
The point shoudn't be "we've always had vitriolic political rhetoric", it should be "what impact does it have on the population today, in this era of 24 hour news networks, shit trowing pundits, the internet, etc...". Even if these murders were not politically motivated, considering the extreme rhetoric that ensued, perhaps this is the right time for a little introspection instead of shrugging it off as business as usual.

I don't disagree, but in the real world of politics this is nothing more than navel-gazing. American politics is a nasty business that has actually increased in civility as expanding technology and media have revealed more of its inner workings. If anything, I'd say that the 24-hour news networks and blogosphere have made politicians more accountable (and careful) by bringing to light their every little word and deed.

I know it seems like we're constantly being flooded with crap from the Palins and Emanuels of the world, but we can at least take solace in the fact that our intrusive and dirt-dishing media won't leave a stone unturned when examining their political and personal lives.

I mean, in the 1850s we had members of the Senate beating one another nigh to death on the Senate floor and issuing pistols at dawn challenges on the wrong side of the Canadian border. Nowadays we fight with faceless strangers over whether Sarah Palin's map uses crosshair icons or surveying symbols. I don't mean to make light of the deplorable rhetoric that's tossed around far too often, but I can't help but think that we're better off for the unyielding attention that the media is giving politics in 21st century America.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 07:21 AM
Palin's statement. I predict the phrase of the day will be "blood libel".

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/18698532" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Ky-Fi
01-12-11, 07:30 AM
Particularly when you contrast this shooting incident with the Fort Hood shooter, I don't know how people can keep denying the leftwing bias of the mainstream media.

If the media were truly objective, the story and debate would stem from the facts, not vice-versa. The stories and angles have already been decided, and when the incidents come up, the facts are just manipulated to match the pre-conceived plotlines. With both shooting incidents, what SHOULD have happened is that a responsible media would go a bit slow in ascribing blame the first few days, until it started to become clear what ACTUALLY motivated the shooter, and THEN they would work to stir up a national debate on these issues. But that's not what happened in either case. With the Fort Hood shooter, the leftwing media had already decided that Islam was not to be attacked. When the first reports of the shooting came out, we heard that it specifically wasn't terrorism, and that the guy was probably mentally ill. When it became clear that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he started firing, and had a history of subscribing to violent Islamic beliefs, where was the national debate, and the call for introspection on Islam from the mainstream media? Of course it didn't happen, because they've got their narrative that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with it, it doesn't need to be discussed or investigated, and that one is a bigot if one doesn't celebrate the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. The facts of the matter, that the Fort Hood shooter was SPECIFICALLY motivated by Islamic beliefs, and that we have cases virtually every month now in the US of groups or individuals directly inspired by Islam to engage in violence---those facts are irrelevant to the leftwing media, because they've already decided that Islam will not be scrutinized harshly.

In contrast, The Arizona shooter actually WAS mentally ill, had NO connection to the conservatives, and no one in the media even claimed to have any evidence that he was influenced by Sarah Palin. But once again, a factual connection was irrelevent to the story they wanted to tell: that conservatives are the real enemy and the source of violence. And that's certainly the story they did tell, with nationwide calls for introspection and reflection on the violent rhetoric of society---read: let's try to demonize and silence the conservatives.

So this is where we are with the leftwing media. The fantasy of violence inspired by Sarah Palin is grounds for a national debate and a wave of introspection, and the actual violence inspired by Islam is not.

And they wonder why Fox news keeps going up in the ratings and the traditional leftwing print and media are all hemmorhaging readers and viewers. People want to argue the Fox is biased, fine---but the mainstream media opened the door for that by abdicating the role of objective journalism.

edit: And I'll further add, instead of demonizing Sarah Palin, might the Arizona shooting not be a better inspiration for a responsible media to increase scrutiny on the treatment of mental illness in the US?

Venusian
01-12-11, 07:35 AM
Palin's statement for those who don't want to watch the video:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47478.html



I think I agree with almost all of it! :eek: She must have gotten a new speech writer ;)

wishbone
01-12-11, 08:22 AM
http://i51.tinypic.com/ogh2yq.jpg

DGibFen
01-12-11, 08:26 AM
She wasn't the first to use that phrase this week:

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.


By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

Pima County, AZ Sheriff Clarence Dupnik held a press conference during which he blamed vitriolic political rhetoric for provoking the mentally unstable, and lamented Arizona's becoming the "mecca of prejudice and bigotry." Video courtesy of AFP.

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of a shooting spree that killed a Federal Judge and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had left a trail of online videos in which he railed against the government. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

Mr. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

Cabman Gray
01-12-11, 08:32 AM
http://i51.tinypic.com/ogh2yq.jpg

I know this picture has something to do with the topic, but what? There's no context to this closeup of two hands; it could have been taken anywhere or anytime. Could we at least have a caption, so we know just how this ties in with the Arizona tragedy?

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 08:37 AM
I know this picture has something to do with the topic, but what? There's no context to this closeup of two hands; it could have been taken anywhere or anytime. Could we at least have a caption, so we know just how this ties in with the Arizona tragedy?

It's the first pic of Giffords in the hospital. Her and her husband holding hands. Here's another angle:

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1815/gabriellegiffordsmarkke.jpg

JasonF
01-12-11, 08:39 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe criticism of Sarah Palin in the context of an attack on a Jewish politician by someone who may have been motivated by antisemitism? Probably.

Venusian
01-12-11, 08:44 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe criticism of Sarah Palin in the context of an attack on a Jewish politician by someone who may have been motivated by antisemitism? Probably.
motivated by antisemitism?? I thought he was motivated by the "toxic environment?" ;)


I didn't know "blood libel" had historic context until I just looked it up so it didn't bother me.

DGibFen
01-12-11, 08:57 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe criticism of Sarah Palin in the context of an attack on a Jewish politician by someone who may have been motivated by antisemitism? Probably.

The ties to an antisemitic group, mentioned by a few news outlets Sunday (I first heard about it on Fox News), seemed to have dried up in the wake of subsequent evidence discovered by police. I'm sure that if Loughner had confirmed antisemitic ties, it would or will be mentioned - but it is appearing that antisemitism had nothing to do with his actions.

That said, I do agree with you that Palin should have used another phrase to describe how she felt. I'll assume that by the end of the day (like TheBigDave said), no one will be talking about the substance of her speech, but that she used the phrase "blood libel".

EDIT: And it's already occuring, as Ben Smith from Politico notes:

As I noted earlier, I was curious how "blood libel" -- historically the specific term for the anti-semitic slur and incitement that Jews prepared ritual food with the blood of Christian children -- has made its way into the American political debate, and I speculated that it was an echo of Israel's use of the term defending itself against charges of having killed Palestinian civilians.

I emailed Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, who injected it into the conversation this week, to ask.

He replies:

That's probably right, as I've followed the Israel stuff a lot, though I don't necessarily know that Palin picked up the phrase from me -- I think a lot of people in the blogosphere were using that description. I didn't see it, but I got email saying that on Morning Joe somebody was complaining about her use of that term this morning. I am of course aware -- and I imagine the very pro-Israel Palin is, too -- of *The* Blood Libel from medieval times, but one sees false associations with murder called *a* blood libel without reference to that. I seem to recall Tony Blankley calling the Haditha allegations (by John Murtha?) a blood libel against American troops, for example.

Reynolds is right; here's that column. (http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2006/06/07/media_danse_macabre)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/The_origins_of_blood_libel.html?showall

mosquitobite
01-12-11, 09:24 AM
Particularly when you contrast this shooting incident with the Fort Hood shooter, I don't know how people can keep denying the leftwing bias of the mainstream media.

If the media were truly objective, the story and debate would stem from the facts, not vice-versa. The stories and angles have already been decided, and when the incidents come up, the facts are just manipulated to match the pre-conceived plotlines. With both shooting incidents, what SHOULD have happened is that a responsible media would go a bit slow in ascribing blame the first few days, until it started to become clear what ACTUALLY motivated the shooter, and THEN they would work to stir up a national debate on these issues. But that's not what happened in either case. With the Fort Hood shooter, the leftwing media had already decided that Islam was not to be attacked. When the first reports of the shooting came out, we heard that it specifically wasn't terrorism, and that the guy was probably mentally ill. When it became clear that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he started firing, and had a history of subscribing to violent Islamic beliefs, where was the national debate, and the call for introspection on Islam from the mainstream media? Of course it didn't happen, because they've got their narrative that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with it, it doesn't need to be discussed or investigated, and that one is a bigot if one doesn't celebrate the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. The facts of the matter, that the Fort Hood shooter was SPECIFICALLY motivated by Islamic beliefs, and that we have cases virtually every month now in the US of groups or individuals directly inspired by Islam to engage in violence---those facts are irrelevant to the leftwing media, because they've already decided that Islam will not be scrutinized harshly.

In contrast, The Arizona shooter actually WAS mentally ill, had NO connection to the conservatives, and no one in the media even claimed to have any evidence that he was influenced by Sarah Palin. But once again, a factual connection was irrelevent to the story they wanted to tell: that conservatives are the real enemy and the source of violence. And that's certainly the story they did tell, with nationwide calls for introspection and reflection on the violent rhetoric of society---read: let's try to demonize and silence the conservatives.

So this is where we are with the leftwing media. The fantasy of violence inspired by Sarah Palin is grounds for a national debate and a wave of introspection, and the actual violence inspired by Islam is not.

And they wonder why Fox news keeps going up in the ratings and the traditional leftwing print and media are all hemmorhaging readers and viewers. People want to argue the Fox is biased, fine---but the mainstream media opened the door for that by abdicating the role of objective journalism.

edit: And I'll further add, instead of demonizing Sarah Palin, might the Arizona shooting not be a better inspiration for a responsible media to increase scrutiny on the treatment of mental illness in the US?

VERY WELL SAID

I said something similar on my FB page the other day and it fell on deaf ears.

In our current technological world, the facts can be found (sometimes more difficult or slower, but still they come about) whether the MSM likes it or not. Opinions can also be found everywhere. So which source do they want to be?

kvrdave
01-12-11, 09:48 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe criticism of Sarah Palin in the context of an attack on a Jewish politician by someone who may have been motivated by antisemitism? Probably.

imagine it wasn't Palin who said it, and I'm sure it won't bother you anymore. :lol:

CRM114
01-12-11, 09:50 AM
20 pages. Can someone please point me to where Loughner expressed any affinity of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh's views? I'm still wondering why Sarah Palin is being called on to apologize.

Trust me. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sarah Palin's whole schtick crumble. I just don't see the connection.

mosquitobite
01-12-11, 09:53 AM
20 pages. Can someone please point me to where Loughner expressed any affinity of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh's views? I'm still wondering why Sarah Palin is being called on to apologize.

Trust me. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sarah Palin's whole schtick crumble. I just don't see the connection.

I just want to say this opinion is refreshing from you! (not being sarcastic either!)

As that op-ed by Glenn Reynolds says:
To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?


I can't stand Palin either and will never vote for her, but the hijacking of this tragedy in order to score some political points is completely disgusting.

kvrdave
01-12-11, 09:56 AM
20 pages. Can someone please point me to where Loughner expressed any affinity of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh's views? I'm still wondering why Sarah Palin is being called on to apologize.

Trust me. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sarah Palin's whole schtick crumble. I just don't see the connection.

There were crosshairs on a map that showed her district. Apparently the first time in history they were used by either party. Take my word on that last part rather than look it up.

:up:

RoyalTea
01-12-11, 09:58 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/11/peter-king-s-law-ban-guns-within-1000-feet-of-federal-officials.aspx

What's the point of laws like this? I doubt that people who are willing to ignore the whole "don't murder people" laws would follow a "no guns within 1000 feet" law.

Superboy
01-12-11, 10:04 AM
Particularly when you contrast this shooting incident with the Fort Hood shooter, I don't know how people can keep denying the leftwing bias of the mainstream media.

If the media were truly objective, the story and debate would stem from the facts, not vice-versa. The stories and angles have already been decided, and when the incidents come up, the facts are just manipulated to match the pre-conceived plotlines.

Seems you've already come to the conclusion that the media already has a left wing bias, and now you've found proof to validate it?

Ky-Fi
01-12-11, 10:11 AM
Seems you've already come to the conclusion that the media already has a left wing bias, and now you've found proof to validate it?

The fundamental difference is that the facts I've cited in my examples don't contradict the conclusions I've reached.

arminius
01-12-11, 10:20 AM
Seems you've already come to the conclusion that the media already has a left wing bias, and now you've found proof to validate it?

Could it not be that over years of various news stories that were slanted caused him to suspect that something was afoot? And this is just another hobnail in the boot?

Lemdog
01-12-11, 10:23 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/11/peter-king-s-law-ban-guns-within-1000-feet-of-federal-officials.aspx

What's the point of laws like this? I doubt that people who are willing to ignore the whole "don't murder people" laws would follow a "no guns within 1000 feet" law.

I wonder if any of those people on the list would be able to carry a gun if that was passed, since technically they would be carrying a gun within 1000 feet of themselves.

CRM114
01-12-11, 10:25 AM
I just want to say this opinion is refreshing from you! (not being sarcastic either!)

As that op-ed by Glenn Reynolds says:


I can't stand Palin either and will never vote for her, but the hijacking of this tragedy in order to score some political points is completely disgusting.

I don't know who Glenn Reynolds is but I agree with him completely.

I don't agree with the Republicans' claimed ownership of the 2nd amendment and don't especially like the rhetoric but this lunatic never claimed any ties to anyone and never ascribed his purpose to anyone else's. Even his website ramblings can't be pinned to any particular person or group except anarchists and anti-government types. And even then, the ties are tenuous at best.

arminius
01-12-11, 10:27 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/11/peter-king-s-law-ban-guns-within-1000-feet-of-federal-officials.aspx

What's the point of laws like this? I doubt that people who are willing to ignore the whole "don't murder people" laws would follow a "no guns within 1000 feet" law.

This whole trend of passing laws about inane specific acts is stupid. Is it not against the law to shoot people. As you state, if an individual is going to shoot someone, a law saying no guns within x feet of y is going to stop them. To me it's like all the ridiculous driving laws about cell phones. There is a thing called reckless driving that covers doing anything reckless while driving. Do we really need laws saying no cell phone use, no shaving, no applying makeup...They are all reckless acts.

CRM114
01-12-11, 10:29 AM
People don't think they are being reckless talking on a phone. They need to be told, specifically, it's a bad idea. People are clueless. I don't think cell phone laws serve any specific purpose except to tell people not to be morans.

van der graaf
01-12-11, 10:33 AM
People don't think they are being reckless talking on a phone. They need to be told, specifically, it's a bad idea. People are clueless. I don't think cell phone laws serve any specific purpose except to tell people not to be morans.

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/moran.jpg

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 10:36 AM
Is murdering people seriously illegal? I don't remember seeing any mailers on this and I certainly didn't sign anything. :mad:

classicman2
01-12-11, 10:48 AM
20 pages. Can someone please point me to where Loughner expressed any affinity of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh's views? I'm still wondering why Sarah Palin is being called on to apologize.

Trust me. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sarah Palin's whole schtick crumble. I just don't see the connection.

Neither do I.

I'm anxious to see how the president 'handles' this today. I expect he'll do a good job.

I hope he doesn't follow Clinton's approach of the OKC bombing. Clinton was great the day he made the speech. He changed his tone a few days afterwards.

Nausicaa
01-12-11, 10:52 AM
I don't know who Glenn Reynolds is but I agree with him completely.

I don't agree with the Republicans' claimed ownership of the 2nd amendment and don't especially like the rhetoric but this lunatic never claimed any ties to anyone and never ascribed his purpose to anyone else's. Even his website ramblings can't be pinned to any particular person or group except anarchists and anti-government types. And even then, the ties are tenuous at best.

This is the type of guy who openly rejects social institutions and regards them as a form of oppression. He creates his own reality (and currency?) and that's all that matters to him.

I'm really disappointed in certain individuals on the left for reacting with a degree of excitement that a Democrat was targeted, and jumping the gun ascribing blame mere hours after the tragedy. I'm equally disgusted that the GOP and it's media arm have once again decided to make themselves the victims here, and are now continuing to blame liberals for everything (I guess they never really stop).

The whole response to this event has really pushed me over the edge. All the partisan bickering over complete and utter bullshit.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 10:53 AM
Doesn't this always seem to happen?

Officers stopped suspect on day of Ariz. shooting

TUCSON, Ariz. – The suspect in a deadly Arizona shooting ran a red light and was stopped by a wildlife officer less than three hours before the attack that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department says an officer stopped Jared Loughner at about 7:30 a.m. Saturday.

The officer took Loughner's driver's license and vehicle registration information. Dispatchers checked the information and found no outstanding warrants on Loughner or his vehicle. He was given a verbal warning and released.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot;_ylt=Ap50dMaSe.Q4NsV7Tt1LVj.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnMzg5YTdrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMTE yL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzd29tYW5fc2hvdARjY29kZQNyYW5kb20EY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N 0b3J5BHNsawNvZmZpY2Vyc3N0b3A-

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 10:56 AM
The whole response to this event has really pushed me over the edge.

What's "over the edge?" Don't kill anyone over this, please. I've recently learned that it's illegal.

movielib
01-12-11, 11:11 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the use of the phrase "blood libel" to describe criticism of Sarah Palin in the context of an attack on a Jewish politician by someone who may have been motivated by antisemitism? Probably.
It bothers me too. When I heard it I could hardly believe it.

And that's whether or not antisemitism had anything to so with the shooter's motivation.

General Zod
01-12-11, 11:18 AM
From an interview this morning, I think on good Morning America, from someone that knew him well.

'HE DID NOT WATCH TV. HE DISLIKED THE NEWS. HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO POLITICAL RADIO'

Not that I expect that will do anything to stop those trying to blame talk radio or Sarah Palin for this. People doing that have already decided that using intelligence to deal with this issue is out of the question.

Draven
01-12-11, 11:28 AM
Wouldn't it have taken the wind out of everyone's sails if Palin had simply come out and said something like "This is a horrible tragedy, and while the blame should rest solely on the shooter, this is also an opportunity to rethink the way we talk to one another. While inciting violence was never our intention, we will be more aware of the way we communicate in the future."

I'm not sure what anyone else could say after that. And I'm not just saying it's her job to do this - it's everyone's job to be more reasonable when talking to one another. Media and politicians alike. No one ever simply admits they made a mistake or used poor judgment. But they do have 24 hours of news to fill, and a whole lot of politicians and "experts" who love to hear themselves talk.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 11:32 AM
I hadn't heard the phrase "blood libel" used before this week. A couple people have thrown it around in the past couple days. But apparently this isn't the first time it's been used in political discourse. Jim Geraghty is compiling a list and he's up to about a dozen instances:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think

General Zod
01-12-11, 11:37 AM
I hadn't heard the phrase "blood libel" used before this week. A couple people have thrown it around in the past couple days. But apparently this isn't the first time it's been used in political discourse. Jim Geraghty is compiling a list and he's up to about a dozen instances:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think

I hadn't heard it either but to be honest I'm not real sensitive about stuff like that so a lot of phrases and stuff tend not to "stick" with me. Anyhow most anyone can use whatever terms they like except Sarah Palin. It's amazing to me how this entire country hangs on her every word. At this point if she and Obama were to make speeches at the same time I think Obama would be in the little box ;)

CRM114
01-12-11, 11:42 AM
I hadn't heard it either but to be honest I'm not real sensitive about stuff like that so a lot of phrases and stuff tend not to "stick" with me. Anyhow most anyone can use whatever terms they like except Sarah Palin. It's amazing to me how this entire country hangs on her every word. At this point if she and Obama were to make speeches at the same time I think Obama would be in the little box ;)

The same morons in the media who are tying this event to Palin are the ones who are giving her credibility in national discourse.

I think most people who are not already ardent supporters could really care less about Palin or her opinions. Most Repubs don't even support her.

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 11:47 AM
Most Repubs don't even support her.

How does one support Sarah Palin? Subscribe to her tweets?

Mabuse
01-12-11, 11:54 AM
Wouldn't it have taken the wind out of everyone's sails if Palin had simply come out and said something like "This is a horrible tragedy, and while the blame should rest solely on the shooter, this is also an opportunity to rethink the way we talk to one another. While inciting violence was never our intention, we will be more aware of the way we communicate in the future."

How would that have taken the wind out of anyone's sales? It sounds like an admission of guilt. She has the freedom to talk however she pleases, and so do you and I. The actions of the rogue violent nut jobs in our society should not cause anyone to hold their tongue. By changing course when they have their pathetic suicidal freak-outs you're just empowering them. Fuck this weirdo

"Gee America, one lonely psychotic idiot acted up violently, I'm going to change who am because of it. In fact we should all take a moment to change who we are." Give me a break.

Ky-Fi
01-12-11, 12:00 PM
Wouldn't it have taken the wind out of everyone's sails if Palin had simply come out and said something like "This is a horrible tragedy, and while the blame should rest solely on the shooter, this is also an opportunity to rethink the way we talk to one another. While inciting violence was never our intention, we will be more aware of the way we communicate in the future."



I think that would have been the appropriate response IF the shooter was a big Palin fan and said he was inspired by her rhetoric. Barring that, it's no more appropriate for Palin to say that now than it would be for Obama to say the exact same thing at this time regarding some of his rhetoric in the past.


I think Palin's "blood libel" phrase was inappropriate, and undercut her otherwise decent statement.

crazyronin
01-12-11, 12:01 PM
Wouldn't it have taken the wind out of everyone's sails if Palin had simply come out and said something like "This is a horrible tragedy, and while the blame should rest solely on the shooter, this is also an opportunity to rethink the way we talk to one another. While inciting violence was never our intention, we will be more aware of the way we communicate in the future."

I'm not sure what anyone else could say after that.

"See! See! She admits it! She might as well have pulled the trigger. WHARGARRBL!!!!11!"
-Base partisan ghouls seizing on an atrocity.

General Zod
01-12-11, 12:10 PM
Well since police pulled him over for running a red light and then he shot up people I want to know why people aren't demanding that we ban the practice of pulling people over for running red lights? Obviously this PROVES that doing that can cause people to go on a shooting rampage!

Hey I think I'm starting to catch on to the way our politicians think!

Draven
01-12-11, 12:20 PM
I think that would have been the appropriate response IF the shooter was a big Palin fan and said he was inspired by her rhetoric. Barring that, it's no more appropriate for Palin to say that now than it would be for Obama to say the exact same thing at this time regarding some of his rhetoric in the past.


I'd appreciate Obama doing the same.

It would be refreshing for a politician to come out and say "You know, maybe this isn't the best way to communicate". I don't see how that's an admission of guilt. I think it's a wake-up call to the whole country that maybe we don't have to talk to each other in negative ways to get our points across.

Call me naive, but I pretty much tune out politics in general because no one talks about anything with respect to one another anymore.

orangecrush
01-12-11, 12:25 PM
From an interview this morning, I think on good Morning America, from someone that knew him well.



Not that I expect that will do anything to stop those trying to blame talk radio or Sarah Palin for this. People doing that have already decided that using intelligence to deal with this issue is out of the question.I think the idea that we are able to "blame" something helps us believe we can prevent this sort of thing from happening. Of course, you can't really prevent this sort of thing from happening. There have always been crazy people who do sick things and there always will be crazy people who will do sick things. The only difference in this case is that one of the victims is a national figure.

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 12:35 PM
I think it's a wake-up call to the whole country that maybe we don't have to talk to each other in negative ways to get our points across.

Maybe politicians should only be allowed to debate on Facebook, where this is a LIKE button but no dislike.

DGibFen
01-12-11, 12:59 PM
Let the healing begin!

A House Democratic leader on Wednesday lashed out at Sarah Palin, accusing the former Alaska governor of being intellectually incapable of understanding why she's faced criticism related to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (S.C.) said Palin had missed the point by releasing a statement Wednesday morning blasting the media for "blood libel" for looking to assign blame in part to her rhetoric after the attempted assassination of Giffords last weekend.

"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."

Palin broke her relative silence since the shooting, which some Democrats have attributed to an environment that allowed such an attack on a member of Congress. Democrats have homed in on the map Palin's political action committee had released, depicting targeted lawmakers in the election with crosshairs over their districts.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin wrote. "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

Clyburn said that Palin didn't grasp why such rhetoric was so troubling, regardless of the motivations of the alleged shooter. The No. 3 House Democrat referenced the civil rights era and said that some of the shrill rhetoric in modern politics is reminiscent of that time.

"I have some experiences that maybe she does not have," he said. "When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137411-clyburn-palin-intellectually-not-to-be-able-to-understand-whats-going-on-here

CRM114
01-12-11, 12:59 PM
How does one support Sarah Palin? Subscribe to her tweets?

For the presidency, obviously. Does she have other purpose?

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 01:01 PM
I like to think that we all have a purpose, even if we don't run for President.

mosquitobite
01-12-11, 01:01 PM
http://us4palin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cb28d5f794812956266.jpg

CRM114
01-12-11, 01:03 PM
I like to think that we all have a purpose, even if we don't run for President.

Your redirections are cute. This is the politics forum which is the obvious context of everything posted within it.

CRM114
01-12-11, 01:04 PM
http://us4palin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cb28d5f794812956266.jpg

"Drug using?" Is the cartoonist talking about marijuana? :lol:

Mabuse
01-12-11, 01:06 PM
I'd appreciate Obama doing the same.

It would be refreshing for a politician to come out and say "You know, maybe this isn't the best way to communicate". I don't see how that's an admission of guilt. I think it's a wake-up call to the whole country that maybe we don't have to talk to each other in negative ways to get our points across.

Call me naive, but I pretty much tune out politics in general because no one talks about anything with respect to one another anymore.
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Politics didn't make this nut shoot people. Palin didn't make this nut shoot people. Obama didn't make this nut shoot people. No one should have to apologize or change their lives to accommodate crazy/pathetic/suicidal people."

I think Jodie Foster owes an apology to America. If she'd just fucked (or maybe just gone on a date) with John Hinkley we could have been spared so much violence. Martin Scorsese needs to take a moment to reflect on the kind of violent imagery he is adding to the American discourse and maybe clean up his act. Maybe he can find a more constructive way to communicate.

Superman07
01-12-11, 01:06 PM
So now Palin is backtracking on what she previously said?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12174254

CRM114
01-12-11, 01:08 PM
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Politics didn't make this nut shoot people. Palin didn't make this nut shoot people. Obama didn't make this nut shoot people. No one should have to apologize or change their lives to accommodate crazy/pathetic/suicidal people."

While I agree strongly with the sentiment, we really will never know for sure the shooter's exact motivations. But since we don't know, we shouldn't blame anyone else.

crazyronin
01-12-11, 01:09 PM
So now Palin is backtracking on what she previously said?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12174254

lolwut?

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 01:10 PM
I like to think that we all have a purpose, even if we don't run for President.

Wait a minute - what's happening to my special purpose!?

What's your special purpose?

Well, when I was a kid my mom told me... there goes my special purpose! And someday I'd find out what my special purpose was!

Today's the day!

Hey, this is like a ride!

My dear family, guess what. Today I found out what my special purpose is for. Gosh what a great time I had. I wish my whole family could have been here with me. Maybe some other time as I intend to do this a lot. Every chance I get. I think next week I'll be able to send some more money as I may have extra work. My friend Patty promised me a blow job. Your loving son, Navin. (she stops reading) And he's got the kisses here.

That Patty must be a sweet girl.

God bless her.

Superman07
01-12-11, 01:17 PM
lolwut?

Previously she said this "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."


Now she came out and said "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," she said in the video released on her Facebook page. "That is reprehensible."


So previously it was the guy alone and had nothing to do with other's actions. Now she's saying those same types of actions serve no purpose but to insight such actions. :confused:

DGibFen
01-12-11, 01:20 PM
So now Palin is backtracking on what she previously said?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12174254

It's not a backtrack, it's an oddly worded headline:

Arizona shooting: Palin denounces 'blood libel'

And for the hell of it, here's instances of the phrase from the last 200 years or so (wikipedia):

Modern

* 1840 Damascus affair: In February, at Damascus, a Catholic monk named Father Thomas and his servant were murdered. The accusation of ritual murder was brought against members of the Jewish community of Damascus

* 1840 Rhodes blood libel: The Jews of Rhodes, during the Ottoman Empire, were accused of murdering a Greek Christian boy. The libel was supported by the local governor and the European consuls posted to Rhodes. Several Jews were arrested and tortured, and the entire Jewish quarter was blockaded for twelve days. An investigation carried out by the central Ottoman government found the Jews to be innocent.

* In March 1879, ten Jewish men from a mountain village were brought to Kutaisi, Georgia to stand trial for the alleged kidnapping and murder of a Christian girl. The case attracted a great deal of attention in Russia (of which Georgia was then a part): "While periodicals as diverse in tendency as Herald of Europe and Saint Petersburg Notices expressed their amazement that medieval prejudice should have found a place in the modern judiciary of a civilized state, New Times hinted darkly of strange Jewish sects with unknown practices."[25] The trial ended in acquittal, and the orientalist Daniel Chwolson published a refutation of the blood libel.

* 1882 Tiszaeszlár blood libel: The Jews of the village Tiszaeszlár, Hungary were accused with the ritual murder of a fourteen-year-old Christian girl, Eszter Solymosi. The case was one of the main causes of the rise of antisemitism in the country. The accused persons were eventually acquitted.

* In the 1899 Hilsner Affair, Leopold Hilsner, a Jewish vagabond, was accused of murdering a nineteen-year-old Christian woman, Anežka Hrůzová, with a slash to the throat. Despite the absurdity of the charge and the relatively progressive nature of society in Austria-Hungary, Hilsner was convicted and sentenced to death. He was later convicted of an additional unsolved murder, also involving a Christian woman. In 1901, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Tomáš Masaryk, a prominent Austro-Czech philosophy professor and future president of Czechoslovakia, spearheaded Hilsner's defense. He was later blamed by Czech media because of this. In March 1918, Hilsner was pardoned by Austrian emperor Charles I. He was never exonerated, and the true guilty parties were never found.

* The 1903 Kishinev pogrom, an anti-Jewish revolt, started when an anti-Semitic newspaper wrote that a Christian Russian boy, Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town of Dubossary, alleging that the Jews killed him in order to use the blood in preparation of matzo. Around 49 Jews were killed and hundreds were wounded, with over 700 houses being looted and destroyed.

* In the 1910 Shiraz blood libel, the Jews of Shiraz, Iran, were falsely accused of murdering a Muslim girl. The entire Jewish quarter was pillaged; the pogrom left 12 Jews dead and about 50 injured.

* In Kiev, a Jewish factory manager, Menahem Mendel Beilis, was accused of murdering a Christian child and using his blood in matzos. He was acquitted by an all-Christian jury after a sensational trial in 1913.

* In 1928, the Jews of Massena, New York, were falsely accused of kidnapping and killing a Christian girl in the Massena blood libel.

* The 1946 Kielce pogrom against Holocaust survivors in Poland was sparked by an accusation of blood libel.

* King Faisal of Saudi Arabia (r. 1964–1975) made accusations against Parisian Jews which took the nature of a blood libel.[26]

* The Matzah Of Zion was written by the Syrian Defense Minister, Mustafa Tlass in 1986. The book concentrates on two issues: renewed ritual murder accusations against the Jews in the Damascus affair of 1840, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27] The book was cited at a United Nations conference in 1991 by a Syrian delegate.

Contemporary

* On October 21, 2002, the London based Arabic paper Al-Hayat reported that the book, The Matzah of Zion, was undergoing its eighth reprint and was being translated into English, French, and Italian.
* In 2003 a private Syrian film company created a 29-part television series Ash-Shatat ("The Diaspora".) This series originally aired in Lebanon late 2003, and was broadcast by Al-Manar, a satellite television network owned by Hezbollah. This TV series, based on the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, shows the Jewish people as engaging in a conspiracy to rule the world, and presents Jews as people who murder Christian children, drain their blood, and use this blood to bake matzah.
* In early January 2005, some 20 members of the Russian State Duma publicly made a blood libel against the Jewish people. They approached the Prosecutor General’s Office, and demanded that Russia "ban all Jewish organizations”. They accused all Jewish groups of being extremists, and of being “anti-Christian and inhumane, which practices extend even to ritual murders”.

Alluding to previous antisemitic Russian court decrees which accused the Jews of ritual murder, they wrote that “Many facts of such religious extremism were proven in courts.” The accusation included traditional antisemitic canards, such as “the whole democratic world today is under the financial and political control of international Jewry. And we do not want our Russia to be among such unfree countries”.
This demand was published as an open letter to the prosecutor general, in Rus Pravoslavnaya (Russian: Русь православная, "Orthodox Russia"), a national-conservative newspaper. This group consisted of members of the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democrats, the Communist faction, and the nationalist Motherland party, with some 500 supporters. Тhe mentioned document is known as "The Letter of Five Hundred" ("Письмо пятисот").[28][29] Their supporters included editors of nationalist newspapers as well as journalists. By the end of the month this group had received stiff criticism, and retracted its demand.

* At the end of April 2005, five boys, ages 9 to 12, in Krasnoyarsk (Russia) disappeared. In May 2005, their burnt bodies were found in the city sewage. The crime was not disclosed, and in August 2007 the investigation was extended until November 18, 2007.[30] Some Russian nationalist groups claimed that the children were murdered by a Jewish sect with a ritual purpose.[31][32] Nationalist M. Nazarov, one of the authors of "The Letter of Five Hundred" alleges "the existence of a 'Hasidic sect', whose members kill children before Passover to collect their blood," using the Beilis case mentioned above as evidence. M.Nazarov also alleges that "the ritual murder requires throwing the body away rather than its concealing". "The Union of the Russian People" demanded officials thoroughly investigate the Jews, not stopping at the search in synagogues, Matzah bakeries and their offices.[33][34]

* During a speech in 2007, Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, accused Jews of using children's blood to bake bread. "We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood," he said. "Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread." [35]

* In January 2011, following the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords at a public constituent event in Arizona, former governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for Vice-President Sarah Palin used the term in a novel sense, in a video-taped public statement to describe the public backlash against public figures criticized for perpetuating an uncivil political climate charged with violent metaphors and imagery and eliminationism. [36] [37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

CRM114
01-12-11, 01:24 PM
I've never heard the phrase "blood libel" until today. I wish I hadn't.

classicman2
01-12-11, 01:31 PM
What kills me is that some politicians are saying that we should return to the civil political discourse of yesteryear.

Obviously these folks who say that aren't too aware of American history.

Draven
01-12-11, 01:32 PM
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Politics didn't make this nut shoot people. Palin didn't make this nut shoot people. Obama didn't make this nut shoot people. No one should have to apologize or change their lives to accommodate crazy/pathetic/suicidal people."

I 100% agree that this person and this person alone is responsible for the shooting.

I also think everyone involved in political discourse in this country has contributed to a hostile, hateful and downright shrill environment. And while this incident is not the direct result, I'd hope it would cause an honest and rational person to think twice about using a crosshairs (sorry, "surveyor's symbol") to indicate a political opponent who should be removed from office.

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 01:33 PM
I sure hope someone is keeping Giffords abreast of these important matters regarding the attack on her.

DGibFen
01-12-11, 01:34 PM
What kills me is that some politicians are saying that we should return to the civil political discourse of yesteryear.

Obviously these folks who say that aren't too aware of American history.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y_zTN4BXvYI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y_zTN4BXvYI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KaPRnsgFxOU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KaPRnsgFxOU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Mabuse
01-12-11, 01:37 PM
What kills me is that some politicians are saying that we should return to the civil political discourse of yesteryear.

Obviously these folks who say that aren't too aware of American history.If the fuckers in Washington would start dueling again I for one think it would be great.

mosquitobite
01-12-11, 01:39 PM
I've never heard the phrase "blood libel" until today. I wish I hadn't.

Me either!

Mabuse
01-12-11, 01:41 PM
I 100% agree that this person and this person alone is responsible for the shooting.

I also think everyone involved in political discourse in this country has contributed to a hostile, hateful and downright shrill environment. And while this incident is not the direct result, I'd hope it would cause an honest and rational person to think twice about using a crosshairs (sorry, "surveyor's symbol") to indicate a political opponent who should be removed from office.
So the two have nothing to do with one another. I'm glad you agree. Let's you and I go start a thread about how politicians, the media, and our society have created a poisonious hostile political environment and leave this thread alone to discuss the mentally ill murderer and his lunatic motivations.

Navinabob
01-12-11, 01:42 PM
Eliminationism? That's the best new word I've learned all year.

arminius
01-12-11, 01:45 PM
If the fuckers in Washington would start dueling again I for one think it would be great.

:D Strongly agree.

JasonF
01-12-11, 01:46 PM
Wouldn't it have taken the wind out of everyone's sails if Palin had simply come out and said something like "This is a horrible tragedy, and while the blame should rest solely on the shooter, this is also an opportunity to rethink the way we talk to one another. While inciting violence was never our intention, we will be more aware of the way we communicate in the future."

I'm not sure what anyone else could say after that. And I'm not just saying it's her job to do this - it's everyone's job to be more reasonable when talking to one another. Media and politicians alike. No one ever simply admits they made a mistake or used poor judgment. But they do have 24 hours of news to fill, and a whole lot of politicians and "experts" who love to hear themselves talk.

That's really what I was hoping for from her, and I didn't start bagging on her until she came out with her ridiculous "I never said anything harsh! I was just using surveyor symbols! I'm being blood libeled!!!!" statements.

classicman2
01-12-11, 01:50 PM
Harsh things are said constantly by politicians.

JasonF
01-12-11, 01:56 PM
Harsh things are said constantly by politicians.

Yes they are. All I'm suggesting is that it would be nice if they would think about those harsh things before they say them, and perhaps ask themselves whether the harsh rhetoric is really appropriate or necessary.

General Zod
01-12-11, 01:58 PM
ABCNEWS: 'Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story'...

:lol:

The fact that she was practically blamed for the attack by just about every liberal media outlet in the country didn't make her part of the story, but her coming out against being blamed for it is what made her part of the story. OK .. Got it. This is why I like politics. It's absolutely hilarious.

Mabuse
01-12-11, 02:00 PM
Yes they are. All I'm suggesting is that it would be nice if they would think about those harsh things before they say them, and perhaps ask themselves whether the harsh rhetoric is really appropriate or necessary.
I already worked on Draven, looks like I'll have to work on you.

No one needs to appologize for their rhetoric because political rhetotic didn't cause this crazy nut job to shoot people. Jason, should Scorsese appologize to America for fostering so much violent discourse and encouraging the assasination attempt on Reagan? It's not his fault that there are wacko's out there. What about Jodie Foster? If she'd just gone a date with the dude, maybe given him a little tug job, we'd all have been better off. I think she owes America an apolgy. Blaming Palin (or any politician) is like blaming Judas Priest.

Society isn't to blame, art isn't to blame, inflamitory politics isn't to blame. Insanity is to blame. We can't live our lives walking on egg shells worrying that our comments might enflame the 0.000001% of unhinged wackoos in our world.

Poisonous rhetoric is a worthy topic, but this isn't the time or place for it. This is a thread about a psychotic murderer.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 02:11 PM
That's really what I was hoping for from her, and I didn't start bagging on her until she came out with her ridiculous "I never said anything harsh! I was just using surveyor symbols! I'm being blood libeled!!!!" statements.

Did Palin ever actually say that?

There was a Tammy Bruce podcast interview with an employee of SarahPAC. Tammy's website says "She joins me personally and not on behalf of the PAC". And it's Tammy that suggests the crosshairs are "surveyor's symbols".

A Palin staffer, Rebecca Mansour told a radio talk show host Saturday that doing so is "obscene" and "appalling." In fact, she said that the "target list" was not intended to allude to guns.

"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," she said.

"It's surveyor's symbols," the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. Bruce, a Palin supporter, describes herself as "a gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent Conservative. " Her show is promoted as a "chick with a gun and a microphone."

Mansour agreed. She said that the graphic was contracted out to a professional. They approved it quickly without thinking about it. "We never imagined, it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent," she said. Rather, she said, that it was simply "crosshairs that you would see on a map."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/blogs/palin-watch/8205-palin-staffer-calls-using-tragedy-to-score-political-points-qobsceneq-

You can listen to the interview at Tammy Bruce's site. The "surveyors symbols" discussion runs from 10:25 - 12:50.

http://tammybruce.com/2011/01/special-public-podcast-intv-w-rebecca-mansour.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But I don't think Palin has ever said anything like that.

Mabuse
01-12-11, 02:18 PM
Big Dave, don't fall into the trap, it doesn't matter what she called them (or didn't call them). Nothing she did caused this guy to kill anyone. Crazy did it.

Superboy
01-12-11, 02:29 PM
:lol:

The fact that she was practically blamed for the attack by just about every liberal media outlet in the country didn't make her part of the story, but her coming out against being blamed for it is what made her part of the story. OK .. Got it. This is why I like politics. It's absolutely hilarious.

That's only because this whole situation has turned into a "hollow cast" or "holocaust" of biased liberal perspectives.

Superboy
01-12-11, 02:44 PM
The fundamental difference is that the facts I've cited in my examples don't contradict the conclusions I've reached.

:lol:

That wasn't the problem you had with the supposed liberal media bias. It's not the facts. It's how the facts are interpreted. Which is what you are doing. You've already presupposed that there's a liberal media bias, so you cherry pick stories that validate your theory, and ignore anything that might be contradictory to your claim.

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 02:48 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

Tracer Bullet
01-12-11, 02:52 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

Thank you for this blindingly useless post.

Mabuse
01-12-11, 02:55 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

Well, you're in the thread so I guess that makes one more.

Ky-Fi
01-12-11, 03:02 PM
:lol:

That wasn't the problem you had with the supposed liberal media bias. It's not the facts. It's how the facts are interpreted. Which is what you are doing. You've already presupposed that there's a liberal media bias, so you cherry pick stories that validate your theory, and ignore anything that might be contradictory to your claim.

Guilty as charged. I did cherry-pick the Arizona shooting story in the Arizona shooting story thread.

CRM114
01-12-11, 03:03 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

What does this one make? Like 7 posts in this thread about how everyone is dumb but you? (BTW, you should check your grammar before calling others "stupid." It's a classic internet mistake.)

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 03:06 PM
You know...

You guys could have at least lambasted my grammar screw up in that post.

-ohbfrank-

(Your stealth edit doesn't count CRM, but nice try, I saw the original post)

CRM114
01-12-11, 03:06 PM
Sure it does. I edited before you replied. I win. ;)

kvrdave
01-12-11, 03:08 PM
Well, you're in the thread so I guess that makes one more.

-ohbfrank-

"It takes one to know one" is the proper response. Preferably followed by "You are!"

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 03:12 PM
If one understands the metaphor I was using, none of those are appropriate.

starman9000
01-12-11, 03:18 PM
Yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife!

Navinabob
01-12-11, 03:18 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

I thought the grammar was on purpose... had sort of a poetic flow to it.

But yeah, technically I figure we are stupid if we post here. You are either of these two people:

1) Those who think they are smart but really know crap about politics.

2) Those who actually know a lot about politics and understand its complexities, and therefore are fully aware of how stupid they'd be if they pretended to know more then the tiny wedge anyone can truly grasp, and then posted here anyways.

I'm firmly in camp #1.

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 03:27 PM
My wife is in a coma.

Mabuse
01-12-11, 03:32 PM
Now that I've settled the political angle and the thread has devolved into a grammar debate let's talk about the killer's defense.

Will he use the insanity defense and get off like Hinkley did?

General Zod
01-12-11, 03:38 PM
They would have to demonstrate he doesn't know right from wrong. I think that would be hard to prove. The fact that his reasons for doing it are wacked out insane isn't enough for the insanity plea to work.

Ky-Fi
01-12-11, 03:50 PM
My wife is in a coma.

Don't challenge Dr. Mabuse on Costanza quotes, cause you won't win. :lol:

Jason
01-12-11, 03:50 PM
Big Dave, don't fall into the trap, it doesn't matter what she called them (or didn't call them). Nothing she did caused this guy to kill anyone. Crazy did it.

His brain must have been starved from from lack of oxygen due to the vacuum he lived in.

starman9000
01-12-11, 03:54 PM
Don't challenge Dr. Mabuse on Costanza quotes, cause you won't win. :lol:

I noticed you unnecessarily included the word "Costanza" in that. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
01-12-11, 04:02 PM
The absolute best twist to this of course would be if he actually mentioned Palin and the targets in the courtroom.

starman9000
01-12-11, 04:06 PM
God help us if that happens.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 04:12 PM
The absolute best twist to this of course would be if he actually mentioned Palin and the targets in the courtroom.

It really wouldn't surprise me if he says some outrageous stuff just to get people worked up. A couple of his friends have mentioned that he likes to cause chaos.

movielib
01-12-11, 04:27 PM
* In Kiev, a Jewish factory manager, Menahem Mendel Beilis, was accused of murdering a Christian child and using his blood in matzos. He was acquitted by an all-Christian jury after a sensational trial in 1913.
This is the case that inspired Bernard Malamud's novel, The Fixer, and the movie that was based on the book. Great book, great film, by the way.

(I had posted the wrong incident previously.)

DGibFen
01-12-11, 04:28 PM
The absolute best twist to this of course would be if he actually mentioned Palin and the targets in the courtroom.

It would make you wonder at this point who in the media would find truth in the rantings of a madman (as the evidence suggests.)

And now back to the "politics makes for strange bedfellows" mode:

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

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.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/

JasonF
01-12-11, 04:35 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

Well, you're in the thread so I guess that makes one more.

There's nothing quite so sad as Mabuse on Mabuse violence. :sad:

Navinabob
01-12-11, 04:39 PM
There's nothing quite so sad as Mabuse on Mabuse violence. :sad:

Especially since I thought they were the same person for awhile...

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 04:40 PM
The absolute best twist to this of course would be if he actually mentioned Palin and the targets in the courtroom.

I think it's very likely his lawyers will bring up the words of that pathetic fool of a sheriff.

That son of a bitch is the poster child for how to be a nearly perfect self-aggrandizing fool at the worst possible time.

JasonF
01-12-11, 04:41 PM
I think it's very likely his lawyers will bring up the words of that pathetic fool of a sheriff.

That son of a bitch is the poster child for how to be a nearly perfect self-aggrandizing fool at the worst possible time.

I thought that was just what Arizona sheriffs were supposed to do ...

The Edit King
01-12-11, 05:20 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.That's FUNNY! :lol:

Dr Mabuse
01-12-11, 05:20 PM
:lol:

Boba Fett
01-12-11, 05:34 PM
I've just have to point this out...

If stupid were people, this thread would be China.

*cue certain GIF*

Save Ferris
01-12-11, 05:43 PM
*cue certain GIF*

http://oi53.tinypic.com/6e3bj9.jpg

movielib
01-12-11, 06:01 PM
From Post #675.

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

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.
I would tend to agree with Dershowitz if the term had become common and widely used and with a broader meaning as he claims. I think the fact is that it is not widely used, there is little, if any, broader meaning because very few people have any idea what it means or even that the term exists, regardless of meaning. The statements by so many in this thread that they have never heard it before attests to that. I asked many educated people today if they knew the term or what it referred to and not one person had ever even heard of the term. I realize this forum and my acquaintances are hardly the be-all and end-all of the American population but I think it is a cross section that is quite a bit better educated than the average. In reality, I doubt if 5% of Americans had any idea of or experience of the term 24 hours ago.

Now, I know I am not, supposedly, as opposed to Dershowitz (according to the author of the piece), a dishonest liberal. In fact, people here know I am far from being a liberal of any kind. Sarah Palin would have loved the way I voted in 2010. And I don't think Palin has deserved the bashing she has gotten for her political crosshairs map. I don't think there was anything at all wrong with it.

Palin was right to criticize those who went after her about the map but she was wrong, not to mention foolish, to have used the term "blood libel" to describe it, whether or not she knew the derivation.

Palin could have and was about to legitimately seize the high ground from her detractors and then foolishly, thoughtlessly and probably ignorantly crammed her foot firmly in her mouth. Instead of people talking about the actual content of her defense (which, I believe is sound), they are talking about the two ill-advised words she used. Surely what she was going to say must have been run by a number of people. Could no one have saved her from this faux pas?

(This post has been edited to add my opinion of Palin's map.)

OldDude
01-12-11, 06:14 PM
I was not terribly familiar with the term. However, I think Palin has used the term relatively correctly and condemned it as a practice.

I think the accusations from many journalists and liberal pundits is that she has blood on her hands in this matter. I think those accusations are silly and incorrect, but isn''t that the point of blood libel. They are trying their best to make a weak (or false) claim stick and damage her reputation.

If the claim overreaches what those liberal pundits are tying to do, I would understand that her use of the term trivializes it. I don't necessarily think they are succeeding, but I think they are trying their hardest, and seek to destroy her.

I generally don't think much of Sarah and hope she doesn't run in 2012, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, and she is pretty spot on in her commenmts today.

wm lopez
01-12-11, 06:14 PM
Talk about G-R-E-A-T Clips!

(I actually watched both all the way through. I missed Bill's talking Points tonight.)

Thanks for posting 'em, BIG D! :up:

-Paul

But you should have posted what GLENN BECK said on Tuesday when he showed what Obama said during the campaign in 2010.
That was far worse than targets on a map.
So like if some nut decides to go on a rampage at a TARGET store the store will be at blame for having the big red target sign.

wm lopez
01-12-11, 06:23 PM
I think he's pointing out that Democrats, liberals, (and even anarchists) accelerated the hateful rhetoric and violent calls for federal blood long before some obscure crosshairs on a map on some website.
NO!!
He's pointing out that Paul Krugman or whatever the name of the columnist oe MSNBC, NBC, THE VIEW and so on never maid a issue of that. But boy did they get on the TEA PARTY when they were marching.
That's liberal reporting in the media and why so much hatred toward FOXNEWS from Hollywood celebs. Because they report both sides and makes their liberal views look bad. Pretty much why liberals didn't like Alan Colmes when he was doing HANNITY & COLMES. He was making them look bad , but liberals didn't realize he was making them look bad because of the liberal point of view he took. Now you can see Alan Colmes look bad once again on THE O'REILLY FACTOR when he comes on the segment called a BARROCK & A HARD PLACE. Where Colmes defends Obama.

Navinabob
01-12-11, 06:50 PM
It's not a widely used word, but it's an awkward word with a ugly history that she just should not have used. It'd be like if she was describing an action the President did as niggardly. Sure its a real word... but it's not a nice one, especially if describing an African American President. Most people won't stop and Google it to find out what it really means or if it was used correctly.

It was a dumb choice of words for sure (if she even wrote it)... but when you read into the Jewish victims and imply she has some sort of anti-Jewish rhetoric or tone you are just grasping at straws. I can't stand the gal, but even I'm not sure how some of these accusers can live with themselves.

van der graaf
01-12-11, 06:51 PM
NO!!
He's pointing out that Paul Krugman or whatever the name of the columnist oe MSNBC, NBC, THE VIEW and so on never maid a issue of that. But boy did they get on the TEA PARTY when they were marching.
That's liberal reporting in the media and why so much hatred toward FOXNEWS from Hollywood celebs. Because they report both sides and makes their liberal views look bad. Pretty much why liberals didn't like Alan Colmes when he was doing HANNITY & COLMES. He was making them look bad , but liberals didn't realize he was making them look bad because of the liberal point of view he took. Now you can see Alan Colmes look bad once again on THE O'REILLY FACTOR when he comes on the segment called a BARROCK & A HARD PLACE. Where Colmes defends Obama.

(1) :lol: @ the bold part.

(2) There are far more than 2 sides. And, neither of the 2 sides the media reports on are anywhere close to 'liberal.'

crazyronin
01-12-11, 07:14 PM
It'd be like if she was describing an action the President did as niggardly.

I don't think this President ever has to be worried about being called niggardly...and not just because of race.

Profligate, yes. Niggardly, not so much.

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 07:15 PM
Anyone else watching this memorial service? The horns at the beginning were nice. But it's getting a little weird.

DGibFen
01-12-11, 07:28 PM
Anyone else watching this memorial service? The horns at the beginning were nice. But it's getting a little weird.

Weird as in ceremonial tradition or "turning into Paul Wellstone's funeral" weird?

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 07:34 PM
Weird as in ceremonial tradition or "turning into Paul Wellstone's funeral" weird?

It's kinda like a pep rally. This tweet from @iowahawkblog (http://twitter.com/#!/iowahawkblog) sums it up:

"Waiting for the Phoenix Suns gorilla mascot to do some trampoline slam dunks"

Deftones
01-12-11, 07:41 PM
looks like WBC isn't going to protest. they say it's not because of the new law passed here about protesting, but rather because they were given air time on a phoenix radio show and a national radio show. sort of a no-win situation. they got exactly what they want: attention.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/12/20110112arizona-shooting-church-agrees-not-to-protest.html

DGibFen
01-12-11, 07:44 PM
It's kinda like a pep rally. This tweet from @iowahawkblog (http://twitter.com/#!/iowahawkblog) sums it up:

"Waiting for the Phoenix Suns gorilla mascot to do some trampoline slam dunks"

Yeah, I'm agreeing with that assessment right now.

Is this a rock concert or a memorial?

Smart move by Holder and Napolitano (in a legal sense) to not say anything other than reading from the Bible.

wishbone
01-12-11, 07:49 PM
No kidding, applause is one thing but all of the whooping and hollering...

DGibFen
01-12-11, 07:58 PM
Based on the text released, this speech is going to be a long one with audience participation.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Obama_in_Tucson.html?showall

NORML54601
01-12-11, 08:21 PM
This seems a bit self-serving by Obama and way too "happy feeling" to be called a memorial service.

Brent L
01-12-11, 08:30 PM
Yeah really, I thought it was pretty creepy myself. Or maybe that's the wrong wrong word for it. Maybe it was more uncomfortable than anything.

X
01-12-11, 08:35 PM
The dominant body language of President Obama was pretty weird at the end.

I think he has issues. But I'm not an expert.

Brent L
01-12-11, 08:37 PM
That thought also crossed my mind, although I didn't want to bring it up.

This may sound stupid and cheesy, but his body language a lot of the time, and especially tonight, reminds me of Dwayne Johnson's "The Rock" wrestling persona. That isn't a good thing for a President if you ask me.

Patman
01-12-11, 08:42 PM
My left-leaning friends on facebook loved his speech. I decided to skip it after sampling about 20 seconds of it because its tone sounded more like a Sunday morning sermon than a memorium for the victims of this tragic shooting spree.

DGibFen
01-12-11, 08:43 PM
What I'm finding the most disconcerting is the continuing feed on CBS News. Obama is doing what he should, talking to the victims' family and friends. But the crowd keeps shouting things like "We love you Obama" and the such. I just... I don't know. I'm 31, I'm far from being old. But I can't shake the feeling that even ten years ago, at 21, I wouldn't have yelled something like that after a memorial service at a national figure of any kind. I would have found it disrespectful towards the victims' family and friends to shout a self-serving comment like that. (And kudos to Obama for ignoring it.)

Maybe I'm just rambling a bit too much ;)

TheBigDave
01-12-11, 08:46 PM
I was really expecting the crowd (at least a small section) to start chanting "Yes We Can".

Gizmo
01-12-11, 10:11 PM
Why is he doing a speech? I don't get it. People get shot and killed everyday and we are interrupting TV so he can give a speech on what, violence? I flipped it off after 2 minutes.

creekdipper
01-12-11, 10:23 PM
It's not a widely used word, but it's an awkward word with a ugly history that she just should not have used. It'd be like if she was describing an action the President did as niggardly. Sure its a real word... but it's not a nice one, especially if describing an African American President. Most people won't stop and Google it to find out what it really means or if it was used correctly.

It was a dumb choice of words for sure (if she even wrote it)... but when you read into the Jewish victims and imply she has some sort of anti-Jewish rhetoric or tone you are just grasping at straws. I can't stand the gal, but even I'm not sure how some of these accusers can live with themselves.


I would agree with your analogy if it held up...certainly, just the sound of "niggardly" is reason enough to avoid it even though educated people know what it means.

However, for your analogy to work, you have to assume that MOST people would immediately know the connection between "blood libel" and its Jewish connections. I've been a student of literature all my life, have studied comparative religious theology, have a M.A. in English, etc....and I was unaware of the term (although I had heard about the stereotypical stories used to encourage discrimination against Jews while at an Anne Frank conference). One has to assume that Palin (or her writers) SHOULD have recognized the connection and its negative implications for Jews in order for the analogy to be relevant. When the general public has to be "educated" about what the term means to Jews, it would seem apparent that the usage was innocent and not born of any mean-spirited intentions.

However, MSNBC 'experts' Lawrence O'Donnell & Chris Matthews blasted Palin for her incredible stupidity at using the term (they, of course, would undoubtedly testify under oath & be willing to submit to lie detector tests to prove that they were completely familiar with the Jewish implications of the term). Strangely enough, they didn't show the Dershowitz quote absolving Palin from any implied anti-Semitism and saying that her usage was entirely appropriate. In fact, O'Donnell and Matthews spent about half of their time discussing Palin's "blood libel" words...along with John Boehner's absence from the service...when they were supposed to be (according to the teaser before the commercials preceding the Matthews interview) discussing Pres. Obamas take on political rhetoric (which was discussed in depth on Fox, with Brit Hume saying that Obama's words were almost a 'rebuke' of those who were trying to attach blame for the shooting on political rhetoric. O'Donnell & Matthews never ONCE gave their opinions on Obama's repudiation of those trying to use the tragedy to make political points; in fact, O'Donnell studiously avoided showing that segment of Obama's speech.

Interestingly enough, Matthews...in another diatribe against ANY 'gun' references to politics (saying that past eras used sports terms from baseball, horse racing, etc.), Matthews slipped and said that he was surprised to see that Palin was "sticking to her guns" (although he immediately recognized his gaffe & tried...unsuccessfully...to make it sound as if he had intentionally used a play on words, it was apparent that he simply discovered that it's a little harder to practice his advice than it is to preach it).

While on the topic of Matthews & O'Donnell, it was interesting to hear both men say that there is NO place in tv, radio, or the media (or politics) for ANYONE who calls their political opponents "evil". I'm assuming that they immediately got up after the segment was over, marched to their boss's office, and demanded the immediate firing of their colleague, Ed "Forces of Evil, Conservatives" Schultz.

I mean, to do otherwise would be the height of hypocrisy, would it not?

By the way...was that Jim Clyburn who was shown in the audience applauding immediately after the President's remarks saying that there was no connection between the shooting and heated political rhetoric? If that was Clyburn, was he having an epiphany?

creekdipper
01-12-11, 10:39 PM
I thought the President's speech was excellent. I channel-surfed the various cable news outlets immediately afterward to see the reactions. The Fox panel (Hume, Wallace, Krauthammer, etc.) were largely complimentary of the speech, although they noted some peculiarities about the 'event' (the "raucous" atmosphere, the peculiar opening invocation, the whistles & cheers at sometimes inappropriate moments, etc.). However, they all indicated that the President struck just the right tone and skillfully navigated difficult political waters.

Some CNN analysts tended to be more critical.

On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow was on & seemed more interested in showing clips from session of Congress or talking to an MSNBC contributor about general reactions to the tragedy from the community. I found it rather odd that there didn't seem to be any real effort on their part to analyze the content of the speech, the President's delivery, and so forth. I was especially interested in hearing their take on the President's scolding of those who would politicize the tragedy and his statement that we should seek to raise the level of civility not in reaction to any blame for the crime but rather to honor the memory & ideals of the victims. They picked up on the latter but (at least for the half hour I watched) ignored the former.

I was actually encouraged by the speech enough to try to put cynicism aside and give the pundits a chance to heed the President's advice. Instead, I got to hear Lawrence O'Donnell & Chris Matthews immediately bash & insult Boehner, Palin, and pretty much all conservatives. I don't mind their blasting Mark Levin & Michael Savage...I can't stand them either...but they never bring up their own colleagues. For that matter, Matthews was mainly critical of Levin's and Savage's being "furious most of the time" and yelling, etc. Talk about the pot calling out the kettle! All one has to do to get Matthews worked up is to say the work "tingle" and then he becomes apoplectic.

Matthews also callously opined about what Rep. Giffords would have to say about political rhetoric being the cause of her shooting when she recovers. There are words for people who exploit victims in this way, and none of them are repeatable in polite company. Besides, we already have Rep. Giffords' view of the Palin website stated before the incident. Is the fact that she was the victim of a shooting supposed to give her enhanced credibility or make her opinion more valuable than it already was? Matthews' use of someone who is fighting just to survive and recover her faculties is reprehensible. I wish he'd appear on a panel with someone on the panel or in the audience willing to take him on and ask the familiar question: "Have you no shame?".

So much for optimism. All I can say is...some 'columnists', "journalists', "commentators", and "politicians" have used up their last chance to demonstrate a willingness to change & embrace any sense of fairness & objectivity.

It's like the recent report about the 'Civility Project' (I think that's what it was called) in which Dem. Lanny Davis & a former Rep. lawmaker tried for 2 years or so to get members of Congress to sign a pledge saying they would adhere to some basic principles of civility in their discourse & dealings with colleagues. The two recently abandoned the project after they only succeeded in getting THREE signatures...two House Republicans and Sen. Joe Lieberman. Pretty sad.

creekdipper
01-12-11, 11:05 PM
motivated by antisemitism?? I thought he was motivated by the "toxic environment?" ;)


I didn't know "blood libel" had historic context until I just looked it up so it didn't bother me.

That's okay...JasonF didn't know either until it was pointed out by a "pundit". :wink:


Other gems from pundits:

In yesterday's column, liberal (err...progressive) pundit E.J. Dionne...a columnist whom I used to respect for his objectivity until 2008 when the Obama campaigned pushed him over the edge...used the words "possibly deranged" to describe the shooter.

Possibly? POSSIBLY???

Dionne just went from "loss of respect" to "utter contempt" in my book. He's squarely in the "blame the heated rhetoric" column now. I guess when you have higher expectations of people, the sense of betrayal is greater.

creekdipper
01-12-11, 11:11 PM
This is the case that inspired Bernard Malamud's novel, The Fixer, and the movie that was based on the book. Great book, great film, by the way.

(I had posted the wrong incident previously.)


I agree on both count (great book, great film). Love Malamud (shame that Robert Redford insisted on changing the ending of "The Natural")...wasn't Alan Bates in 'The Fixer'.

I'm a big fan of both but it's been years since I've read/seen either...so I didn't remember the term "blood libel" at all in that context.

However, it seemed to make perfect sense that blaming someone unfairly of causing another's death would be called "blood libel". I know what blood is, and I know what libel is.

Really funny about some non-Jewish people finding the term so offensive while prominent Jews such as Dershowitz (whom I'm sure is the political polar opposite of Palin) gives her a pass. I guess those people think they know better than a Jewish person, although I doubt they'll call Dershowitz out.

creekdipper
01-12-11, 11:15 PM
So now Palin is backtracking on what she previously said?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12174254

Keith Olbermann should be entirely satisfied now since he was calling for her to break her "curious silence". I'm sure that he accepts her explanation 100%.

Palin should have simply ignored the bait. Of course, that's easy to say when you're not being hammered relentlessly and receiving an extraordinary amount of death threats...none of them prompted, of course, by all those who are blaming her and calling for her to apologize, grovel, or (in Chris Matthews' words) 'be erased'.

creekdipper
01-12-11, 11:17 PM
Most Repubs don't even support her.

Ted Nugent doesn't even support her (for President).

creekdipper
01-12-11, 11:25 PM
Did Palin ever actually say that?

There was a Tammy Bruce podcast interview with an employee of SarahPAC. Tammy's website says "She joins me personally and not on behalf of the PAC". And it's Tammy that suggests the crosshairs are "surveyor's symbols".



You can listen to the interview at Tammy Bruce's site. The "surveyors symbols" discussion runs from 10:25 - 12:50.

http://tammybruce.com/2011/01/special-public-podcast-intv-w-rebecca-mansour.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But I don't think Palin has ever said anything like that.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story (or a chance to score a political point).

I'm still left wondering if Rep. Jim Clyburn...who said that Palin was "intellectually incapable" of understanding the connection between her words and the Tucson tragedy...is now going to go on television and say that President Obama is "attractive, articulate", but "intellectually incapable" of understanding the connection following the clear, emphatic statement made by the President in his speech regarding any possible connection ("It did not").

I'm sure that Clyburn is setting up a press conference right now.

eXcentris
01-12-11, 11:48 PM
Really funny about some non-Jewish people finding the term so offensive while prominent Jews such as Dershowitz (whom I'm sure is the political polar opposite of Palin) gives her a pass. I guess those people think they know better than a Jewish person, although I doubt they'll call Dershowitz out.

I don't know who these "jewish leaders" are, but they don't seem too happy.

"U.S. Jewish leaders slam Sarah Palin's blood libel accusation"

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-jewish-leaders-slam-sarah-palin-s-blood-libel-accusation-1.336653

mikehunt
01-13-11, 12:12 AM
"Drug using?" Is the cartoonist talking about marijuana? :lol:

are you trying to claim marijuana isn't a drug?
from the little I've heard on the news form people claiming to know him he was a heavy user, not the occasional social smoker
"mild drug" as some people claim or not, heavy use can screw people up

mikehunt
01-13-11, 12:14 AM
I heard some clips of Obama on the radio tonight.
applauding at what I thought was supposed to be a memorial seems wrong to me

creekdipper
01-13-11, 12:20 AM
I don't know who these "jewish leaders" are, but they don't seem too happy.

"U.S. Jewish leaders slam Sarah Palin's blood libel accusation"

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-jewish-leaders-slam-sarah-palin-s-blood-libel-accusation-1.336653

In the article, Abraham Foxman (whose name I have heard for years) of the ADL admitted that term is commonly used in "English parlance" to refer to one falsely accused of killings, but went on to say that he thought Palin's word choice was unfortunate.

Others were more aggressive, calling for her to "apologize" for the using the term, retract it, and replace it with another term.

Let's see...it's not the CONTENT of her speech to which they object, it's the use of a term which, by their own admission, means exactly what she meant it to mean...except when it means something else to a specific community. I had an Uncle Tom (now deceased) who had many admirable traits; I suppose I couldn't compare an African-American person to him without being offensive and being forced to 'apologize'. Likewise, I can't say anything involving homosexuals is a 'queer' situation', can't describe a heterosexual as being a 'gay' person, and can't ask (if I were British) a person to "lend me a ***".

Of course, all of those examples are much more commonly recognized for their double meanings than the much more obscure "blood libel" reference. People may mention a trio of things as a 'trinity' and Christians don't get all bent out of shape. In fact, one of the terms I used as an example was edited out as a slur by DVDTalk's filter...it's now apparent that the term 'blood libel' should be added to items that are filtered out. Or would that just be...extreme???

To me, this falls into the same category as someone going on a 'crusade' against cancer and then being told they should apologize and use a euphemism because a Muslin was offended.

Being overly sensitive to remarks when it is CLEAR that there was no intent to offend and, indeed, there is no reason to believe that the person should even have been aware of any offensive connotations does not do service to your cause. If Jewish groups had wanted to size upon the opportunity to 'educate' the public about the meaning of the term to them, that's one thing...to say that "Fox News clearly has a problem with Jews" because Beck uses the term "holocaust" and Palin says "blood libel" just makes one look ridiculous and loses sympathy for your cause.

One could just as well argue that the offended Jews might want to let the obscure stereotypical references die out rather than keep them alive by bringing their attention to the public. If a black person does a commercial for Popeye's chicken, does it help the African-American community to protest the image due to its "historical" stereotypical image (even though most younger people may not have a clue that it was ever used to denote anything derogatory about blacks?). Isn't that sort of like a person from Appalachia (that's "Apple-atcha", by the way...not "Apple-ATE-cha") complaining every time they hear the term "inbreeding" (even if it's applied to livestock) and demanding an apology, retraction, and substitution for the word be used due to HISTORIC steretyping?? Or complaining that the Lucky Charms leprauchan has an Irish accent?

IMHO, such overly-sensitive displays and demands don't do your group...whatever it is...any favors.

creekdipper
01-13-11, 12:27 AM
are you trying to claim marijuana isn't a drug?
from the little I've heard on the news form people claiming to know him he was a heavy user, not the occasional social smoker
"mild drug" as some people claim or not, heavy use can screw people up

Good luck trying to find anyone in the media willing to blame heavy pot-smoking on the crime (although I did hear one mental-health expert say that heavy pot use could exacerbate angry tendencies in an already-deluded person).

Haven't heard a single person calling for a national dialogue on pot-smoking, or wanting to take pressure Showtime into taking "Weeds" off the air.

Likewise, I haven't heard atheists apologizing for calling religion the source of the world's ills (after all, he did attack a prominent Jew & Catholic).

Such suggestions would just seem like...crazy talk!

Sean O'Hara
01-13-11, 12:43 AM
Really funny about some non-Jewish people finding the term so offensive while prominent Jews such as Dershowitz (whom I'm sure is the political polar opposite of Palin) gives her a pass. I guess those people think they know better than a Jewish person, although I doubt they'll call Dershowitz out.

I hate to break it to you, but Dershowitz does not speak for all Jews.

keyed
01-13-11, 12:51 AM
I only watched a couple minutes of it, but damn, Obama looked like he's aged 10 years with that hair.

creekdipper
01-13-11, 02:10 AM
I hate to break it to you, but Dershowitz does not speak for all Jews.

And your point is...?????????????

Obviously, you missed my point. The MSNBC crowd implied that ALL Jews were offended. At the same time, Fox mentioned that, while some leaders of Jewish organizations complained about the usage, another prominent LIBERAL Jews...as Greta put it, "a surprising source"... was not offended.

Which network appears to be more 'fair & balanced' in this case?

I'd wager that Chris Matthews does not speak for all liberals, Mark Levin does not speak for all conservatives, Lindsay Lohan does not speak for all women, and the Pope does not speak for all Catholics.

Is that sort of obvious observation supposed to impress?

grrr
01-13-11, 02:29 AM
No kidding, applause is one thing but all of the whooping and hollering...

It felt like a memorial service crashed by refugees from a political convention. Odd to say the least; even the applause struck a nerve with me, much less the bizarre cheering.

For his part, Obama was very presidential and did that thing he does very well. He really does rival JFK and Reagan in his ability to carry a speech and win a crowd (at the very least, this crowd of one).

Navinabob
01-13-11, 02:56 AM
I would agree with your analogy if it held up...certainly, just the sound of "niggardly" is reason enough to avoid it even though educated people know what it means.

However, for your analogy to work, you have to assume that MOST people would immediately know the connection between "blood libel" and its Jewish connections. I've been a student of literature all my life, have studied comparative religious theology, have a M.A. in English, etc....and I was unaware of the term (although I had heard about the stereotypical stories used to encourage discrimination against Jews while at an Anne Frank conference). One has to assume that Palin (or her writers) SHOULD have recognized the connection and its negative implications for Jews in order for the analogy to be relevant. When the general public has to be "educated" about what the term means to Jews, it would seem apparent that the usage was innocent and not born of any mean-spirited intentions.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't think my analogy was great, but it was the best I could come up with. I agree with your assessment except for where you say "most people" wouldn't even know what the word mean... that bit I do agree with (I didn't know myself), but not where it makes the word choice ok. Whoever wrote the speech did now what the word meant because they used it in the correct context. English slang for a cigarette I could excuse someone from the UK saying because they might not know that the word carries different context here... but if they used it to call a gay person a name I'd be far less forgiving because they obviously knew the context to use it. Saying "it's what we call cigarettes" would be a poor excuse.

The odds that someone knew the word is rare... The odds someone invented the word is also rare (but conceivable if someone invented the word accidentally when trying to coin a new term for wanting revenge if someone kills your kids or something). But if you know the word and the context, it is absurd to then say you didn't know where it came from. It's not something a speech writer picked up watching the Simpsons.

You have to think the press release (no clue if it was Palin) went through multiple rewrites and had each word carefully weighed. Picking just right the symbolism, emotion and message is rough. Much like "Mission Accomplished" banner by Bush backfired, this will end up just being a political blunder that her fans will dismiss and her opponents will seize. It's the nature of the beast.

Ky-Fi
01-13-11, 07:17 AM
I thought Obama's speech was excellent. He wisely distanced himself from the left wing's vile "we're not blaming Palin, but of course she's partly to blame" position following the tragedy.

JasonF
01-13-11, 07:23 AM
That's okay...JasonF didn't know either until it was pointed out by a "pundit". :wink:

No, I've been familiar with the term "blood libel" since my Hebrew School days.

JasonF
01-13-11, 07:25 AM
Really funny about some non-Jewish people finding the term so offensive while prominent Jews such as Dershowitz (whom I'm sure is the political polar opposite of Palin) gives her a pass. I guess those people think they know better than a Jewish person, although I doubt they'll call Dershowitz out.

We're not all the same, you know.

(And before you ask, I think people who call Justice Thomas or Condoleeza Rice an "Uncle Tom" are idiots.)

JasonF
01-13-11, 07:28 AM
Did Palin ever actually say that?

There was a Tammy Bruce podcast interview with an employee of SarahPAC. Tammy's website says "She joins me personally and not on behalf of the PAC". And it's Tammy that suggests the crosshairs are "surveyor's symbols".



You can listen to the interview at Tammy Bruce's site. The "surveyors symbols" discussion runs from 10:25 - 12:50.

http://tammybruce.com/2011/01/special-public-podcast-intv-w-rebecca-mansour.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But I don't think Palin has ever said anything like that.

I hadn't realized that Governor Palin's aide had "gone rogue" when she proposed that silly surveyor's symbol explanation.

Thought experiment: An aide to President Obama does an interview where he says he's speaking on his own, but he thinks the killing was 100% Sarah Palin's fault. President Obama says nothing to disavow this statement. Do we give the president a pass because the aide said he was speaking on his own?

creekdipper
01-13-11, 07:38 AM
I hadn't realized that Governor Palin's aide had "gone rogue" when she proposed that silly surveyor's symbol explanation.

Thought experiment: An aide to President Obama does an interview where he says he's speaking on his own, but he thinks the killing was 100% Sarah Palin's fault. President Obama says nothing to disavow this statement. Do we give the president a pass because the aide said he was speaking on his own?

In other words, Barack owns all of Joe's pronouncements.

classicman2
01-13-11, 07:52 AM
I was impressed by Michelle Obama last evening. She has the ability to show emotion - but also the ability to control that display of emotion.

creekdipper
01-13-11, 08:03 AM
We're not all the same, you know.

(And before you ask, I think people who call Justice Thomas or Condoleeza Rice an "Uncle Tom" are idiots.)

My point exactly.

Of course you're not all the same. And if you found it offensive, that's one thing. Implying (as Matthews & O'Donnell did) that all Jewish people found the use of the term offensive is entirely different. Again, my point is that they latched onto a segment of Jewish persons who objected while ignoring others who had spoken out with a different opinion. THEY (Matthews & O'Donnell) are the ones implying that you are "all the same"...which I would think would be far more offensive than Palin's use (or abuse, depending upon your opinion of the word).

Now, if there's evidence that Palin's writers knew exactly what they were saying, as Navinabob suggests in his post above, that would show an incredible lack of judgment on the part of the Palin and/or the writers. At the very least, it would be taking a lot of unnecessary chances that might only serve to derail the intent of the message.

As I've said earlier, I thought Palin should have kept her mouth shut after her initial statement Saturday and ignored the calls from her enemies (yes, that word is chosen for its full meaning) such as Olbermann for her to "break her curious silence". Instead, she took the bait, and (predictably) made matters worse. However, does anyone really think that Olbermann and others would have been satisfied by her explanations with or without the "blood libel" term? Jumping on that phrase may seem to be natural and important to some, but I'm sure it seems petty to others (as in "Is that the best you got?).

To show how intent can be misread, I wasn't sure if your first post above was serious (re: Hebrew school) or if you were joking. Somehow, in reading dozens (hundreds) of your posts in the past, I have managed to miss the fact that you are Jewish. That certainly gives you an "insider's view" of yesterday's statement. At the same time, it doesn't mean that I'll now read some sort of imagined "Hebrew" sentiments into any of your future posts.

We're all Otters here, not Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists/gay/straight/liberal/conservative yada yada. At the same time, it's good to have some people with 'expert opinions' on all of the various topics that come up.

When I was still teaching, I had a good friend who was a (converted) Jew...she was raised in the U.K. and converted while living there. We had lots of interesting & friendly conversations after school & were able to have a lot of good-natured exchanges & ribbing. Never once were voices raised, slurs used, or any animosity of any sort provoked. All our conversations began and ended with laughing & friendly banter, and I missed our conversations when she moved to another area. I did have a few students who were Jewish (one whose grandfather was a Survivor) who added their perspectives to our study of Anne Frank and writings by Jewish authors.

creekdipper
01-13-11, 08:16 AM
I was impressed by Michelle Obama last evening. She has the ability to show emotion - but also the ability to control that display of emotion.

:up: Agree. Thought Laura Bush had some of that same quality. Her ratings remained high even when her husband's were in the crapper.

I thought Ms. Obama was going to overdue it with clutching the hand of Rep. Giffords' husband Mark, but she reigned it in. I looked for his reactions to see the impression she was making, and he seemed grateful and appreciative of her support, so that seemed to settle the issue of sincerity on her part.

An aside: This sounds judgmental, but I found it just a tad odd that the husband would take the time out to attend the service even as his wife lies gravely ill. I know he could use the break & moral support, but it seems as though he'd want to be by his wife's side, especially since she had just opened her eyes (did this happen before the service or during it?). I thought they could have had a live feed from the hospital or something that would have allowed him to "appear" at the rally without taking him away from her bedside. I know that, if I had done that & something happened while I was away, I would have felt awful. I was at my dad's bedside when he died, but missed being there for my mom by about 30 minutes (she just stopped breathing while being given her routine care during a skilled-care stay in a nursing facility). I still feel guilty about not being there even though it was her time, she died peacefully (by the nurses' accounts), and there wasn't anything I could have done. Still, I will always wish that I had left just a bit earlier to check in for my 'shift' with Mom (my brother & I were the only ones taking turns sitting with her...same as with Dad). Just sayin. :shrug:

Edit: I just realized that I automatically used the word "rally" above instead of 'memorial service'. The event had that kind of feel.

Tracer Bullet
01-13-11, 08:22 AM
In related news, Giffords opened her eyes and is responsive to voice commands. I know it's kind of OT though.

Th0r S1mpson
01-13-11, 08:25 AM
In related news, Giffords opened her eyes and is responsive to voice commands. I know it's kind of OT though.

Amazing.

brayzie
01-13-11, 08:53 AM
In related news, Giffords opened her eyes and is responsive to voice commands. I know it's kind of OT though.

That's good to hear. This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to survive this kind of thing and also live a semi-normal life?

Tracer Bullet
01-13-11, 08:55 AM
That's good to hear. This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to survive this kind of thing and also live a semi-normal life?

Sure. Patrick Ireland was on television the other day; he was shot in the head at Columbine and he's leading a relatively normal life now. I don't think it was the same exact type of injury, though.

Th0r S1mpson
01-13-11, 09:00 AM
100% perfect recovery won't happen. Semi-normal, possible.

Any recovery at all is the least likely. But it sounds like she may escape the odds. Let's hope the recovery goes exceedingly well so that she can enjoy life again with her family and friends in the future.

Tracer Bullet
01-13-11, 09:08 AM
100% perfect recovery won't happen. Semi-normal, possible.

Any recovery at all is the least likely. But it sounds like she may escape the odds. Let's hope the recovery goes exceedingly well so that she can enjoy life again with her family and friends in the future.

I'd like her to make as complete a recovery as possible so she can have a press conference where she says "Haha, bitches! You SHOT ME IN THE HEAD and I'm still here. Enjoy rotting away in prison."

Although that wouldn't be congressional, I guess.

Th0r S1mpson
01-13-11, 09:12 AM
I'd like her to make as complete a recovery as possible so she can have a press conference where she says "Haha, bitches! You SHOT ME IN THE HEAD and I'm still here. Enjoy rotting away in prison."


That assumes Palin's files will be unsealed.

zombeaner
01-13-11, 09:44 AM
An aside: This sounds judgmental, but I found it just a tad odd that the husband would take the time out to attend the service even as his wife lies gravely ill. I know he could use the break & moral support, but it seems as though he'd want to be by his wife's side, especially since she had just opened her eyes (did this happen before the service or during it?).

I don't find that odd at all. Apparently she is improving all the time. I'm sure he got confirmation from the doctors that nothing was likely to change while he was at the service. I think it is very appropriate that he was there, as a representative if their family, who are very much a part of the event and the tragedy.

JasonF
01-13-11, 09:51 AM
That's good to hear. This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to survive this kind of thing and also live a semi-normal life?

Lots of people who have suffered traumatic brain injury go on to lead relatively normal lives as DVDTalk posters.

orangecrush
01-13-11, 09:52 AM
I've never heard the phrase "blood libel" until today. I wish I hadn't.Me too. Though I must admit that Paton Oswalt’s tweets making fun of Palin's use have been hilarious.

orangecrush
01-13-11, 10:00 AM
I'd like her to make as complete a recovery as possible so she can have a press conference where she says "Haha, bitches! You SHOT ME IN THE HEAD and I'm still here. Enjoy rotting away in prison."

Although that wouldn't be congressional, I guess.:lol: That would be the most awesome thing I could imagine happening.

Sean O'Hara
01-13-11, 10:11 AM
And your point is...?????????????

Obviously, you missed my point. The MSNBC crowd implied that ALL Jews were offended.

Citation needed.

kvrdave
01-13-11, 10:31 AM
Lots of people who have suffered traumatic brain injury go on to lead relatively normal lives as DVDTalk posters.

:lol:

The Edit King
01-13-11, 10:38 AM
:mad:

Navinabob
01-13-11, 10:38 AM
Obviously, you missed my point. The MSNBC crowd implied that ALL Jews were offended. At the same time, Fox mentioned that, while some leaders of Jewish organizations complained about the usage, another prominent LIBERAL Jews...as Greta put it, "a surprising source"... was not offended.

You can not compare "implied" with "mentioned" in this case when talking about two different groups.

I've no clue what each said (or didn't say) so I'm only going with that statement. I've not stopped to watch the news channels... I read most of my news items from a headline ticker from dozens of sources.

eXcentris
01-13-11, 11:11 AM
And your point is...?????????????



The point being the same as mine, i.e. that when referring to the opinion of "prominent jews" you (originally) elected to choose one, Dershowitz.

Mabuse
01-13-11, 12:12 PM
That's good to hear. This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to survive this kind of thing and also live a semi-normal life?
She'll still be a democrat so "semi-normal" sounds about right.

CRM114
01-13-11, 01:58 PM
are you trying to claim marijuana isn't a drug?
from the little I've heard on the news form people claiming to know him he was a heavy user, not the occasional social smoker
"mild drug" as some people claim or not, heavy use can screw people up

Meh. It's no more newsworthy than saying he was a drinker. And yes, marijuana is a drug as is alcohol. The term "drug user" is often reserved for real drugs, narcotics.

covenant
01-13-11, 02:24 PM
The term "drug user" is often reserved for real drugs, narcotics.

link?

CRM114
01-13-11, 02:34 PM
Common sense.