Was thinking the same thing. Sheriff Dupnik's inflammatory rhetoric obviously provoked this mentaly unstable leftist to threaten a Tea Party spokesman with death. Nice job, Dupnik. Your irresponsible comments have done more to help the killer than anyone else.

Sheriff Dupnik didn't threaten anyone with death. He merely pointed out that this type of behavior was dangerous. Not the same thing, and it was exactly this type of behavior that he was speaking about.

What? The left does not incite violence. HAHA Such hypocrites. PTSD my butt. These radicals are full of hate and if their were no cameras we would never of heard about this.

Steven D

One person did a bad thing. It was not "the left."

So now that it was someone threatening a Tea Partier it's just one person and not the "left".

You cant have it both ways unless your a HYPOCRITE.

David, They are so confused and misguided.

Jock, have you been watching the news lately. Olberman probably even blamed Jesus for what happened. Get your facts and become educated.

How much love do you have in YOUR heart for your fellow man?

What does "Love" have to do with Jo Ann's response?

Whats Love?

How much do you Love Charles Manson, Jeffry Daumer, Ted Kazinski, Timothy McVeigh, the 9/11 Killers?

What hate and fear are you talking about scrambolo?

Recycled - look outside and if you perhaps see a bare spot in your yard please go sit there because you are nothing more than a rock with lips, dense, thick, obtuse and impenetrable. I would say more but I will give you time to go to an on-line dictionary so you can decipher my comment.

Fuller obviously must have continued his rant while in custody for them to Baker Act him. I'm sure seeing what he saw and coming to grips with his own injuries and close call probably has sent him over the edge. Clearly, however, we ALL live in an age where threatening words like "you're dead" can't be taken lightly.

Is whats below Hate speech LiberalLibrian?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2212

* Political science professor and Director of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas
* Co-founder of the Mexican American Youth Organization
* Founder of the militant Chicano activist group La Raza Unida
* “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
* “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes.”

In a 1969 speech in San Antonio, Gutierrez said: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” On another occasion he said, “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes.”

"The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights ... law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot -- we will not -- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."

la Raza (the Race), there Moto, "For the Race everything, outside the Race, nothing". Nothing hateful or implied there LiberalLibrarian?

This guy was attending a meeting where the subject of gun control came up. When informed that the subject was being placed on the back burner for the time being he did something stupid. I suspect that perhaps he was attempting to demonstrate just how quickly a shooting can take place while using his camera flash as a tool to do so. So now everyone thinks he's nuts. Perhaps not a real smart move to establish his point. However, I suppose being shot a couple of times in the recent past could have that effect upon one's normal objectivity.

This guy was directly related to Democracy Now. (tinyurl.com/6xcjwwr) Should we start blaming them?

I think the original post was great. Would like a response from the "QUICKLIPPED" sheriff. Surely this MUST qualify under his definition of divisive language !!!!!

People talk about how there's no left wing equivalent to the right.

How about a man who kept the Country Terrorized for almost 20 years. A man who started his campaign when he saw the destruction of the wild by industrialization and set out to destroy industrialization. Below is a statement by him.

I don't think it can be done. In part because of the human tendency, for most people, there are exceptions, to take the path of least resistance. They'll take the easy way out, and giving up your car, your television set, your electricity, is not the path of least resistance for most people. As I see it, I don't think there is any controlled or planned way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses ... The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible. To a large extent I think the eco-anarchist movement is accomplishing a great deal, but I think they could do it better... The real revolutionaries should separate themselves from the reformers… And I think that it would be good if a conscious effort was being made to get as many people as possible introduced to the wilderness. In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point where things start to break down. To create a situation where people get uncomfortable enough that they’re going to rebel. So the question is how do you increase those tensions?

Do you know who I speak of, do you know who made that Statement?

Ted Kaczynski A.K.A. the Unabomber.

Name someone from the right that terrorized the country for almost 20 Years. Name a right winger that compares to him...

The next time someone says the left doesn't have any equivalent to the right you can say they are correct because Ted Kaczynski far exceeds anything the right has done. He only killed 3 and injured 23 but he terrorized a Nation for almost two decades...

Name someone from the right that terrorized the country for almost 20 Years. Name a right winger that compares to him...

David Duke. And if we knew of everything he was responsible for it would beat Kaczynski all to hell.

There are many more examples of right wing conservative criminal terrorists.

The difference between right wing terrorists and left wing terrorists is that right wing terrorists are usually out in the open and blind Americans who call themselves "patriots" run willingly into their arms and kiss their *sses. Unfortunately the rest of us have no choice but be drug along behind.

I suppose fear and hate just go together. Been that way since the beginning of time, or at least since recorded history began. Seems every generation has to have its wars, its nut cases, its arrogant leaders, etc. We have had our share since Republicans got pissed off at liberals when Nixon resigned.

Two of those who vowed revenge against the Democratic Party was Rumsfeld and Cheney, both of whom worked for Nixon. They promised to do things differently as they spelled out in the neo-con Project For A New American Century (PNAC) manifesto.

Those two have done more to polarize America than any others it recent memory in my opinion. They pulled out all the stops even to the point of rehashing McCarthyism. Who would have thought?

Their greatest achievement was Operation "Sorry We Thought You Really Had WMD" in Iraq! All along they dared anyone to speak out against their ideology. Calling people Unpatriotic and worse if they dared question the weak evidence that led to invading a weak and crippled country in Iraq.

Of course, their hubris (not unlike their old boss Nixon) helped divert our nation's resources and personnel from the real culprit of 9/11, Bin Laden. Oh well, "he wasn't really that important" (to quote Bush in 2005). Quite a change from "wanted dead or alive" few years earlier!

Of course, anyone who started questioning the irrational decisions of Bush and Co by 2006 really started the Republicans charging slander and foul. Somehow they thought Bush deserved to get away with the worst decisions at home (economically) and abroad (two failed war strategies) by any president in the modern era!

By the time we got to the last election in 2008, Republican noise machine and vitriol was at an all time high pitch. Leading the way was Beck and Palin. They all but say anyone who disagrees with them are Communist. Crazy. Simply crazy.

Of course, I don't blame Republicans for a young deranged man going postal. BUT....I think we all have to look in the mirror as a nation and ask if we have created a cultural toxin of hate and cynicism that pervades everything from reality TV shows to political discourse that does affect and, in some instances, nurture a few unstable to do the unthinkable?

As Jon Stewart stated so well, It is too bad that the rhetoric on TV closely resembles the ramblings of a mad man!

Two left wing nut jobs. One kills six and wounds many more. The other is making threats to do something similar. You people may want us to believe the first one was right wing, but there aren't many tea party types who burn skulls in their backyard and generally act like this guy. The latest nutjob is just that. Another nut. Probably harmless, but should be kept away from the gun store. But most of you believe that the law-abiding public, instead, should be disarmed.

Do not waste a crisis.

The first nut job kept babbling about the constitution and not much more understandable than glenn beck. The second was a Veteran that had his ptsd or shell shock or whatever aggravated by the continued right wing provocative attack speech. You guys don't want to stop? You're just going to incite more people who have mental problems already, just as is happening. Veterans and schizos. Only since you're suggesting there be more guns about, the next attack should be even more like a shooting scene from the matrix.

So veterans are on the same level as schizos? Anyone talking about the constitution is a problem? Glenn is annoying but harmless. I'm assuming you're talking about what I said, but how are we inciting mental problems? If you want to keep mentally unstable people or criminals from aquiring firearms, show us how. I think we're all for it. But I believe I will keep mine.

By the way, the matrix is a great example why the population should keep their guns. Pick a different example.

Detained? Huh. He was CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

It is illegal to THREATEN PEOPLE. Threatening people IS NOT free speech.

Left wing nutjobs are detained. Right wing nutjobs are arrested.

I think my favorite part of all this is the normal liberal rhetoric. Let's see what we have here....

Hypocrisy: If this SAME man had said the SAME thing to say.....Obama......actually let's say he said something like......."You lie.".......you'd call for his head on a platter. But since he's a card carrying Democrat, he's just misunderstood.

Diversion: "why are Palin and her cronies still out of jail and this guy is in jail?". Well, because they didn't openly threaten someone with bodily harm in a public forum. That seems easy enough for those who don't espouse the vitriol of the liberal doctrine to understand.

Play it down: "The right and the left have these people. It's not a big deal.". Really? When you thought this shooter HAD to be Republican (he was independent, by the way), it was a HUGE deal. Guess it all depends who you vote for in the end, right?

Ignore/denial: "Why is this a story?" or "I don't believe this is how it happened at all.". Well, it's a story because some nut job just murdered 6 people. And it did happen JUST LIKE THAT. Thus the video of it.

This all smacks of the Bill Clinton BJ scandal. First, he didn't do it. Then it was maybe he did, but it's not a big deal. Then it was yeah, he did it, and lied to a grand jury about it, but it's his business, so let it go.

Or the BP Oil spill. First it was Obama was doing everything he could in a timely manner. Then it was maybe he's not, but it's too far gone now. Then it was who cares, look what Bush did!

You see a pattern here?

joman - lying about those with whom you disagree does not make you sound smart or right.

Free speech is just that - otherwise, how do you explain the thousands if not 10's of thousands who publicly rallied with signs reading "Kill Bush" and "I'm Here to Kill Bush" and "Bomb his f...ing house"? This went on for 8 years, and you all were completely supportive of this vile hatred.

The fact is that for 50 years the left has been bombing government buildings, bombing citizens and private property and causing people to hate one another, the most recent is the constant assault from the left towards people of means - the daily news cycle is filled with lies, exaggerations and hatred from the left - you folks have made it an artform.

The proof in the pudding was this most recent tragedy, which had nothing to do with the right, talk radio, tv, or any other external influences. This was a very tragic story of a sick man, who was screened and cleared by your FBI, and caused unspeakable death.

Government is not the solution, we are. Categorizing and vilifying a group based on individual actions is the very thing we now call bigotry. Until we separate the loons from the cause, we are all doomed to repeat this stupidity over and over.

who is to say he didnt mean to see "your dead"? and I fail to see the big deal in saying the other. thats nothing like putting crosshairs on non tea party areas.

I thought the republicans were all about "freedom of speech"?

Isn't that what Sarah was lecturing us about on her 8 minute video?

So I guess what is good for the republicans and tea party folks is not good for the rest of us..............especially those who have recently had a brush with death....

who is the real victim here and who is the one who should be committed?

the shooting victim had a moment of emotional upheaval while the tea party folks have been the same (and worse) speaking points for over 3 years and no one was arrested..............how is that justice?

maybe the entire tea party membership should all be evaluated involuntarily right along with the shooting victim so we can all be safe.....................

^^ and in order we have

Diversion

Play it down

Hypocrisy

LOL you libs don't even see it.

I was watching a movie or I would have responded. This is in response to #1.30.

My question from #1.28;

Name someone from the right that terrorized the country for almost 20 Years. Name a right winger that compares to him...

JoMan's response;

David Duke. And if we knew of everything he was responsible for it would beat Kaczynski all to hell.

Were supposed to beleive that David Duke compares to the Unambomber? If David Duke had done anything dont you think the "left" would be sure to have it documented? how about some proof.

There are many more examples of right wing conservative criminal terrorists.

Again how about some proof?

The difference between right wing terrorists and left wing terrorists is that right wing terrorists are usually out in the open

So you admit that the reason we hear so much about right wing terrorism but not left wing terrorism is because the left is so much better at hiding it.

I Asked a simple question. Name a right winger that terrorized a nation for almost two decades and no one so far has been able to come up with an answer.

I don't blame you for wanting to sweep the Unabomber under the rug after all he is the epitome of the left wing progressive movement. An enlightened educated, environmentalist who wanted to change the world.

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

With the help of a summer school course for English, he completed his high school education when he was 15 years old. He was encouraged to apply to Harvard University, and was subsequently accepted as a student beginning in fall 1958 at the age of 16. While at Harvard, Kaczynski was taught by famed logician Willard Van Orman Quine, scoring at the top of Quine's class with a 98.9% final grade.

Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University in 1962 and subsequently enrolled at the University of Michigan, where he earned a PhD in mathematics.^[9] Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. His professors at Michigan were impressed with his intellect and drive. "He was an unusual person. He was not like the other graduate students," said Peter Duren, one of Kaczynski's math professors at Michigan. "He was much more focused about his work. He had a drive to discover mathematical truth." "It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. In fact, Kaczynski earned his Ph.D. with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem^[13] so difficult that Piranian could not figure it out.^[14] Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."^[15] In 1967, Kaczynski won the University of Michigan's $100 Sumner B. Myers Prize, which recognized his dissertation as the school's best in mathematics that year.^[15] While a graduate student at Michigan, he held a National Science Foundation fellowship and taught undergraduates for three years. He also published two articles related to his dissertation in mathematical journals, and four more after leaving Michigan later.^[16]

In the fall of 1967, Kaczynski became an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught undergraduate courses in geometry and calculus. He was also noted as the youngest professor ever hired by the university.

The man was just a victim of a shooting in which he was nearly killed by a psyco gunman who should never of had a gun. And he got mad over insensitive statements to do with the gun rights issue and the tea party's blatant "I dont give sh!t" attitude about other peoples safety.

The arrogace of thepolitical hacks to trample over the assassin's victims right to question their personal concerns about their own safety is beyond the pale.

The man was shot by a gun and had every right to have his opinion heard. The fact that in his predictable frustration he used his cellphone camera flash to illustrate how quickly a repeat of such tradjedy could develop is being misrepresented.

Ironically Sharron Angle's solution to being denied his first amendment rights would have been for him to pull out his 2nd amendment concealed "solution" to vent his frustration.

David Noah,

What movie did you see?

Typical radical lefty. We hear this kind of stuff from union members all the time

''Blood Libel'' Sarah Palin was correct! Sheriff Dupnick should resign for inciting the already unbalanced leftwing of the democrat party!

You Created This Mass Hysteria Now “Live” with it –

These advocates of violence, threats of violence, Second Amendment Remedies and all the rest must now be prepared to pay the consequences. This seems to be aimed at the political future of the Tea Party member, but we do not know what was intent of the outburst at the public event. These Tea Party members have talked of violence and displayed fire arms to intimidate our fellow citizens it is no wonder to me now that the blow back is one of verbal threats and possibly actual deadly violence directed at those that constantly speak of violence and the remedy of violence to meet their ends.

Violence begets violence thus those that would use violence or incessantly speak of violence would seem to me expect to be directed against them violence. It is almost a no brainier to me, it is expected. I see no reason that they, Tea Party members, should expect anything less than that which they so ardently support. I would not take aim at them but I do not represent those that take great umbrage at the talk of violence to be directed against our fellow Americans by these Tea Baggers. Though I do think it is better to draw and shoot first then to wait for the other guy to take aim on me. It is deplorable that we have come to this, but this, is what they sow and so this is what they shall reap, they shall reap the wind.

You promote violence then do not be surprised when death and destruction comes to visit you and yours. This is what I see happening, I am surprised Americans have not sooner than later taken the Tea Party members up on the call for gun violence. I do not agree or approve of this but the constant call for the use of guns to solve our disagreements should not take those that have made the use of violence their appeal to the public by surprise when gun violence is used to deal with them. You need not worry of me I only will protect my family and home but the Tea Party has called for violence it is no wonder to me that such will or may come to them.

This constant beating into the national consciousness of the Second Amendment has been a baffling characteristic of this group so what can we expect but violence to visit them at some time and if they only think that a sniper need not be in their vicinity and no amount of general protection of their personal safety will suffice to overcome the determination of a person that takes up their invitation for violence. Gun violence as the means, to call for this means to meet their ends, there is some sort of poetic justice at work here. That the means to their ends, that which they have so emphasized as our right as though no one knows of our rights, ultimately is the means to their end. A sad state of affairs they have brought to our public discourse.

@ David Noah # 1.44 - your nonsensical confutation of a Nihilist and the goals of everyday ordinary American working people without health car or poor inadequate expensive health care, for one example, if such is even available. To make these and so many other goals of those that work for a living the moral equivalence with the Unabomber is disgusting. A gross error in analysis and speaks more to me of you as an ideologue than a serious thinker. Your inept attempt to tie the deranged bomber to legitimate concerns of the middle class is so asinine it does not warrant a long refutation, you are direct from the Glenn Beck school of twisting facts and fiction into the ideological argument you so poorly and so inadequately make. There is so much disinformation in your post. I suggest you seek mental help for you are totally bent of mind. What a sorry mess of a post. Just for one try on the Oklahoma bomber on for size, my God what a mess. What or who is the "Unambomber"? As I said a mess of a post.

Good Day and Good Luck

A right wing group that has instilled 20 years of terror? Maybe not David Duke specifically, but the KKK as a whole has 100+ years of terror behind them.

This is lunacy;

You have one nutjob, selfish and didn't think he was getting the attention he felt he was worthy of and went off.... no political motives, no political party to blame. He was going to do what he did somewhere, some time; likely, he chose Gifford because he attempted to talk to her approx. 3 years ago, and she couldn't make sense of him and blew him off, more or less. Who wouldn't? Who would've seen coming what came from him?

Now, a victim, yes... but another nut, like many others that blame a political party, yells out 'you're dead' because he, like many others that are buying into the bullshyt and don't understand the reality in all of this thinks Palin or party is to blame.

That's all this was, and like many posters here he believes some one else is responsible for Loughlins behavior. Both of these guys are the only ones responsible for their actions or words and while I don't subscribe to much either party has to offer, I don't blame either for the intense divide as much I blame people for buying into it, continuing it, and furthering it.....

Just look at the past 100 posts or so; point proven.

Said my peace on this, only because I really couldn't believe the comments I was reading... got better to do, .... later.

David Noah - Stop relying on extremist websites for your sources - the quote you are propagating has no validity - check out how Gutierrez skewered Horowitz during a debate moderated by Hannity - he never had the sources -

www.lapolitiquera.com/la_politiquera_april__2006.pdf

So now you have become a messenger for the conservative Hate Speech/Fear Mongering misinformation campaign - congratulations.

Fear and hatred seem to be the message that conservatives want to spread. In 2004 when immigration became a hot issue - millions was spent on these misinformation campaigns to DEMONIZE the Mexican culture - especially websites. And it continues today.

The whole Aztlan conspiracy that conservatives use to stir their psychotic rhetoric is irrational and based on lies and distortions. It is the whole Helter Skelter crap 40 years later.

Let go of your fears and conspiracies that Mexicans, African-Americans, welfare recipients, people who don't work, other cultures, people who are not white - are trying to revolt against you and your white conservative friends who want to keep all your money and power for yourselves (and not share with other non-conservative, non-white humans).

And please - just stop blaming the immigrants for all your problems. If you believe in God and the after-life - just let it go, love your neighbor and walk in Christ's footsteps (at least as close as you can). This journey of life is just an infinitely small piece of time when compared to the after-life.

The link is:

www.lapolitiquera.com/la_politiquera__april_2006.pdf

Pudlescum;

I didn't ask for a group I asked to name "someone" or "one" right winger.

But yes I would agree, and wouldn't not even think, of trying to deny the horrendous harm and suffering and death KKK groups have done over the years.

Perserver

Nice Ridicule in your response to me. Perhaps if your response wasn't laden with Insults it might be kind of fun to debate with you. I'm sure you feel you are far more educated, intelligent, and enlightened than I so who I'm I to try and debate with you. Sorry if I didn't use nice fancy words such as yourself. I don't feel it necessary to try and show I have a superior intellect to every one else.

Of course in my posts I was talking about the Extremes of the Left, and Right, not Center Right or Center Left or the Center. Isn't that what every ones been talking about since last Saturday, the extremes.If somehow you feel insulted because your a Progressive/Liberal then please accept my apology.

And thanks for pointing out a spelling error. I hope it didn't cause you any problems.

ModerationInAllThings

Now, a victim, yes... but another nut, like many others that blame a political party, yells out 'you're dead' because he, like many others that are buying into the bullshyt and don't understand the reality in all of this thinks Palin or party is to blame.

You do insist on your right to post ridiculous baseless rants I see.

If you could read you would have learned that his complaint was the censorship by the teaparty member. He was asking for a discussion as to why this apparent nutcase was allowed to purchase a gun. That is a rather reasonable and relevant request in my humble OPINION.

As Stewart opined in his discussion with Palenty, it has become difficult to tell the nuts from certain partisans as their rhetoric is so similar. You illustrate his concerns rather succinctly.

re. Post NUMBER 1.54 (that would be the 54th Post)

Just look at the past 100 posts or so; point proven.

You certainly have proven you math skills !

I see alot of problems with someone shouting "You're Dead" at an assembly. Way beyond 1st amendment so don't give me that crap. Demo or Rep , this should be repulsive and inflamatory.

Violence begets violence. Congrats libs on your FALSE accusations of the tea party. Are you happy now? At least we KNOW this guy was a crazy left wing nut

David Noah

I would like you to explain however, how the hundreds of "Rebublicans are Racist", "Tea Baggers are Biggots" etc... articles that have been on newsvine for the last two years up until the 2010 election isn't hate speech? (by the way were did Renard disappear to?)

Calling someone a bigot or racist is hate speech? Its not simply calling them what they are?

LOL! You people are ridiculous.

And for record - you people have incited this violent idiocy - now fix it. Somehow I dont think putting a rifle retical over a district will resolve it.

If they bring a knife, we bring a gun

-Obama

Hypocrite!

These are some of the words that inspired Mr. Loughner to taking action:

1. Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for."

2. Senator Phil Gramm: "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

3. Rep. James Hansen on Bill Clinton: Get rid of the guy. Impreach him, censure him, assassinate him."

4. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

5. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

6. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

7. Bill O'Reilly: "ll those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

8. Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

David Noah:

Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs through which he has terrorized the country for over 40 years, and still continues to do so.I don't know how many people have died when the wrong door got kicked in, but I'll bet it beats the unibomber.

I understand that he's upset, but you just can't do this.

The time and setting made it even worse.

Ahhh yes... 'baseless' rants. I see.

Not blaming one political party or the other, blaming individuals, the fact that after fatal shootings, permanent maimings stating that when someone yells out 'you're dead' is, in my opinion, foolish and again not linked to party or politics but at best poor judgement and perhcance a dangerous person, .....

Yep, baseless rants. And, didn't think I had to count, but went through quite a few posts; guess it seemed longer than it was..... spelling and counting accuracy, off on any and the points invalid?

I'll bear it in mind..... just fed the dogs, time to go play and finish my breakfast. Have fun; don't forget to use terms such as vitriol, bile, emboldened, and right winger.

Take care....

Hey R-dog;

What's news? Timing's everything, ain't it?

Ms Mac,

re: post 1.16

The term 'teabagger' has nothing to do with homosexuality other than the fact that homosexuals can also engage in it as do heterosexuals. Teabagging is an activity wherein a male stands over his partner (male OR female), and dips his testicles into the partner's mouth to recieve oral stimulation. It is only vile if the testicles are dirty or that male hasn't bathed. The proper term for unclean wannbe teabaggers is "blue balls Bill" The 'teabagger' term isn't specific to either homo or heterosexuals. It definitely has no place in our political world. Associating people who engage in and enjoy 'teabagging' with filthy politicians or their political movement is undeserved and most unfair. Teabaggers insist on cleanliness. I can't recall a politician ever doing the same. Instead of calling that wing of the republicon party 'teabaggers', I think the term "TP" ('toilet paper' for those that don't know) is a much better one and has the proper associations needed in the name-calling and labeling between the parties, and it doesn't slur or slander innocent givers/recipients of a fun and ticklish gonad gobbling, nadular nibbling, or testicular taste testing. It might, however, anger the toilet paper or it's manufacturers to be associated with political filth- but they will have to speak up for themselves and offer their own remedy. I've offered a reasonable movement of the name calling away from innocent people and onto an everyday object. If THEY want to change it from there it is up to them.

Lastly, for the life of me I don't know how Keith Olberman ends up on your list. All he does is call BS when he catches someone trying to dish it out as steak & eggs. He does it to both major parties or any public official that deserves it. On top of that he uses VIDEO evidence to show/prove when one of them is talking out of both sides of their mouth. He points out outright lies and manipulation so that his viewers are aware of what is going on. If he makes errors he is always willing to apologize and set things right in as public a way as he erred in. He explains, not justifies, his mistakes, and doesn't start yammering a load of self-serving defensive blather while trying to excuse himself. The rest of his professional guild would do good to follow his example and methodology.

"JoManWould

someone please explain to me how this guy ends up arrested and in a hospital while Palin and all the other right wing violence spewing murder encouraging politician and media sucking worms are still out there?"

Sarah is a victim of the shooting, also. Didn't you see her video, released the same day as the memorial service?

I'm surprised that she didn't blame the other victims for the shooting. If all of the victims had had guns, this shooting wouldn't have happened.

FedupwithFed

If they bring a knife, we bring a gun

-Obama

Hypocrite!

Context is a horrible horrible thing.

Hey there Mod. How ya been?

I have no idea what happened, but I woke up at 3:17 and couldn't get back to sleep. Oh well! That much more of a Sunday to enjoy!

Oh and......GO BEARS!!!!

Better, R-dog!

Similar; crashed early Saturday and woke up about 4 or so. Getting a job, a bit of a drive, but it's full time with some OT so's getting better.SNL; 'the Bears'.... best of luck!

Unbelievable all's reactions to this, isn't it?

Standard far-left liberal threats. You hear this from union members and read every hour of every day on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and many other radical progressive websites.

The recent murders proves these people are pure evil.

Someone up the Vine, cited the KKK as a Republican group. If that is so...then how do you explain that it was Republicans who created the Civil Rights Act, and it was Democrats who opposed it?

Here is the reason that the left wing liberal white house controlled media (That's you MSNBC) print this trash. The media are the ones that should be on trial for their efforts to incite the people with their reporting (as much as it is favored in one way ONLY).

The question is WHY is this man allowed to threaten someone but ONLY be taken in for evaluations? If this had been someone that was not of the same political persuasion as the this LIBERAL Sheriff, they would have been arrested and CHARGED. What we have is a Sheriff that ONLY upholds the laws he wants to and favors his political agenda. AKA Illegal Immigration laws that he refuses to uphold and allows them to continue flooding the country through HIS county that he was elected to PROTECT & SERVE. NOT the other way around.

Moderation, you certainly nailed it. We must learn to take responsibility for our actions and quit blaming others for what we do. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Please don't let the trolls try to derail you. As for the 100 or so comments, people should just keep on reading. I think there's about 1400 so far, and most are spewing the same old, same old. I see very few original thoughts, just the same old repeats, (and the same old trolls.)

I'm sickened by the blaming of right wingers, left wingers, tea partiers, Bush, Obama, you name it. The bottom line is the voters. None would be in power if they weren't VOTED into it. So before the finger pointing starts, everyone should remember the old adage of when pointing a finger at someone, three are pointing pack at you.

I understand hating and disliking someone, but the constant vitriol against Sarah P. is ridiculous. Currently, she holds no public office. She is a private citizen, just as you and me. She is allowed to organize whatever she likes, she has her own webpage (who doesn't), she on Facebook (OMG, the world's going to end), and she has children who aren't "perfect." Admittedly, she does have a public presence, but she wouldn't have it if some folks didn't like her. And I'm certainly not going to let anyone dictate who I like or don't like in this world--whether it be Sarah, Obama, Bush, etc. A number of people don't like me, but that's their right. We can agree to disagree and move on.

Which is what all of this has boiled down to. We can be civilized and agree to disagree, debate our strengths and weaknesses, and try to come up with logical conclusion; or we can load up on ammo, behave irrationally, shoot our mouths off, or just plain shoot. The polarization is remarkable, and I do blame this quite a bit on our "deaf" politicians. Not all turn us off, but I do understand that they get really tired of listening to the irrational folks. They might tend to turn off most everyone but themselves, and then only share discourse among themselves. I think that's what might have happened in our Congress. We both must improve our communication skills: the "common" people and our "congressional" representatives.

Nevertheless, Moderationinallthings, I believe you are correct. These individuals are speaking out and not representing anything but themselves. I do think Mr Fuller, who was wounded, might be suffering from post-traumatic stress. Who wouldn't? Loughner appears to be mentally unbalanced, but I'm not psychiatrist, either. No matter, it's a terrible tragedy all the way around.

Mod!!!! That is absolutely fantastic about the job!!! CONGRATS!!!!!!!

HUGE load off of you!!!!!

Do you brilliant libs who collapse all of the comments you disagree with realize we can simply click on them - and vote for them - anyway?

This meeting was poorly planed by having the politicians present at this particular time. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured. The meeting should have been with the media, and a therapist alone to help the town recover from the shock of the shooting event. Having other politicians present when so much of the country is upset with the political problems just seems to stoke the flames even further without the opportunity for those people to heal. Also, why aren't politicians held to higher standards of conduct with their actions and conduct? Why are they allowed to use violent and disrespectful comments (such as: spitting on a Congressman or another Republican Congressman interrupting the State of Union Address by calling the President a "Liar" while receiving only a slap on the hand with a small fine for his outburst)? Why aren't public officials, candidates, and high profile political celebrities not held to higher standards of conduct? What is going to happen at this next State of Union Address when the Congress can't refrain from emotional outburst during a speech? And now they want to be able to carry guns (Thank you so much to the NRA Association with their so called rights!) into the meeting rooms with their mismanaged and out of control behavior. They need to have police or FBI protection present at their meetings; but never ever to allow any politician to bring hand guns to official meetings that often become so verbally argumentative in nature. When that behavior happens, the individuals involved should be removed from the room, arrested with mischief behavior, and given a hefty fine that increases with each additional outburst (with the money going to lower the national deficit). They removed the man from the town meeting in AZ and certainly should not feel restrained from doing the same in Congress, etc. Eventually, they just may change their very inappropriate behavior. But that just never seems to happen with the politicians. Why was Palin not questioned and forced long ago by Homeland Security to remove her map of cross-hairs over the politicians heads on the web site? That action alone is a "cause to incite a riot" that should have been arrested, punished, and fined as well. Are Palin and other politicians allowed to make such inflaming remarks without being held accountable for their actions, while the victim shot several times (probably still in shock) was hauled away from the town meeting with the media? Palin just never seems to learn from her enormous errors. That is not the type of behavior the U.S. needs to have in any leadership role. Politicians should be role models and not the childish, immature, and school yard bullies throwing spewing out the threats. Otherwise, you get what you elect (violence vs. intelligence). Even after the shooting event with Gabby and others, Palin went on an emotional 8 minute social media speech, which used an extremely inappropriate phrase, "Blood Libel", that is an insult to the Jewish religion, and came across as another intended public smack at Gabby, who is also Jewish. What happened between the separation of "Church and State" which should include remarks as well? It is those types of behavior that the public is sick and tired of witnessing, reading, or hearing in the public, media, and talk show hosts. It only creates an atmosphere of inciting to riot that needs to be punished, fined, and removed from the the air, scene of event, and in writing as well. There is serious problem with the rights to freedom of speech, which stirs up emotional upheaval, murder, and hatred. And that message esp. needs to get out to the media along with the often foul, physically abusive, libelous, and intended misinformation used during the last campaign seasons. Every one to three minutes during this past election season (that went on for well more than a year), the TV viewers were exposed to listening to such vitriol remarks from the Ads, organizations, and candidates. It is not only vile, but disgusting and unprofessional as well. It certainly does not, and never will win votes from our family. Please help this country to become more empathetic, civil and tolerant with all opinions without loosing such control of our emotional anger. And that includes the social web sites and media as well. It is time to return with the pride of what we do and say, because we are a Great Nation for others to observe and hopefully will follow as an example.

Mr. Fuller's remarks are indefensible. Utterly reprehensible. And he was properly escorted away and placed into a mental health facility. And we have every reason to question his sanity at this time. He should find no support. No sympathy. He was shot in the knee. He still has his life if perhaps not his mind.

And yes Mr. Limbaugh's remarks last week are constitutionally protected and he has every right to his opinion no matter how disturbing. But one wonders why his own supporters don't begin to question his sanity? Oh sure he didn't threaten or kill anybody. He only threw gasoline on an open flame. The memorial was a "pep rally"? And we as Democrats "support" Mr Loughner? His wiring is just as crossed as Mr. Fuller's. He essentially said we care more about this lunatic than our own party member who lies gravely wounded and was his only known target until he turned on 19 others. Can someone truly find logic in that? The only thing any American should support regarding Mr. Loughner is the due process of law which allows the preservation of our civil society. You cannot say you support the Constitution of the United States of America but do not support that tenet.

To those who called themselves victims this week, this simply wasn't about you. You were not truly a victim of this tragedy. Lost in all of this is that 19 other men and women lay dead and wounded in a parking lot in Tucson last Saturday. These Americans and their families are the only true victims this week. And of course America herself. That "beacon of hope", "that shining city upon a hill". Forgive us for what we have done.

Those of you making idiotic comments this morning do your country no favors. You call yourself Americans yet you spit on every concept that makes this country great.

Stop and think before you do it again.

One wonders what is next? What is going to happen when some politically motivated shooter opens fire? Think about that this morning before you put your fingers on the keys. Before you open your mouth and question your neighbors patriotism or beliefs. We cannot have an ideological civil war. It would be the end of our nation. Is that a justifiable price? And do you think anyone in that parking lot last week cared one iota whether it was Democrat or a Republican that lay wounded and needed their assistance? One thing we do know is that members of both parties were among the victims.

The only two statements that need be remembered this week were the words of President Obama and Speaker of the House Boehner. They about covered it all. The rest was mostly hyperbole. But will there by an answer to their requests? Were we even listening?

c obviously provoked this mentaly unstable leftist to threaten a Tea Party spokesman with death.

Ok we are supposed to skip over all the right wing hyperbole the fact this person was shot and the fact "your dead" now means you are threatening a person not his politics. Ok let them arrest the guy. Let them now arrest Beck and Limbaugh and Palin everytime they open their pie holes with caustic rant. He should never have said it but in the word of an HBO comic I may not agree with what he said but i understand. Now the right wing trolls will take two words and condemn all liberals for this incident we now face.

@maurice-31199

"

re. Post NUMBER 1.54 (that would be the 54th Post)
Just look at the past 100 posts or so; point proven.
You certainly have proven you math skills !
#1.59 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:15 AM CST

I think you make 1.54's (moderationinallthings)point. A lot of us are out there looking for a reason to argue with the other side, which is to say within ourselves, instead of finding a place called peace.

#1 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:23 PM CST
#1.53 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:37 AM CST (53)
#2.1 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:26 PM CST
#2.7 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:01 AM CST(7)
#3 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:29 PM CST
#3.1 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:13 AM CST(2)
#4 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:31 PM CST
#4.19 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:38 AM CST(19)
#5 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:35 PM CST
#5.13 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:37 AM CST(13)
#6 - Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:36 PM CST
#6.17 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:26 AM CST(17)

1.54 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:39 AM CST
Just look at the past 100 posts or so; point proven.

that was actually a pretty good estimate from 1.54 (it was 111 prior posts and i didnt even count 7+up

No one hates more than the KKK, no one hates more than the thousands of rightwing racists who lynched hundreds of Black Americans, no one hates more than the thousands of Americans who fought to keep slavery a viable industry in the south, no one hates more than those anti-abortion neanderthals who shot doctors dead.

And no one hates more than people like Jan brewer denying liver transplants to AZ patients for the only reason it's too costly. She's already responsible for the deaths of two people.

The US rightwing has got nothing on the left. All you guys do is wait for someone to get upset at your murderous way and then call it even. If someone were to say "good morning" to you you'd say it's because we hate you, you crybabies!

Pudlscum

A right wing group that has instilled 20 years of terror? Maybe not David Duke specifically, but the KKK as a whole has 100+ years of terror behind them.

#1.51 - Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:15 AM CST

Olias of Sunhillow

No one hates more than the KKK, no one hates more than the thousands of rightwing racists who lynched hundreds of Black Americans, no one hates more than the thousands of Americans who fought to keep slavery a viable industry in the south, no one hates more than those anti-abortion neanderthals who shot doctors dead.

So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance.

If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along.

November 17, 2005 by Rhadaghast

WHAT SAY YOU?

To Merlin post 1.69:

Hahahaha LOVE the post, made my day. Thanks!

Thanx, R-dog.... (you said huge load)!

But yes, once the worthless paper starts rolling in, it's going to be better for the wife and kids; dogs and I? Ah, we'll wait a bit, getting used to deer (just wish there was some fat on 'em) and picking through what's left over. Don't know if it'll save the house yet or not, we're on the sheriff's auction page (all 7 for our area this month, approx. 10 per page). But, already, I think the BP is going down some.

zapper and mr R; it's good to see that the point is moreso than the other B.S., and that there's at least several of us that see the forest for the trees. I'd make a joke about perhaps having to live in the forest soon, but you know, bad karma.....

Just had to say; I don't always agree with your opinions nor you mine, and that's fine... there's alot we do agree on as well, but I LOVE the name 'tenangryhamsters'. There's just something about that....

You progressives can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. And you are ruining this country with your temper tantrums. Nobody owes you anything!

Why not try taking responsibility for your own actions for a change. As long as you keep blaming others, others will stand up for themselves. Don't like it?? Too bad. You get what you give.

I will give you credit for one thing, you sure are good at collapsing things including this once great nation.

"See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

To dumb it down for you liberals, you can't make threats then hide behind the first amendment. You're inciting violence. This is no "Maybe that's what he mean, maybe it's something else" type thing. This was a moron stupid enough to shout "You're dead" to a politician a week after someone tried to kill a politician. But since he's a fellow liberal, it's all okay. He's just misunderstood and has a little PTSD and was trying to make a point. If I went to an Obama rally and shouted "You're dead!", I'd be in federal prison for making threats against the POTUS. This is no different.

I thought the man went to jail and was placed in a mental institution. He is a Vietnam vet, was shot twice by a crazy loon and I am sure is suffering mentally. What more did you want them to do with him, put him in front of a firing squad?

The person he threatened, accepted an apology and did not want to press charges. Oh, but it's all the liberals fault. They forced the person threatened to make the offer.

When the people at rallies shouted to kill Obama, no one went to jail. The people holding the rally said nothing against it.

We can always point a finger of blame. And yes, if you threaten the POTUS, you should go to jail. It is different. You might not like him for whatever reason. But like him or not, he is our President and it is different.

If you notice the people who are pointing, blaming and calling names are the one claiming to be victims of name calling, blaming and finger pointing.

Take responsibility, they say. They don't need to take any responsibility, since some obscure person did it too.

Next I suppose you'll blame Giffords herself, since she also criticized the right-wing hate speech. No hypocrisy there!

Good point Ten. How about it righties, Gabby called out Saint Sarah on her crosshairs map, this is inciteful right, not the map itself. Did Giffords bring this on herself by her "inciteful remarks." Constant veiled threats of a violent uprising against the government isn't inciteful, but CALLING those threats inciteful IS! The wonder of rightie logic never ceases to amaze.

Both sides have been ugly... It's easy to see if people stop trying to troll the other side and look at their own parties. But then again I've seen a lot of "it's ok for my side to say such things but not your side so shut up"... shrugs.

If your party is really all that great... then you shouldn't have to worry about the other side... right? Clean up your own back porches before jumping on the other side of the aisle.. because while you are worrying about what they are doing- yours is getting dirtier.

*sidenote not talking specific party... just anyone who feels they need to champion their side by attacking the other.

MKC -- THANK YOU!

I'm so disappointed with people whom I've NORMALLY thought were rational human beings -- and their behavior up here. It's terrible. I feel like I'm yelling into the wind because NO ONE seems to get the point. The hate mongering on BOTH sides has to quit and I damn well don't care if you are a "con" or a "lib".

*sidenote not talking specific party... just anyone who feels they need to champion their side by attacking the other.

Great idea - if us dems can duck the bullets while we're sharing the love.

MKC-TN,

re: post 2.4

Well said, but I would add inthe people who think that 'God' needs them or their help to accomplish something. It sort of takes away their 'God's" omnipotence, doesn't it?

Just in case.....to those who are ranting about FOX News....if you watched this morning (HA, what am I THINKING?? Libs NEVER watch that network)...Anyway, on this morning's news program they were discussing this latest incident of "you're dead". The female anchor, can't remember her name, said...I give this man a pass, he has just been through a very traumatic ordeal and is no doubt suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Who can blame him for "losing it" (or something to that effect.)

Aren't those people at FOX just so heartless and hateful???

You little babies on the right love taking whatever you're guilty of or accused of and accusing the left of it.

It's like a 1st grade argument tactic. "I know you are but what am I?"

I.e. Hey Rush, Beck, Palin et al caused this hateful environment with their angry and violent rhetoric.

Now here come their parrots like Kenneth Krieger to try to turn it around.

"Demmycrats caused this with their haaatefuw rhetoric. Glenn Beck is a precious angel who never felt hate towards anyone. Especially not leading up to the Tuscon massacre."

You're not fooling anyone.

Dangerous Mind

Are you saying that those on the left NEVER said anything hateful or wished certain people to die horrible deaths? That liberals NEVER lied to justify their views or to demonize the conservatives? That liberals never label anyone in a hate-filled manner and demand the lost of their livelihood at the merest slight?

Hate to tell you... you're wrong if that is what you think... You sound like you are on a high horse and not really looking down at your own party. Both sides can be and have been HATEFUL. I've seen lots of liberals place a label on someone- even when it's not justified- just because someone doesn't agree with them (example- if someone said they don't like Obama's policy- they are label a racist and that is thrown in their face over and over again). If both liberals and conservatives ever shut their mouth long enough and take their fingers out of their ears... they might find common ground that will advance what's best for the country- because one side does NOT have all the answer.

Now you can be a reasonable and open-minded part of the solution or you can just add your voice to the retoric and the hateful BS and be part of the problem.

What's the correct answer?

I have no idea what that means.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

These Quotes by Thomas Jefferson

This meeting was poorly planned by having the politicians present at this particular time. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured. The meeting should have been with the media, and a therapist alone to help the town recover from the shock of the shooting event. Having other politicians present when so much of the country is upset with the political problems just seems to stoke the flames even further without the opportunity for those people to heal. Also, why aren't politicians held to higher standards of conduct with their actions and conduct? Why are they allowed to use violent and disrespectful comments (such as: spitting on a Congressman or another Republican Congressman interrupting the State of Union Address by calling the President a "Liar" while receiving only a slap on the hand with a small fine for his outburst)? Why aren't public officials, candidates, and high profile political celebrities not held to higher standards of conduct? What is going to happen at this next State of Union Address when the Congress can't refrain from emotional outburst during a speech? And now they want to be able to carry guns (Thank you so much to the NRA Association with their so called rights!) into the meeting rooms with their mismanaged and out of control behavior. They need to have police or FBI protection present at their meetings; but never ever to allow any politician to bring hand guns to official meetings that often become so verbally argumentative in nature. When that behavior happens, the individuals involved should be removed from the room, arrested with mischief behavior, and given a hefty fine that increases with each additional outburst (with the money going to lower the national deficit). They removed the man from the town meeting in AZ and certainly should not feel restrained from doing the same in Congress, etc. Eventually, they just may change their very inappropriate behavior. But that just never seems to happen with the politicians. Why was Palin not questioned and forced long ago by Homeland Security to remove her map of cross-hairs over the politicians heads on the web site? That action alone is a "cause to incite a riot" that should have been arrested, punished, and fined as well. Are Palin and other politicians allowed to make such inflaming remarks without being held accountable for their actions, while the victim shot several times (probably still in shock) was hauled away from the town meeting with the media? Palin just never seems to learn from her enormous errors. That is not the type of behavior the U.S. needs to have in any leadership role. Politicians should be role models and not the childish, immature, and school yard bullies throwing spewing out the threats. Otherwise, you get what you elect (violence vs. intelligence). Even after the shooting event with Gabby and others, Palin went on an emotional 8 minute social media speech, which used an extremely inappropriate phrase, "Blood Libel", that is an insult to the Jewish religion, and came across as another intended public smack at Gabby, who is also Jewish. What happened between the separation of "Church and State" which should include remarks as well? It is those types of behavior that the public is sick and tired of witnessing, reading, or hearing in the public, media, and talk show hosts. It only creates an atmosphere of inciting to riot that needs to be punished, fined, and removed from the air, scene of event, and in writing as well. There is serious problem with the rights to freedom of speech, which stirs up emotional upheaval, murder, and hatred. And that message esp. needs to get out to the media along with the often foul, physically abusive, libelous, and intended misinformation used during the last campaign seasons. Every one to three minutes during this past election season (that went on for well more than a year), the TV viewers were exposed to listening to such vitriol remarks from the Ads, organizations, and candidates. It is not only vile, but disgusting and unprofessional as well. It certainly does not, and never will win votes from our family. Please help this country to become more empathetic, civil and tolerant with all opinions without losing such control of our emotional anger. And that includes the social web sites and media as well. It is time to return with the pride of what we do and say, because we are a Great Nation for others to observe and hopefully will follow as an example.

Unfortunately Hampster is referring to the death threat as an answer to the second amendment statement that was made.

May be the 63 year old meant " you are dead " by way of a giant smelly law suit

There is no "Freedom of speech" laws that protect people when they make threats. If the man wanted to stand up and say "Your wrong" (even though he isn't) that is one thing, but when you stand up and make a death threat... you are as much of the problem as anyone.

The Left is so predicable....

If they disagree with Obama, its "Racism or Hate speech"...

If someone kills someone... it a "Right Wing Nut" even though the past 3 or 4 major events have been Liberal Lunatics..

February 18, 2010, Texas Liberal mad at IRS fly's plane into building... initially blamed on Right wing crazies....

December 16, 2010 Florida man (Left Wing Liberal) mad about wife's job shoots up School Board. Leaves note about Leftist leanings. Initially blamed on Right Wing crazies....

But wait... Here is a strange one.......

Muslim man Shoots up Air Force Base..... I say this is s "Strange one" because Liberal's say he was "Mentally disturbed and needed help".... Now... does that not seem strange TO YOU? I Muslim shoots up an Air Force base.... He is "Mentally disturbed"..... An "A "Political Nut Case shoots a Congresswomen and others... He is a Right Wing Team Party Nut Case....

HMMMMMMMMmmm............

Typical Hypocrisy from the Lunatics in the left..... Multiple violent and destructive rallies by the left at G8 meetings and the loss of property and life that followed was considered.... "No Biggie"... By Left Wing Media...

Number of people EVER arrested at Team Party meetings.... -ZERO-.... but they are all full of hate...Right?

You guys ran out of legitimacy long ago... now the media which has carried your cause is facing the same fate. Lies and Hypocrisy NEVER hold up for long.... The left and its agenda is being exposed DAILY.

Right off the bat, what this guy did was wrong, and he's going to have to pay a price for it. You can't just threaten another person like that. And that's what it was, a threat.

But it should be obvious to everyone here, that Mr. Fuller has been through an extremely traumatic experience. He is almost certainly not of rational and objective mind at this time, and like the shooter, should not be considered part of the problem, but a product of it.

There is a big difference between a shooting victim calling out a politician for trying to deflect relevant discourse, and politicians implying gun violence such as Sarah Palin's targeting, and "don't retreat, reload," or Michelle Bachmann's, "I want Minnesotans to be armed and dangerous." Mr. Fuller acted out of fear, pain, and understandible anger, while the politicians say what they do to rile their base and to advance their own selfish agendas.

Both the pandering, self-serving proclamations of politicians and the angry responses of victims, are components of the national psyche. This is a systemic problem that affects every American either directly or indirectly. In the case of Mr. Fuller, it affected him directly. In the case of the shooter the consequence was indirect, less obvious.

While cases such as this have occurred all around the country, this one is interesting as it reveals the extensive social shortcomings of Arizona in particular. Here was a guy, who by all accounts was known to be mentally unstable, and perhaps dangerous. Some even predicted he might do something like this. Here was a guy who required treatment, but could not get it. Arizona is one of the worst states when it comes to mental health treatment and availability of mental health facilities. He didn't just fall through a crack. He fell through a gaping hole. Add to this the fact that you can purchase a handgun in Arizona without a background check (from private owners, gun shows, or guns manufactured in AZ), as well as the prominance that guns play in the very culture of Arizona and you have the makings of a time bomb.

And it's only going to get worse. In order to close its budget gap, one of the areas that will suffer the biggest cut is Arizona's contribution to medicaid. This will likely result in the loss of matching funds from the Fed, and will directly impact people just like the Tucson shooter the most--the poor, the mentally unstable, the disenfranchised.

In summary, Mr. Fuller should be charged for what he did. But his action is nothing at all like the "hate" rhetoric we hear from our politicians and talk shows, who do it for the sole purpose of getting your vote or your money. And that is reprehensible. Mr. Fuller's conduct is the product of trauma and understandible, if not defensible.

ObamaGoneInOne -

No surprise that another far-left winger wants to resort to violence. You hear this same kind of thing from union membes, on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, NYT.

Really? I say you are wrong. Post links to support this statement.

Derek-V-

Same with you. You've posted a number od stories, none of which I have heard, and I get around the news quite a bit. Please post some links so we can see what it is about them that has your ire up.

Thank you.

Gerrbear-

Please learn how to write using proper grammar, or at least proof read.

Did you forget about Haiti already???

Are you posting this from your relief hovel in Haiti? I didn't know you could get internet there.

wonder if he only said those two words or if there is more to it.

Threatening to kill someone is NOT acceptable. I realize that this guy went through some trauma and drama.

IT DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO THREATEN TO KILL SOMEONE.

He probably felt it was OK to threaten this tea party person since the media and so many crazy people have been blaming the tea party and Sarah Palin for the deranged man's shooting.

IT WAS NOT OK TO THREATEN ANYONE.

it's not alright to threaten anyone, you are correct.. if you are on the side of the tea/publicans i would like to say that your the only one that i've seen agree with that. you have a sound head on your shoulders, spread the word.

mandt - re 3.9

I agree with almost everything you say except for your comment about mental health care in AZ.

IT IS THE SAME IN ALMOST ALL THE 50 STATES.

I did some research after this incident and know from experience what happens in CA when my friend suffered post-partum depression.

IT IS NOT EASY TO INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT ANYONE FOR PSYCHIATRIC CARE IN ANY STATE.

Apparently, per American Psychiatric Association, CA is a trendsetter with our laws on involuntary commitment but I know from experience, IT IS NOT EASY TO COMMIT ANYONE IN CA AGAINST THEIR WILL.

Here is the article from American Pyschiatric Association:

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/54/1/26

"Why was Palin not questioned and forced long ago by Homeland Security to remove her map of cross-hairs over the politicians heads on the web site?"

This is an example of the Left's lies. There was no picture's of people with cross-hairs on their heads. It was a map of the United States with sights over districts that were in play. If the left wants to spread even more hate, at least get it right.

HowUlikemenow

I am not on anyone's "side." I just call it like I see it.

What happened in Tucson is a tragic loss of life CAUSED BY A DERANGED INDIVIDUAL WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE CARE OF A PSYCHIATRIST.

What I also see is an attempt by the liberal media and liberal Democrats to blame the tea party for this tragedy for their own personal agenda. It disgusts me to say the least.

mandt

I've heard MOST of Derek V's stories. It's not like they just happened yesterday but they are relatively current. Maybe news goes in one of your ears and out the other.

2ND AMENDMENT: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't know about you, but the first part of this amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." seems to limit and overrule our current attitude: "individuals without any training, license, restraint, discipline, or mental health checks, shall own ANY AND ALL weapons and shall be free agents to use those weapons freely without ties to regulation, training and militias NOT for the purpose of protecting a free state, but for any reason they deem attractive or necessary."

The "without infriingement" is where the idea comes from, but the first statement clearly speaks to a "well regulated militia" at a time when we did not have a standing army of any kind.

If this "free agents only" argument is taken literally as the intent and application of George Washington mistrusting ANY standing Army and wishing individuals to be armed and to be able to overthrow our government, then the MILITARY is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and all branches should be disassembled and disbanded as violations of our rights.

Come on, you can't interpret it both ways, having your cake and eating it too, your cake being weapons in the hands of the citizens without regulation, and the military being armed to the teeth and a major drain on our budget.

Derek you're so wrong. Here is one article where 10 were arrested, I'm sure given time I could find many more.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/strange-scene-10-arrested-as-tea-party-watchers-heckle-police.php

Here's the problem.. See People do this as some politicians do because it gives them a sense of strength or power (that valued 15 min. of fame). They only hope that that sort of language will serve them in some sort of attention getting sort of way, and it has in the past thanks to the media. The answer isn't as simple as claiming freedom of speech the world is not that simple and innocent, its all about behaving with dignity and responsibility..

Here's the problem.. See People do this as some politicians do because it gives them a sense of strength or power (that valued 15 min. of fame). They only hope that that sort of language will serve them in some sort of attention getting sort of way, and it has in the past thanks to the media. The answer isn't as simple as claiming freedom of speech the world is not that simple and innocent, its all about behaving with dignity and responsibility..

@ karen, idk about you but what i see on tv has not been a blame for killing but people only asking for the violent,hateful,vile messaging to stop.

I guess to you its so disgusting for those to want the hateful, vile, violent messaging to stop but it's not disgusting for those to do it.

The only type of blame is see and hear is that the teapublicans use hateful,vile,violent messaging not saying that it made this kid do it.

as far as the liberal media and democrats the message is not they are to blame for the killings at all, but that they have a theme of hate and violence.

also, besides the few people that have tried to link the hate, violent messages from the far right as the reason, is not proven...however, one should not think that this is just a event to take advantage of a political agenda.

there has been fear and concern in regards to the amount of threats and violent activities towards the left ever since they started to use violent and hateful messaging with a take up arms and use force talk.

Now the fear has escalated due to this and now want it to end. there is nothing wrong with saying to stop using hateful,vile, violent messaging to ones constituents

nothing wrong with bringing up this concern in light of the recent events, but just not to pinpoint that crazy gunman to this event unless evidence shows it.

This victim using that talk is not right either, he should be mad at the gunman right now.

Screeeminlib

Speaking of Haiti, any idea of where that billion dollars of our tax money that Obama sent them went?

Amyshine

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia^[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.^[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.^[4]

Anyone ever stop to thing that the network is trying to start this conflict to increase ratings? Why else would the victims and the tea party pundits be in the same location?

This is just one more way for the liberal media to advance their cause. because of their ratings tanking. They have had a lock on the national news for decades. Now they are finding that people are actively seeking other forms of media that are not so left wing friendly.

Look at it this way, If 45% of the population is on the left, and 45% is on the right, and 10% independent, you have 7 news networks working against each other for their share of that 45% of the left leaners. If you are Fox news you are loving life because they are the only right leaning news network. That is why the left despises Fox.

It is amazing how a charging herd of Palinite tea baggers going through a comments thread online and a flock of turkeys meandering through my backyard are so simmilar. Both come through and "take over" the area for their own agenda, stomping over everything with no respect to what is there, leaving clawmarks all over the lawn filled with their droppings and it takes too much time for the stench to go away.

I have seen the Sarahpac group enforce (while their chat was still on the main page - it is hidden behind curtains now, like a child molester) ... I have seen them hidden in their own online thread and "chatting" amongst themselves, then one comes in, states Sarah palin is being disrespected, throws the link into the lobby and they descend upon that site and abuse the "report" features at that site. They end up collapsing valid comments because the only speech they allow is THEIR SPEECH, no one elses. I watched them for 3 days in action with their spitting on "free speech" and stomping over anyone who had a difference of opinion ... just like the nazis did in Germany under Hitler.

Guess what ... on newsvine, unlike places such as adn, that abuse of the "report abuse" feature to merely "silence" those who do not support or agree with your point of view can get you banned.

Collapse all you want ... the more you do, the sooner your asses are thrown off newsvine.

Remember, no matter how many comments and threads you collapse or attempt to collapse ... not a damn thing in this world can make who you worship like mindless robots an honorable, respectable nor intelligent human being. Not a damn thing.

While I can't condone the actions of this man, I can certainly empathize with him and understand what may have led to the outburst.

I blame Democrat politicians including the Pima County Sheriff and the media circus that sought to blame someone (Sarah Palin?) and score political points rather than discuss the legitimate issues which the Tuscon rampage raises!!

You Created This Mass Hysteria Now “Live” with it –

These advocates of violence, threats of violence, Second Amendment Remedies and all the rest must now be prepared to pay the consequences. This seems to be aimed at the political future of the Tea Party member, but we do not know what was intent of the outburst at the public event.

These Tea Party members have talked of violence and displayed fire arms to intimidate our fellow citizens it is no wonder to me now that the blow back is one of verbal threats and possibly actual deadly violence directed at those that constantly speak of violence and the remedy of violence to meet their ends.

Violence begets violence thus those that would use violence or incessantly speak of violence would seem to me expect to be directed against them violence. It is almost a no brainier to me, it is expected. I see no reason that they, Tea Party members, should expect anything less than that which they so ardently support. I would not take aim at them but I do not represent those that take great umbrage at the talk of violence to be directed against our fellow Americans by these Tea Baggers.

Though I do think it is better to draw and shoot first then to wait for the other guy to take aim on me. It is deplorable that we have come to this, but this, is what they sow and so this is what they shall reap, they shall reap the wind.

You promote violence then do not be surprised when death and destruction comes to visit you and yours. This is what I see happening, I am surprised Americans have not sooner than later taken the Tea Party members up on the call for gun violence. I do not agree or approve of this but the constant call for the use of guns to solve our disagreements should not take those that have made the use of violence their appeal to the public by surprise when gun violence is used to deal with them. You need not worry of me I only will protect my family and home but the Tea Party has called for violence it is no wonder to me that such will or may come to them.

This constant beating into the national consciousness of the Second Amendment has been a baffling characteristic of this group so what can we expect but violence to visit them at some time and if they only think that a sniper need not be in their vicinity and no amount of general protection of their personal safety will suffice to overcome the determination of a person that takes up their invitation for violence. Gun violence as the means, to call for this means to meet their ends, there is some sort of poetic justice at work here. That the means to their ends, that which they have so emphasized as our right as though no one knows of our rights, ultimately is the means to their end. A sad state of affairs they have brought to our public discourse.

What did I just read? A new term? New adjective for the persona of the buffoon, but, I like the "Baffoon" better than the buffoon, the word implies being baffled, as they surely are.

The "baggin baffoons"? You must be speaking of a certain David Noah, now there is a mountebank of a "baggin baffoon", I like that, you may have coined a new word for our Zeitgeist the wayward ideologue "baggin baffoon". Yes, I like it, nicely put, the word has many implications and connotations. I think I may, with your permission of course, use this term in the future if you would do not mind.

Ah the sloppy mindless boring poor thinking "bagggin baffoon", yes I am ecstatic a new and exciting, well constructed term. It has been a great day already I have learned a new word, thank you "Recycled Hope".

Have a great day, Good bye and Good Luck

I just learned a new word, the word for today or the word of the day so its a great day Oh yeah "bagggin baffoon", "bagggin baffoon", "bagggin baffoon", "bagggin baffoon", "bagggin baffoon", "bagggin baffoon",

Palin and the Tea Party are guilty as charged...for creating the violent atmosphere insane people walk in. Ask yourself one simple question, Before the falsely named "Tea Party" and Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer etc.....does anyone remember people openly carrying assault rifles to a town hall meeting?....or shouting down speakers? or using Second Amendment remedy threats if they didn't get their way? That the President is not an American and "pals around with terrorists",... their delusion list is endless, If your answer is no....then thank the Tea Party and Sarah Palin etc....for the violent atmosphere they began and still revel in! If your answer is yes....then prove it!......Case closed! Your violence leading lies are on the record! The Devils spawn belongs to the devil! Now the cowards run after ginning up a mob? But, we know who was selling the gin! So one of the victims takes a picture of a Tea Bagger and shouts "your dead".....according to their logic, he can now say...Oh,No! your mistaken, I didn't mean that kind of dead, I meant Politically dead...at the ballot box? It worked for Sarah...why not use the same defense? How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot. If Dems suddenly started the same War, threatened the same things and continually shouted down GrandMa at their meetings....how would they like it? Then if something crazy happened to them.....we could also say "It was not our fault"? But Dems and Republicans never used to do these things!!! Until Sarah Inc..et al...and The Tea Party started it all !! Fascism is an ugly thing....not to be floated lightly..but...the take over by the few over the duly elected by violence and intimidation? ..... are the very essence and definition of the term ' Fascist '

This kid was on the internet sucking at the tit of violence...where Palin's/Tea Party are the Earth Mother!

There are hundreds of threats and lies...daily on the Tea Party and other White Supremacist blogs Next, they will say, oh...that wasn't really the John Birch Society's booth...it was really the Girl Scouts!

So, it's okay for Palin, Angle and other tea party leaders to use psychological warfare and make threats like RELOAD, or Trade Ballots for Bullets! But a Tucson VICTIM can't say a teabagger is politically dead?

Yes, just as the teabaggers twisted things to deny that anyone one of their leaders have any culpability, then I can say that this VICTIM was not intending to threaten anyone. His statement can and will be put into any context the left wants just like the teabaggers have been doing.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Daily Kos had Giffords on "taget list" for selling out constitution.

Obama says things like "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

"We’re gonna punish our enemies ...",

"I want you to argue with them, get in their face."

"New Hampshire Democratic Facebook post in which he wished Sarah Palin and the father of her grandchild, Levi Johnston, had been on the plane that crashed Tuesday, killing former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens."

Book written "Assassination of George W. Bush: A Love Story"

I could go on and on, with this stuff. The point is you are all HYPOCRITS! Some of you have even suggested violence in your post....

Though I do think it is better to draw and shoot first then to wait for the other guy to take aim on me. It is deplorable that we have come to this, but this, is what they sow and so this is what they shall reap, they shall reap the wind.

Simple fact is many of you are blind. The violence, anger, and just plane vile that comes from the left is everywhere, all the time, and not only do you support it, but you echo it. Grow up, stop the name calling, and the ignoring of your own sides behavior, or your words will become meaningless.

@ karen, idk about you but what i see on tv has not been a blame for killing but people only asking for the violent,hateful,vile messaging to stop.

I guess to you its so disgusting for those to want the hateful, vile, violent messaging to stop but it's not disgusting for those to do it.

We are definitely not watching the same news. I listen to KNX1070 CBS News Radio almost all day, watch CNN in the morning and read the LA Times, NY Times and Wall Street Journal.

I see MANY people blaming Sarah Palin and crosshairs on a map for the Tucson violence and that is what disgusts me.

I am a firm supporter re: the First Amendment. Provided speech is legal, I am all for it.

Yes, yes , yes!

"Dupnik" will be a code word for anyone shooting off his/her mouth before all the facts are in.

How about, "Are you smarter than a Sheriff Dupnik?"

I guess it's better than being a 'Palin'!

The left is so fixated on Palin and what they do not realize is people agree with what she said. She had nothing to do with this as the radical left had nothing to do with the JFK killing. These acts were done by crazy people and the left just wants to blame people. Palin is winning because you guys keep putting her on the front page. She has no intention to run but loves to keep twisting that nerve deep inside of you.

...cried the hypocritical nut-bagger.

Yes, Just noticed it. Reading two posts at once.

I hope you remembered to click the safety back on!

Tell me you don't think your post was maybe just a wee bit threatening?

We really don't need those kinds of analogies.

I like that.This was another screwup

Steven,

What we do realize is that there are mindless minions out there that do agree with her. Fortunately the majority of Americans understand her for what she is, an out of touch, extremest from the right. My mother is a religious,conservative who has nothing nice (she does agree w/me that Sarah is attractive) to say about ex-Gov Quitter.

Steven D-2898195The left is so fixated on Palin and what they do not realize is people agree with what she said.

Not if their IQ is to the right of the median on the bell curve they dont.

You are right liberalibrarian, it must have been Sarah Palin advocating that the victims exact revenge on the Tea Party. It is so obvious that every act of violence, no matter who commits it, was motivated by Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. And, liberals never ever ever do anything threatening or violent.

Eric Fuller is a left wing activist.

so I wrote down the Declaration of Independence, which I memorized some time ago. And that did help to organize my thoughts. And the first thing that I wrote down and what my reaction was to it was: "How many other people? How many other demented people are out there? It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled—senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls." There was a little girl named Christina Green, nine years old, who is one of the deceased.

Another thing I wrote down was, "Can we have another fundraiser at the target range, Jesse Kelly?" Jesse Kelly ran against her in the election. And I’ve heard him speak several—a couple of times, and I couldn’t believe he was a real candidate. I thought he was just like a fake candidate. It didn’t seem like anybody would consider him seriously. He came within 4,000 votes of winning the election. One of his slogans was: "Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Kind of a very marginal personality and a low mentality.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/14/tucson_shooting_survivor_it_looks_like

Ever notice???? One post will call the Tea Party a bunch of silver haired old fogies with big bellies and butts. Next post claims they are pistol packin', wildly violent threats to life and limb. They are neither. That's just an example of over the top.........(wait for it)........"RHETORIC"...!!!!!! used just for the sake of demonizing a group of concerned citizens who are seeing our country become a weakened, bankrupt, apologetic, cow-towwing shadow of its formerly great self.

Its Dupa............

This has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. It becomes apparent that the response to any tragedy is to blame the teaparty, Palin, the right, conservatives etc. and no blame whatsoever is attached to the person actually committing the murders.

So, if there's an earthquake, or flood, or some other act of 'God,' then of course its the tea party's fault. Nuts to that. Put blame where blame belongs, we have spent way too much time not making people accountable for their actions. Only one person did this, not a group or opposing ideology, and the gun didn't pull it's own trigger, nor did it load itself or drive itself to the Safeway, the gun's owner commited the crimes, repeat after me, the gun's owner commited the crimes. Him and him alone.

"code word for anyone shooting off his/her mouth before all the facts are in"

I thought that was teabagger.

Yeah, those government-run healthcare thingies sure are fascists. They got my Ma and Pa, and Granny too! They rounded my people up and shoved that there evil Medicare down Granny's throat. Forced all the dang working-class folk 'round these parts to give the government money out of their paychecks, don't you know.

Now them Commie Fascist government fancy pants is gonna shove more of that there Socialist medicine on the rest of us. And they gonna be throwin' all the Christian Patriots in prison too! If God had intended us all to have fancy doctorin' he'd a made it affordable. God didn't want no poor trash gettin' no doctorin' unlessin' they go belly-up bankrupt.

That's jus' the way its always been 'round these parts. Ain't no reason to go messin' with the ways things was done in 1800. Just give the Doc a chicken when the bill comes due!

Timotayo

LMAO !

So ,have you ever been to a Navy Doctor ?

You don't have a problem with Hillary ,deciding what type of Doctor the GUBMENT should or shouldn't invest in ?

Sure worked wunderfull swell in that USS of R !

I would be absolutely delighted to have Hillary pick my doctor. Hey, I'd be thrilled if she'd BE my doctor. Just sign me up!

I'll turn my head and cough when Hill gives the sign!

AAhhh

Answered like a true clintonista !

so she gives you a Chris Mathews "tingly" feeling does she ?

you PROGRESSIVES certainly are consistent !

Actually, Chris Matthews gives me the tingly feeling. It's just that I have a pantsuit fetish.

sounds like you should hook up with Al Borg , i hear hes looking for a happy ending as well !

(Remember the Al Borg kisses Tipper " ,Dog and pony show ? I swear , i hadn't laughed that hard ,since i saw Mike dukakis in an M-1 tank !!)

Good times !

Libs are funny ,when they aren't in power ! :)

I'll give you the Dukakis, but I raise you one Bush-doing-The-Jungle-Twostep.

Gotta admit ,Gw!

got around those shoes ! LOL

Oh Steven I totally agree! Her attacker was totally unstable and my belief is that the shooting had nothing to do with the right wing vs left wing.

Typically PTSD sets in some time after the trauma. I think he bought into the very early accusations by certain media placing blame on the Tea Party. More irrational anger than actual PTSD.

Man, just stubbed my toe. If I do anything stupid it must be PTSD.

Jeff, do you mean to suggest that inaccurate (angry, false, rabid) reporting may be related to an irrational hatred toward a political figure on the right?
*GASP!*

Thank you Shane for your very astute posts. I agree with you.

Shane

I think you are absolutely right and when all the facts are out and it is determined that they guy acted out of something that had nothing to do with the right or left, youre going to hear zip from the left.

when i hear the left blabbing off about tea baggers and the right......with their scorn and loathing , something struck me as odd.........there was a whole bunch of liberals and democrats at the tea parties......they were there and they supported it........so that shows that it is not just a [right] thing......but an American thing......right? so all of the well heeled intelligent right, and tea bag hating people are misinformed.....look it up.......you hate the tea parties and call them a right thing and you don't even know that much about them.......mob rules. sad

shane....ur the first poster I've read who actually said something about the core of the story! Thanks!! And I agree....sounds like PTSD to me as well. The guy's a Navy vet AND just got shot a week ago, so yeah....

I don't get all these idiots spoutin' off left this and right that though. Guess they just like to see their name in type

This is the same guy who went to forgive the psycho killers parents. My guess is he is pissed and at the right people. I'm sure the tea bagger will press charges. As they always are the ilk of do as I say not as I do. Freedom of speech right. The fact is this, its his second amendment right to carry a semi automatic rifle even though he threatened this guy. I guess is hes PROVING a point. And are tea baggers gonna stop HIM from buying guns plural to carry to the next tea bag event? That would be the hipocracy tea baggers always whine about. So watch out baggers. Sounds like this guys on a mission. I do not condone violence at all but love guns and have many. But if I were you Id watch out for that guy... ; ]

Cheers

Acute PTSD often develops immediately following a traumatic incident and lasts a relatively short time - 3 months. It's very common, actually, but people don't generally think of it as PTSD because we expect people to be upset, anxious, and depressed after a traumatic incident. Complex PTSD lasts a lifetime, and that is the type that we hear about so much now. It used to be referred to as "shell shock."

I personally would find it surprising if any survivors weren't having issues with anxiety only a week after the shooting.

not all of your [tea baggers] are right wing....that is a lie how do you play that? are the lefties that went to tea parties and supported them not really lefties? how does that work? this guy had a bad experience and you make excuses.he should not have said what he said.......in libby land there is no wrong? just some painted excuses ? weird. i thought ...your dead......meant well.......your dead! a direct threat... funny how that works....but i guess this is the tip of the ice berg.......what are we gonna do tear our nation apart because of some political banter from both sides?

before the this thing in Arizona the left was screaming bloody murder about the election. spouting all kinds of noise.......voters on both sides of the fence made the choices........the will of the people.. remember that? the left can't handle the fact that they got voted out for not doing their jobs. i mean had they been doing their jobs like they were supposed to then they would still be there right? there really is no reason to blame the right for this, no evidence point's directly too that.........just hearsay.....but if you twist it enough.......and with enough self righteousnesses you can make it stick....despicable that the left would make a political point out of this.....they have stooped to a new low.

Steven D-2898195

Man, just stubbed my toe. If I do anything stupid it must be PTSD.

Are you seriously equating stubbing your toe to getting shot by some crazy? You are an exhaustive example of how Sarah Palin will in fact be elected to this country - we deserve everything we get.

Sarah Palin will never be President......never.

As an Independent with more beliefs that swing to the Right rather than the Left (although that means nothing to me), I can tell you that she will never sway us to her side and beliefs. She's a doofus.

I agree - but I think you underestimate stupid people in large numbers.

Dont forget - her and McSame both got over 50 million votes in 08. Sad but true.

Yeah and they could have very well won if Palin wasn't on the ticket.

I wouldn't necessarily call them stupid. There's alot of voters on both sides who will vote a straight party ticket, no matter what.

There was no way I was voting Republican with that ding bat on the ticket.

Keep in mind that Palin wasn't running for President. In a sense you overlooked voting for a President, and based your vote on a Vice Presidential candidate? Biden isn't exactly the sharpest tack in the box. I don't dislike the man, but he definitely has a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth.

Had you focused more on the Presidential candidates this polarization on both sides probably would not have happened. NOT BECAUSE OBAMA IS BLACK...AT ALL!!! But because his ideas of changing American, which was the best in the world, are trying to make American as socialist country. He wants to TELL the Americans what's good for them, and you can't overlook his cochorts, radical and yes, violent, people who have bombed, torched, called out to G.D. America...he's put us in hock to China, overtaken corporations.....Just think all of that could have been avoided. McCain would have made mistakes too...but there is NO QUESTION that he is a true patriot and has a wealthy of experience and maturity that is lacking in Pres. Obama.

FYI all...Well aware of typos in the above. Typing too fast so the clock wouldn't run out while adding to my comment. So...save yourselves the time and the "call outs"....

Typical President Aggie. Hindsight is 20/20.

Promises were made, but many of his decisions are based on idealogical views. He needs to get away from that if he wants change. We won't get into trade agreements with China.

However, disagree with me if you must, but yes McCain is a true Patriot.....and he's no Spring chicken. Also, experienced politicians is a double edged sword. Experience usually means, "You scratch my back...."

Had something happened to him and Palin assumed the Presidency.......*shiver*.

I have to agree with your "double edged sword" comment. But I must say Obama has learned those lessons fast..."buying" votes for HCR, for instance. But look who we would end up with if something happened to Obama. *shiver* also. However, both of those possible situations are hypothetical....and you also may disagree with me, but I don't think that is a good enough reason on which to base ones vote.

If you go my some of the posts on here today.....the Definition of Stupid would be Any person that doesn't agree with you or your ideals.

I can respect that Aggie. I guess , for the lack of a better term, it was "The Evil of Two Lessers" for me. ;-)

Although I must admit that being from Illinois I had met and liked Obama and still do. He's a nice guy, but being President is the toughest job out there.

I'd love to play him a game of one on one. I'm 45 and I think I can take him. I play ball at least twice a week.

Jolly:

I guess that all depends on how you or another poster presents their disagreement with each other.

I too hope this individual gets the psychological help he may need but, I also hope that he has legal charges pressed against him.

After reading many of these posts I've come to the conclusion that we all may be in need of some psychological counseling.

As for the legal charges; it has to be made known that this sort of threat -regardless of political or ideological persuasion- will NOTl be tolerated.

We're all so busy dumping on each other's points of view that we can no longer see that we're all now covered with crap. And we just keep on doing it.

I think most of the posters dissing Palin are very young and easily manipulated. They give Palin far more importance than is reasonable and do so despite facts and common sense. She claims the tea party but the truth of the matter is that the tea party isn't a party in the sense that democrats are a party.

There is no defined tea party organization, in it's purest form it is an idea and a common theme that people relate to. It is about the rampant and out of control spending of the government and the borrowing of money with nothing which which to pay back the debt. It's that simple and, perhaps that's what causes confusion. People want to make it more than it is and opportunists like Palin sieze on that fact. She is not the face of the tea party in the same sense that Obama is the face of the democratic party.

My Girl

I agree. To me the Tea Party is made up of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans who feel that the views of their parties have lost touch with them. The Democrats have gone too far left and the Republicans have gone too far right. We need something thats more in the center, hence the Tea Party.

As far as Sarah Palin goes, I doubt that she will run, but, if you want to get into a house, even the White House, you need a banker, meet the banker. She is a cash machine.

Steve: She is indeed a cash machine, nothing like a reality tv show to help the bank account. What I find amusing is how those on the left take her so much more seriously than those people whose thinking aligns them with the tea party. I cringed when the Fox pundits climbed on board, not because the support wasn't needed but rather because opportunism of any stripe takes away from the basic message.

I hope to God she doesn't run, we need people with experience who truly want to change the corruption that is rife in current politics. Not someone whose personal agenda is suspect. I don't condemn the woman but I don't take her seriously, she's good at self-promotion but I don't think she has the moxie to become president.

Obama is a smooth operator and a consummate politician. I didn't trust him from the moment I listened to him carefully. He was full of what in advertising are termed 'weasel words' easy catch-all phrases that are totally ambiguous, the meanings are subjective rather than specific. Hope and change mean different things to different people. As to 'fundamentally transforming america?' From what to what? We've now got a good handle on his idea of transformation and it isn't healthy or wise for the nation, especially during a recessions/depression.

mygirl...I agree with what you say. I really don't think Palin will run anyway, so all of those people with their pre-emptive strikes should probably just save themselves the trouble of striking constant below the belt blows at the woman, not to mention her children.

She certainly has a more healthy "vision" for America compared to Obama's. And she did a good job of cleaning up a lot of corruption in AK politics during her time as Governor. So, can't say she's never accomplished anything. I KNOW it will be brought up, in a reply, about her "quitting" as Governor. That's fine, as long as those who jump on that admit the same about Bill Clinton...he did the EXACT same thing in Arkansas. So maybe they shouldn't "go there" because Sarah wasn't the first or only politician to quit in pursuit of another position.

What I think is unfair and nobody's business, is how people get all bent out of shape because she's earning a living. Are they writing her paychecks? So she makes money? So what? There are plenty of people who write books, make speeches, and they "make money". And I'd hardly call her documentary about AK a "reality show" in the same sense as "Jersey Shore" or "Kate Plus Eight", or "Bachelor" and others. Palin's show wasn't PRIMARILY about her family, and their day to day life. It was about Alaska and it's splendor, resources, wildlife and outdoor adventure and activity opportunities..... She introduced the viewers to real Alaskan hunters, fishermen, pilots, gold panners, loggers... Being a former Alaskan myself, I found it very informative and pleasing to the eye. Even living there I didn't get the opportunity to see or experience all AK has to offer.

I wouldn't support Palin's run for Pres. However I have a problem with just standing by and watching people take such sick pleasure in character assassination, just because they have the bully pulpit. Then call her names for trying to defend herself. It's unfair, unjust...evil.

AGGIE

When it's all said and done.

Don't you think Sarah Palin is the republican poster girl ,for what the Liberals ,have always said what they wanted ? ie, Self made ,Independent ...ect ect

And isn't it working ?

Aggie: Those people climbing on the 'hate Palin" bandwagon suffer from myopia. They are caught up in their ideologies and toss out what they've been programmed to say. None are looking at the facts, they don't want to look at facts because they have been programmed to place blame rather than accept personal responsibility. Note the tenor of those defending the person in the article threatening to kill someone. Since he is obviously NOT a conservative they defend him, make excuses for his actions which are actually more objectionable than what they claim the tea party has done.

They would defend Jack the Ripper or Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson's actions so long as it furthered their political ideologies.

"See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The libs seem to forget this nice little part of the law when they say he was "just exercising his first amendment rights.". That's all well and good, unless it incites violence (a lawless action). Now they'll come here and post 900 things Rush or Beck or Palin has said, some of which I would agree with fall under these same terms. But here's what will REALLY make their heads explode.....I'm Republican.....and I don't watch/listen to ANY of them !! How could I? Where do I get my slanted news?! Surely someone MUST be brainwashing me like Maddow or Olbermann do for them! But, alas, no. I am not a zombie of my political party. I still have a brain and use it freely without my will being bent to the doctrine of my political choosing. Some of you should try it sometime. then you'll be able to see that people have murdered people since the beginning of time, and blaming it on political beliefs unless expressed makes you look like a mindless zealot.

Mygirl

While the left wastes their time and energy bashing Palin they fail to understand that she isnt the Quarterback, she's the cheerleader who is going to be funding the Quarterback.

Shane: The Tea Party don't see themselves as victims. They see everyone being force fed the policies of this administration as victims. That includes you.

Yes, if we can believe that crosshairs are 'surveyor symbols' then surely we can believe that as well.

You are such a hypocrite that only wants things your way. Saying "Your Dead" is a threat. Second Amendment Remedies is not.

Pray tell Steven, if "Second Amendment remedies" ISN'T a threat, what is it?

Careful! They don't allow you to take your 2nd Amendement remedies to prison with you.

They do not but last time I heard, hunting is still legal. They do let you take your ignorance so you will be fine.

If you shoot a dem, you get charged with murder, Steven. That's the way it works.

But on the other hand, you very astutely dodged the issue. If phrases like "Second amendment remedies" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" AREN'T threats, what are they?

Not if they pose a threat. Check the laws. I forgot, you do not believe in them

Grinspoon: I would be more inclined to believe that the "target" map by Palin could incite violence if those targets were actually over faces, and not merely marking points on a map.

Maybe we should put flowers and peace signs. The sad thing is to many people are focusing on these targets and blaming the right when Bob Beckel is the one that started this whole setup. This was started by the democratic party. What we should be worrying about is the United States of America becoming the United States of China.

Again, Steven. If phrases like "Second amendment remedies" and "if ballots don't work, bullets will" AREN'T threats, what are they?

Not if they pose a threat. Check the laws. I forgot, you do not believe in them

Uh, yeah, you're a real smart one. A "dem" getting your way to protect a deer isn't posing a threat. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read.

Toasty, Read the whole post. Also who said "If they bring knives, we will bring guns". I forget who it was. Oh, it was Obama. Do some research and be prepared to be shut down

Michelle,

My scope might just be off that day. Maybe you should check them out also.

That's rhetoric, Steven, not literal. It would only be important if the Congresswoman had shot the tea-terrorist as he tried to stab her with a knife. That did not happen. "Bullets, not ballots" is literal, and not rhetoric.

And I can see you don't plan on answering my question. Truth be told, if I were in your position, I'd probably tread water too.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think Palin, Bachmann, Kaufman, etc. should be punished legally. They were exercising their First Amendment rights, and that should never be taken away. But they should be held responsible in the public eye for the blood on their hands. They can't be allowed to get away without blame.

And btw, the "knives-guns" quote is clearly rhetorical. These threats from the right on the other hand, are literal.

Michelle,

My scope might just be off that day. Maybe you should check them out also.

I grew up around guns, and i also know a scope being off isn't self-defense. I would think that someone even of your caliber could realize that. But, I suppose that IS asking a lot of someone who would prefer to shoot their political opposite rather than find a way to coexist.

Even though I think you're a despicable human being, I hope nobody ever "mistakes" you as something they hate, and takes your life because of it.

Steven, you are not really catching anything. Factcheck.org gives the whole context of Obama's campaign speech in 2008 in Philadelphia. He did say that but he was paraphrasing the 1987 movie "The Untouchables"... so ok, we've all said something to that effect "I'm going to murderize you!"

However, Sharon Angle's remark about second amendment solutions is not taken out of context...she said it that way and she meant it. You can read the whole statement. The same goes for the woman in Florida saying that the first amendment protects the second and that if ballots don't work, bullets will. These kinds of statements are not metaphoric and have not been used as such. That, and the sheer amount of the same words, signs, shouting, etc. has demonstrated that the Radical Right and the Tea Party members are serious about their threats--or at the very least, deadly serious about their wish for armed revolution.

Most of us know a metaphor from a threat. I think it's pretty embedded in our DNA--otherwise, we'd be extinct for sure.

What is it about you and others of your view that makes it impossible to reason with you? What is it that has caused this huge wave of anger at "liberals"?

The very freedoms that the RW relies upon are products of liberal thinking.

yea.. you wouldn't.. ya see - Dims only see speech as hate and a threat when its directed at ONE OF THEIR OWN.

Amazing... the Double Standard is just simply mind numbing

The problem is this guy said a stupid thing in a public setting. I can see him being angry as he has a few extra holes in his body as a result of the incident just one week ago. Is he a real threat? Who knows, it looks like a judge may end up deciding.

This guy doesn't profess to be a part of any "wing" although he was a supporter of the congresswoman, so my guess is his statement was more about vengeance than anything. I suspect a lot of us would be feeling a bit vengeful in his shoes. That doesn't excuse him from making a threat, if indeed that's what he did.

People often say things in heated arguments that they don't really mean and often regret later. The Republican, Tea Party candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, got into a heated argument with a reporter on tape and he told the reporter, "I'll take you out!" He didn't get arrested. In fact he wouldn't back down from it later and threatened to sue the reporter. He lost the election and in his "concession" speech he brought a baseball bat and threatened the new governor that he "risked having it wielded against him" and warned that "you haven't seen the last of Carl Paladino". Both videos are out there. He didn't apologize. The videos look like something right out of the Sopranos. (Same guy who was charged with sending pornographic emails, if you don't remember.) Of course this was a politician who hadn't been shot in the last week, but his remarks resulted in no legal action.

I haven't seen any video of today's Fuller confrontation, but Fuller had previously done an interview assigning at least partial blame to the right wing rhetoric. He did not make any kind of threatening statements whatsoever in his earlier video, but expressed his opinion in a very mild mannered tone. His statement today, as reported, seems like a very stupid and threatening remark. I'd like to see the video to put it all in context.

How ever you want to look at it, one thing that seems obvious is that the right wing rhetoric was indeed at the root of his reaction. You can say it's because he mis-interpreted that rhetoric, but all the evidence to date would suggest this is a normally pretty sane, stable guy. That should point out just how potentially poisonous this kind of rhetoric is.

If the Ballots don't Work, then Bullets will... IS A DIRECT Threat to incite people... It means... If you don't get your way. You plan to get it by Force...

We still have our 2nd Amendment Remedies...implies many things... I have the right to bear arms...I plan to set up a Militia... and plan to go out as a military force and get my way if I lose....

That's how I heard the lady from Florida, that's how I heard it with Angle, and Sarah Palin and the MAP was a clear marking of a GUN SITE... and NOT a MAP Widget...

NOT to mention all the guns that showed up all across this nation... My Grand father was a avid hunter, and You would never see him go out of house ever with a Gun in his hand... He taught me Safety and Responsibility...

It is NOT a Objest for you to FLASH as to show your Man Hood... We Kept our guns locked up... We did not need to tell anyone how much fire power we had...

This is as far as I am concerned... A Show of Force in Every Way... I never needed a gun to go get a cup of Coffee...

That's the way I see it, and I am sticking to it!!!

Is this a threat?....

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.........

Second amendment remedies was a pretty stupid thing to say, but "Youre Dead" is getting downright personal.

Just like saying "Blood Libel". That was rhetorical but Sara Palin said it so it is literal. If Obama or a dem says anything it is, in your opinion taken out of context. I guess the Unibomber, The Pastor of Westboro Baptist, Timothy McVeigh, The Fort Hood Shooter were all taken out of context and spoke in rhetorical terms. By the way they were all democrats.

Are you really that ignorant? 2nd amendment remedy is the right of the people to overthrow an oppressive government, not a threat aimed at an individual who is not even part of the government. I fear for the future when so many are as ignorant as you.

Yeah right, the victim shouts death threats at someone who wasn't involved in the shooting committed by a loonie whose book collection included seriously leftist material. Anything goes as long as it fits your agenda, right? Violence and murder are ok if it's done in the name of Liberalism/Socialism/Progressivism?

i would expect this type of behavior from teabaggers i guess there is always exceptions lol

Porcupine11,

Please provide the documentation to support "a right to overthrow an oppressive government". Show me where it says that in the Constitution or any Supreme Court rulings on the matter.

You are confusing the Second Amendment with the American Revolution. You see, it wasn't a democracy in those days. We were subjects of a tyrannical aristocracy. We had no vote. We had no say. True some of the framers had concern that the government could potentially become oppressive as was their recent experience with the British rule. Some saw the Second Amendment as "insurance" that it wouldn't happen. But not as a "right" to revolt. The entire Bill of Rights together were assurances against an oppressive government. No Supreme Court ruling even remotely suggests a right to revolt, but revolves around the issue of individual rights or group rights. The most recent Supreme Court ruling supports individual rights for such lawful purposes as self defense. It also affirms that some restrictions are constitutionally allowable. Participating in an overthrow of government would not be lawful, and in fact would be treasonist.

Many early discussions revolved too about a fear of a standing army being able to take control of the government as would be the case in a military coup or revolution. It was recognized that an armed citizenry would make that very difficult. At then time, there was pretty much equality in the army's weapons and the citizens muskets. Over time as the democratic government evolved and the military evolved, the Supreme Court rulings supported restrictions of civilian arms ownership. This would not be consistent with a right to overthrow the government, because clearly the military would have a distinct advantage in weaponry. You can't privately own fully armed jet fighters or nuclear missiles. At the time of the founding, gun ownership may have provided a means to overthrow the government, but not a right.

Arguably, from the beginning this was a bit of a "catch 22". You could not lawfully attempt to overthrow the government even though you may have had the ability. If you tried to, it would be treason. Then you get into the question about just who would have such a right? The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, yet an individual couldn't possibly overthrow the government alone. You might argue that it's a right "of the people", but just what constitutes "the people"? Does that mean everybody together? 6 people? 100 people? The "majority"? Because people are given individual rights, the only logical extension of "the people's" rights is all the people. If it were only some of the people, you'd be infringing on individuals' rights.

If you believe you have a constitutional right to overthrow the government by force, you are delusional. You don't have that right, nor did anyone ever have that right. If the Tuscon shooter claims he was just exercising his Constitutional right, just how far do you really think that will get him? You can't seriously support that nor can possibly think anyone else would. If you really think that, you need to get some help.

Don't forget, the American Revolution was against an empire ruled by a king that allowed no say for it's "American" subjects. This is why we built a new democratic government. You have elections and get to vote. That is your right to "overthrow" the government. By democratic process, not by force. You have a say, but so does everybody else. No individual, nor sub group of "the people" has a right to reverse the results of the democratic process through force. Read the rest of the Bill of Rights and it may help you to understand what your Constitutional options are. Forceful overthrow isn't one of them.

Steve, you clearly do not understand what a literal statement is, and what a metaphorical statement is. Perhaps you were off drunk somewhere shooting "deer" on the week of high school they went over the differences.

Concepts are obviously not your strong suit, so do not try to argue about things that fly over your head. The only people here who think you are right are people who also do not understand the differences.

Palin's use of "blood libel" is metaphorical, not "rhetorical." You don't even know the difference between these terms that you keep using! If someone would take it literally, that would mean that she was a Jew who kills Christian babies for their blood. Nobody thinks that she is a Jew, and nobody thinks that she kills Christian babies for their blood.

The guy in this article was just recently shot, and he believes that the TEA party is to blame, and he is very angry. He is definitely unstable at this moment due to his circumstances. I would take him for his word that "you're dead" means "you're dead," and he is potentially dangerous. Anybody who says otherwise is playing down the severity, or does not quite think about how a person's psyche can be after trauma.

There are idiots in both political parties, just look at Scott. But to only blame "liberals" is to ignore the stupidity of some republicans. Generalizations like yours about liberals, and by liberals about conservatives, are stupid.

By the way, Timothy McVeigh was republican. The guy who mailed anthrax, Bruce Edwards Ivins, sent it to 2 Democrats and other people. The people who bomb abortion clinics. The fact is, you cannot attribute all of this country's ills to democrats; it is not accurate.

Please provide the documentation to support "a right to overthrow an oppressive government". Show me where it says that in the Constitution or any Supreme Court rulings on the matter.

Refer to quotes from Thomas Jefferson, but our current government would not be what he had in mind.

Boy the Presidents speech lasted a long time. He did call for toning down rhetoric I thought. There is so much hatred on this vine back and forth. When will it end ? I see the internet as making many good things possible. This type of activity is one of the very bad things it makes possible. The instantainious spread of hatred.

The bickering back and forth , he said ,she said my side doesn't but your side does and so forth will not help the situation period. We on this vine are being just as loose with words and bad dialog as the people being accused of it. It serves no purpose but to add feul to the fire that is building across the country.

I guess my real concern is that if the current state of unrest continues will violence break out in the streets ? Will heated debate like this one eventually lead us to chaos ? Things are getting pretty heated. The battle of words is escalating. We all need to take a breather and let it rest. There are no winners in this fight only loosers. Will we realize that before it is too late ?

Grinspoon97

The campaigns were targeted - "for defeat." Did anyone really think they were targeted for a shooting attack?

Lets see - an uneducated hillbilly tells her mindless drones not to retreat but reload, constantly uses 2nd amendment or firearm metaphors and places gun reticals over the respective districts.

Nah - she's not a fearmongering dolt that nurtures this swill. Not at all.

I understand he's upset, but you just can't do that. I would be willing to bet that no charges are filed.

As far as the Palin angle, Loughner had it out for Gabbie since 2007. That's long before you or I ever heard of Palin or any of the stupid stunts she pulls.

Hey Ron let me borrow your crystal ball. I'm sure I would like to know what's inside other peoples heads too.

That's a pretty big leap to 'assume' he means it politically. Here's a guy who is pissed off, and in his rage may mean it litterally...how do you know? Seems to me he's crazy with rage and someone needs to keep lid on him before he insights another rampage.

Funny how if a statement comes from the left it is rhetorical but if it comes from the right it is literal.

Hampster, I know everyone is going to wee wee all over my post, but I have been Shooting all my life, spent 10 years in the military with 3 deployments. I truly have never seen crosshairs drawn like that. They extend beyond the rear ocular piece (which is really impossible)

those are surveyors marks.

The ones used on the Palin map were the same symbols we used to mark Telecom/Satcom equip locators on maps

Oh for Pete's sake! Even Half-Term Sarah called them BULLSEYES and she's not too bright. They're BULLSEYES. BULLSEYES, BULLSEYES, BULLSEYES.

BULLSEYES.

Oh for Pete's sake! Even Half-Term Sarah called them BULLSEYES and she's not too bright. They're BULLSEYES. BULLSEYES, BULLSEYES, BULLSEYES.

Bulls-eyes are concentric circles. I think hers were more like gun sight crosshairs. You're obviously not a shooter.

Only when a Republican or Conversatives uses the term. Targit. Then you dumb as@ left wing nut jobs go crazy.

I keep trying to remember when we all didn't have so much hate inside us. Was it before W? Clinton? Or do people really hate Obama that much? All I know is I love my country but I am ashamed of the hatred. We need to come together or it really will cause our demise.

Do they no allow URL links here I posted a link to show Surveyors marks. and it was taken off my post .

jollyoldsoul1:

You've been censored by the mighty MSNBC.

Eric Fuller , a veteran seems to have been motivated by political ideology, try and guess what brand:

Fuller gave an interview with the Democracy NOW radio show, in which he said of the Tucson shootings: “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle, and the rest got their first target.” Presumably he’s not talking about Judge John Roll.

“Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled,” Fuller ranted on, “senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls.”

The Arizona 72 hr medical evaluation may be applied in Fuller's case, as it should have been exercised in Loughner's case. But the roots of a PTSD defense are emerging no matter how long Fuller has expoused his views. Psychobable will soon fill the airways for both.

Grinspoon97/jollyoldsoul

if we can believe that crosshairs are 'surveyor symbols'

I guess "Bloody" Sarah took them down right after the shooting beacause she didnt want any spontaneous surveying???

Here's the problem.. See People do this as some politicians do because it gives them a sense of strength or power (that valued 15 min. of fame). They only hope that that sort of language will serve them in some sort of attention getting sort of way, and it has in the past thanks to the media. The answer isn't as simple as claiming freedom of speech the world is not that simple and innocent, its all about behaving with dignity and responsibility..

Here's the problem.. See People do this as some politicians do because it gives them a sense of strength or power (that valued 15 min. of fame). They only hope that that sort of language will serve them in some sort of attention getting sort of way, and it has in the past thanks to the media. The answer isn't as simple as claiming freedom of speech the world is not that simple and innocent, its all about behaving with dignity and responsibility..

“

To Ron-1895187:

Pleas allow me to quote your comment here: "I don't see the Problem... If People can say they always have their 2nd Amendment Remedies... then why cant this guy say "You are Dead"... I am sure he meant Politically.."

From: An Independent Thinker: I, too, think the man was upset (esp. after being shot up) with the vitriol behavior in the U.S. concerning the public actions, our Govt. policies, Party affiliations, etc., etc. But, it is never safe or valid to assume anything. The Second Amendment or Freedom of Speech does not give anyone the right to make a statement that could be interpreted by others as life threatening. That amendment only gives the right to defend against violent actions aimed at them (which threatens their life at that moment), and not because of differing opinions. Did anyone there, voice a threatening comment or point a gun in his face? No, they did not as far as I know. His comment was no different than Plain's map of cross-hairs, and she, too, should have been arrested for the public display which encourages possible violence. Also, his party affiliation is not known at this time. But that is besides the point with what he said. I hope that the man gets the post-shock after care treatment, and that charges are not placed on him, esp. since he was shot several times when attending Gabby's event. I could go on from there, but that is besides the point and serves no purpose; but to inadvertently and to possibly inflame that which is already out of control. Peace and Blessings to all !!

”

Really and what would all of you be saying if it was Sarah Palin saying those words. I am sure she would have meant it just "Politically". Besides I am a bit suspicious of this guys story. How do any of you know for sure he was really there at the day of the shooting. He could just be a nut job looking for attention. Just because he had a gun shoot wound does not mean he was there. He could have been a nut job that did that to himself for the attention. It is not uncommon for that to happen. It would depend on his wounds and the doctors would be the ones that know that for sure. This could be why he was taken to a mental hospital. Think about that one

Hannah @ 7.42

I think the hate started the day after George Bush was elected. Thats when the hate Bush syndrome started.

Hey Independent Thinker...

But, it is never safe or valid to assume anything. The Second Amendment or Freedom of Speech does not give anyone the right to make a statement that could be interpreted by others as life threatening.

I have No problem with someone saying they have Second amendment rights.... Its the Second Amendment Remedies that were a Direct Threat to ME!!!

These shooting metaphors and the showing up with GUNS have gone WAY to FAR... It instills distrust of there follow citizens, and it only serves as a deterorration of the general civility of this nation...

I don't have to take my gun to get Coffee, and I am not Hunting for coffee.. I know where the coffee is at...

When I go to assemble for my Rights to support my candidate... I am not Hunting for him... I know where he is going to be at!!

So, in My Opinion... It leads us down the Wrong path, and MY Parents never went to a political speech with a Gun, So I guess that meant they Respected Others....

I would be happy to NEVER see a handgun gun anywhere. But that's never going to happen, no matter if guns are banned or not. The criminals will always find guns. As it is now, most of those who use handguns to rob or kill get their weapons illegally anyway.

John Galt 2112: I know what a classic bullseye looks like, duh.

Half-Term Sarah herself referred to them as BULLSEYES. The graphics on-line were hers, not William Tell's. The reference to the graphics came from Half-Term Sarah's lips. Sarah called them BULLSEYES.

BULLSEYES.

John Galt 2112: The conspiracy to pick on Half-Term Sarah is bigger than even you thought. Half-Term Sarah said BULLSEYES, according to Half-Term Sarah. Oh my God, she's in on it! She's in on the whole thing! She's spreading vicious lies about herself! Half-Term Sarah accused Half-Term Sarah of using BULLSEYES.

BULLSEYES.

Toasty: You are delusional and talking in circles. Even managed to talk yourself into a corner. (Steve's got you coming and going.)

TIMOTAYO....Maybe "half-term Sarah" got the idea from "half term Clinton" (Bill, quit as Governor of Arkansas in the middle of his term) Aren't you glad you brought that up???

Weak. Very weak.

Half-Term Sarah doesn't have ideas. She has wordbarfs.

Wow, TIMAYATO, you capitalize BULLSEYES like she was using foul language or something. Ok, crosshairs, bullseyes, who cares? We have a major department store with the name TARGET. Does anyone fly off the handle and shoot people because of that? You're making much ado about NOTHING, and I'm pretty sure people like you KNOW THAT YOU ARE (I know how much you love caps, so I'm doing this for you). You're being politically HACKY for the purpose of scoring political POINTS against your now sworn, mortal enemy SARAH PALIN. It makes you look CHILDISH.

TIMOTAYO: "Weak. Very weak"... No...true. Very true. Ask your teacher next time you're in History class.

"Wordbarfs"?????? How long did it take you to come up with that one? So lame it's funny. You'll never be taken for a mental heavyweight.

To add to John's reference to Target. There's also a candy called BULLSEYES. You'd better get on that...boycott Target and the makers of Bullseyes.

The point being that Teabaggers claim they are surveyors marks. Sarah said exactly what they were to her: BULLSEYES. That what she called them: BULLSEYES. Ididn't call them that. Half-Term Sarah called them BULLSEYES. You don't get to call them what they are not and Half-Term Sarah calls them BULLSEYES.

I just want to make sure the Teabaggers know that. Only Half-Term Sarah is responsible for what goes up on her website. It's her website. Not yours.

BULLSEYES.

By the way, "wordbarf" is intended to be "so lame it's funny". That is why I chose it.

TIMOTAYO....You've obviously missed the whole point. But, who cares. You're getting hysterical and out of control. You want to say it's BULLSEYES, you go right ahead if it makes you feel better. Don't want you to get your blood pressure any higher and have a stroke. I'm sure Half-Term Clinton appreciates your loyalty. Here's the thing though...I don't care that he quit during his term as Gov. of Arkansas. I only brought it up because you seem to think it all began with Palin. Actually, it probably began long before either one of them. I just don't know why you get yourself all worked up over it. Why should you even care? It's no skin off your nose. Just rant on to your heart's content.

Actually, I've been laughing my ass off, believe me. This posting stuff amounts to about 15 minutes of my whole day, dear, it's not the meaning of my existence.

Don't know what the comparison between Clinton and Palin is about. I mean honestly, you're trying to compare a two-term President, with a VERY LONG political career to a someone who couldn't finish half her first term because the criticism was "a distraction"(again, Palin verbatim)? And everyone is so mean to her, and the whole world doesn't understand what a genius she is? Half-term Sarah is not even in the same universe as either of the Clintons.

And, back to the BULLSEYES. What is it you don't understand about the BULLSEYE bit? I am correcting the assertion that Half-Term Sarah meant the symbols to be surveyors marks. I point out that she has personally referred to them as BULLSEYES. What about that don't you get? You keep doing the Teabagger thing over something that is self-explanatory. It has nothing to do with what I call them. And, it has nothing to do with what you think of the Clintons, by the way.

Poking you Teabaggers is like watching Pavlov's dog salivate. You see Half-Term Sarah being criticized and KABLOOEY, loose screws fly every which way.

Believe me, it's funny. Not funny ha-ha. Funny sad.

My, my, you certainly like to blow things out of proportion.

Let me spell it out for you since you insist on making it more than it is.. BOTH he and Palin were in office as Governors, BOTH "quit" as GOVERNORS, mid term. That's all there is to it.... He was, AT THAT TIME, in the exact position as Sarah Palin. BOTH GOVERNORS. I am speaking SOLELY to that. Get it?

And what don't you understand about my comments about BULLSEYE? (You sure do like that word, don't you...all caps...all the time.) The Dems. had the VERY SAME SYMBOLS imposed over states they were focusing on. And, it's NO BIG DEAL...any person who only sees something to suggest violence or anything other than a focal point for a goal, I guess isn't capable of an abstract thought. What is puzzeling is how you blow off the fact that your Party had the same BULLSEYES on their map, and get all accusatory about another having the SAME THING. Selective blindness? In denial? So??.. She likened the BULLSEYE to a "surveyor mark"...all the same...each a symbol, each points to an area of focus. She was just EXPLAINING to you that it doesn't mean anything violent or threatening. Heck, I'll go along with using "surveyor mark" to describe the Dems. BULLSEYES. Their's probably didn't mean anything sinister either.

OH, and I'm not affiliated with the Tea Party. My observations and comments are mine alone, whether one agrees with me or not. If they coincide with the Tea Party, so be it. Although I don't consider it an insult, as you intended it to be. Guess the left is afraid of them, otherwise why all the attempts to discredit them. There are also Democrats in the Tea Party. It's not a political party, it's just concerned citizens who can see how America is being systematically dismanteled from the great nation it once was, and far too beholden and indebted to China, and are concerned about the attempts to make us a socialist country. And they see the Constitution being ignored and the attempts of some to rewrite it, when it has been the backbone of this nation. They're simply looking to keep America AMERICA!

Just to set the record straight.

Bill Clinton served 5 terms as Govorner...From 1978 - 1992, when he won the election to become President of The United States....

Clinton quit after 5 terms.....Palin quit after 1/2 term.....Where is the comparison?

Bravo Fletch! Aggie was a nitwit trying to make any comparison. Clinton has a long history of serving in government and was/is no quitter. He's the opposite.

Palin has a long history of quitting, going back to at least college and the string of schools she quit. She has the attention span of a methhead. She can't even stick with boning up on political and American history long enough to have coherent, educated positions on the issues.

The only thing she has the fortitude to pursue is blathering.

Clinton quit to campaign for President. The people of Ark. were very upset about that, because they were concerned he wouldn't complete the term because of rumblings that he was considering a run for President.. He promised if he was re-elected as Governor, he would complete his term. He didn't complete the term, he ran for President. Palin did quit schools, because she was paying her own way and had to take leaves to work to earn money to pay for another years' tuition. Since when is that considered wrong? She's not as old as Clinton, so to compare her years of service to Clinton's is ,naturally, not going to come out even.

You're free to dislike her, to not agree with what she proposes, but why you find it necessary to use call her (and me)derogatory names and refer to her as "a methhead" to shred her character is NOT a sign of maturity.

I said she has the attention span of a methhead, which explains why she can barely string together a decently constructed sentence, much less a coherent political thought.

And, believe me I don't doubt she will never come out "even" with Clinton's accomplishments, no matter how long she lives. There's not enough there to sustain a lifetime of public service. There is no wealth of talent. She has no ideas. The well is dry.

Half-Term Sarah is just a mean-spirited bigmouth who contributes nothing of importance to society. She's the flavor-ju-jour for our right wing fringe, like Anita Bryant, Carrie Prejean, Phyllis Schlafly. The mean ones always hit bottom with a thud!

I know, I know- DU jour!

Aggie,

She's not as old as Clinton, so to compare her years of service to Clinton's is ,naturally, not going to come out even.

You are the one that made the comparison. Besides Clinton quit to take on the job as POTUS.

Why did Palin quit? To work for fox or her reality show? Maybe she just did Alaskans a favor, (since they never never seemed to care less) because she just couldn't handle the job as Governor. This is the person who wants to be President.

If she runs, all she will do is attack and when anyone return the favor, she'll just take on the victim role. Whine and defend. Her fellow GOP are going to eat her alive. Run Sarah run......

I did not compare her to Clinton as far as years of service. You did! If nobody cared that she quit as Governor, then why all of whining and ranting over it? WHAT "reality show" did she quit for. That was a good year + between one event and the other.

Whatever makes you happy Fletch and TOMOTAYO....I'll never bring up the Ark. quitter and philanderer, and draft dodger again.

Her fellow GOP MAY very well eat her alive, so what are bitc***g about? Why let it bother you and why do you care??? Why not just LEAVE HER ALONE!

no.

Aggie,

Weren't you the one that said this when Timotayo said Sarah was a half- term governor?

TIMOTAYO....Maybe "half-term Sarah" got the idea from "half term Clinton" (Bill, quit as Governor of Arkansas in the middle of his term) Aren't you glad you brought that up??? ......................................................................................... Bill Clinton quit as Governor of Arkansas in the middle of his LAST term.

I did not compare her to Clinton as far as years of service. You did. What do you think "term" is? He served 4 1/2 terms, she served 1/2 term. He served 12 years, she served 2.

Anyone can find quitters, draft dodgers and philanderers in any political party. But I suppose since you couldn't defend 1/2 term Sarah, you had to find a way to bring up Clinton so you could hurl insults. He is a quitter because he choose to become President. Wow...

It's really sad that you had the gall to call a person who served 12 years as Governor and quit to become the President of The United States, "half term Clinton". Then compare him to Sarah who served 2 years and quit to become what? A fox news contributor? Had a ghost writer, write a book for her? Oh, I forgot...making money was more important.

Now that you get called out, you start scraping the bottom of the barrel. How typical.

Who is bitc***? We will leave her alone, when she leaves us alone. Are you a part of her defense team? If so, you are not good.

Amazing how you can defend ANY behavior, to say the least, that is less than stellar, with the "every political party has them in it". And here is where I can say, typical response. And you have just made my point for me. People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

I have nothing against Clinton...I'd take him back as President in a heartbeat over what we have now. I only used him for retaliatory purposes, and I got the response and reaction that I was expecting. Clinton has far more skeletons in his closet than Palin...and he was POTUS! Are you saying Clinton is the "bottom of the barrel"? When I said he quit during his term, I do know what a term is. A term is 4 years. He had 4 terms, and he quit during one of those "terms". I really don't care that he did, however, the people of Arkansas felt betrayed because he promised he wouldn't do that...and he did.

You all react so hysterically about one woman. She obviously is striking a nerve with you, as you all are squirming a LOT. And are going too overboard in your trying to use everything you can to discredit and demonize her. Even things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics...if her kid dances, that's a problem to her critics; if she does a documentary showing Alaska's beauty, resources, real people, activities available, that's a problem to her critics; if she hunts, that's a problem; if she's attractive, that's a problem; if she writes a couple of book, that's a problem; if she is hired to be a commentator, that's a probem; if she earns a living, that's a problem; if she's a proclaimed Christian; that's a problem for her, and requirement for Obama;if she had to take off some semesters to earn money to finish her college education, that's a problem; if she blogs, that's a problem; if her daughter buys a house, that's a problem. Most those things that are dissected by critics in order to make them into something subversive, come under the heading of MYOB. She is accused of all sorts or things...methead, mentor for a psycho murderer.....and why you all continue to make it your life goal to paint her as evil as possible, makes one wonder what some are so afraid of hearing. No, I'm not her defender...matter of fact, I don't think she should be President...I don't think she has enough experience, especially in foreign relations...but, then again, neither did Obama. I just think it's disgusting how people gang up, and call her names, and call her children names. Threaten their lives! Perhaps you all just don't want to hear what is happening, you prefer to take the stance that ignorance is bliss. You say if she leaves you alone, you'll leave her alone. When was the last...or first time, she assassinated YOUR character and said things to deliberatey try to hurt "you" (not you alone, speaking about all the naysayers) and your family as deeply as they have her? And would all of this slaughter be going on if she were a MAN? I wonder...

My work here is done...

Fletch, looking back over comments, I see it was TOMATAYO who referred to Clinton's cumulative years in Govt. service. That's why I said he was older and no comparison could be made. So...mea culpa...it wasn't YOU who said it, it was "tomato".

Aggie,

You are asking us to leave Sarah alone. But she does not want that. She takes every opportunity to be in the spotlight. If you have ever read any of her books, they are filled with rather nasty criticism of a lot of people.

This is what she said about American Idol contestants.

"Did you ever wonder where the producers of 'American Idol' come up with the seemingly endless supply of people who can't sing but are deluded enough to get in front of a national television audience and screech out a song anyway? Those unqualified contestants who appear on "Idol" are "victims of the cult of self-esteem." ......."No one they've encountered in their lives — from their parents to their teachers to their president — wanted them to feel bad by hearing the truth," she writes. "So they grew up convinced they could become big pop stars like Michael Jackson.

Yet when her daughter shows up on "Dancing With The Stars" anyone who dared to criticize were all haters. I suppose its ok for her daughter to have self esteem, just no one else.

She puts herself out there and then claims to be a victim. If you can give me the name of one public figure, that has not been threatened by some nut job, I would like to know.

She has assassinated other peoples character, but no one should touch hers.

The problem with Sarah is that she feels that she is entitled to free speech, but no one else is. Rham Emanuel should be fired for calling some of his colleagues "retards", but Dr. Laura should "reload" when she was criticized for using the 'N' word numerous times.

I have nothing against the woman. I just think since her thought process and vocabulary is limited, if she is going to put herself out there, she should spend some time studying the subjects she wants to talk about. Drop the double standard. Stop playing the victim.

She claimed that she quit because it was too much, people were too involved in her life. You she puts herself out there and attack and criticize others. Sarah is not the only one being criticized and talked about. She is asking for people to watch her shows, buy her books, listen to her speeches and comments, watch and listen to her kid. But MYOB, DO NOT MAKE COMMENTS SHE DOES NOT LIKE OR ELSE SHE WILL NOW BECOME A VICTIM.

I don't think there is anyone, who would waste their emotion hating Sarah.

Really Fletch? Really? You have a problem because she said what EVERYONE says and wonders about some American Idol preliminary contestants? And I'll bet you do too. I don't recall her threatening any of their lives as happend to Bristol. I don't recall her calling the contestants, slut, whore, tramp, fat pig...

I am aware of the fact that probably most public figures lives have been threatened at one time or another....but have their CHILDREN'S???

I would hardly call disagreeing with someone's policies character assassination. It's very clearly demonstrated everyday, that one's "freedom of speech" is the opposite of what you are trying to say. Everyone BUT Sarah Palin is entitled to their opinion. I haven't heard her call anyone a dirty, filthy name. Certainly impossible to say the same for so many who leave comments on these vines.

Re your last sentence? And YET there are sooooo many who do "waste their emotion hating Sarah." Obviously, you included.

So she's not one of the ivy league educated talking heads. She doesn't talk with well sculpted, scripted, rhetoric. She recognizes that we little people are smart enough to know what's best for us, and not have to have decisions made for us and our lives run for us by Government. She believes in getting out there and doing for yourself, not taking what others work for. She's more like YOU and ME.

Once again, I do not think she is ready to be President, and she should not even run for the nomination. But someone with her vision and with more experience, and more concerned with protecting the American citizens, our borders, and this country. Forget the ivory tower intellectuals....they're all talk, blowing smoke, and little more.

Aggie, yes, really.....

You see, you are so blinded by love you can't see past that. You , I have to say, deliberately missed my points.

I don't care what she said about American Idol. The fact is she said those things and when her daughter was criticized, she was angry and once again her family is being victimized..She puts herself and her kids out there and want to be left alone. Right.

Look, I would love to see some proof where her children were threatened. All we hear is that they are being threatened. Where is the proof? She has never contacted the FBI. Could she be doing it for attention?......The children of public figures are often threatened. George Bush's daughters certainly were.

Her children attacked a young man, for posting a criticism of her show on his face book page. She responded by saying they were defending their family. From What? She said he verbally attacked her son Trig. She lied. She and her kids have a right to attack, when someone else exercise free speech. Once again she is a victim.

The point I am trying to make is that she feels she is entitled, no one should criticize her, that means they are attacking her and her kids. But when she does the same, it's freedom of speech.

People like you use the same excuse every time. Leave her and her kids alone. She has a right to say anything and criticize anyone. But don't you dare do the same. It's one standard for her and one for everyone else.

Look, as far as dirty name goes, her children has used them. I agree she has not used them, but it is only simpleminded people who resort to those kind of names. They have called every female politician or politicians wives, nasty names. People on this vine have called Michelle Obama and her daughters some of the nastiest names. Those two kids are not being put out there like Sarah's kids.................She has made nasty and derogatory names when speaking about other people. One thing she has learned is that you don't have to use "gutter" words to put others down. She has attacked other people's character, not just their policies.

You are now using the tactic, that if you criticize the woman, that means you hate her. You accuse me of hating her, because that will justify your thinking, that because I call her out for being two faced, she is now a victim of my hate. She will never be so lucky, no matter how much you wish it. It's ok for her to criticize, no one else should. Freedom of speech applies only to Sarah, no one else.

She need to take a step back from the spotlight. Take some courses and study the things she wants to talk about. Stop playing victim for attention. Then maybe, people will respect her a little more.

Well Fletch, We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So often you demonstate just what I'm trying to say. For instance, how do YOU KNOW if she contacted the FBI or not?. What "proof" do you require that will convince you that she and her daughters lives were threatened? A tape of a phone message, a hand written threat, an e-mail. There is little to no public "proof" about other public figures who have received threats either.

If one defends oneself that is not playing "victim". So her daughter retaliated to another teenage kid who struck the first blow, and used a word that is not p.c. That's what teenagers do. That's how teenagers talk. They don't have filters. Wouldn't you defend your mother? Sarah Palin was called a murderer, has blood on her hands, blamed, accused to inciting that psycho in AZ. Then she shredded because she answers to those accusations. And you say she is playing a victim. SHE WAS A VICTIM...of the media, the left wing, the sheriff......at the same time of that tape she made, she also expressed shock at the incident, sympathy for the the victims, extended thoughts and prayers to Congresswoman Gifford, complimented Obama on his handling of the event and thanked him for his words. Her naysayers overlooked those parts.

OF COURSE the Obama girls are not "out there" except for controlled photo ops, or whatever. They are children, not teens/adults who are finding their way in the real world. I would never venture to guess, let alone publish, what I think Michelle Obama might be thinking or feeling, or "plotting" because I DON't KNOW HER. And the same goes for any and all public figures. Yet you and other posters speak with such authority about everything Palin. NOW do you get my point?

Never intended to give the impression that if "you criticize her, you hate her". Criticism is one thing, name calling, people actually SAYING they hate her, well......there you go. (Not you personally)

Aggie, Just a few questions from your response. (please lets leave the left wing or right wing out since there are nuts on both sides)

So her daughter retaliated to another teenage kid who struck the first blow, and used a word that is not p.c

............Help me here. What blow did he strike?

Sarah Palin was called a murderer, has blood on her hands, blamed, accused to inciting that psycho in AZ.

............Who said these things about her?

SHE WAS A VICTIM...of the media, the left wing, the sheriff...

.............Once again what did the Sheriff do to her? Which media outlet (not blogger) or personnel victimized her?

Yet you and other posters speak with such authority about everything Palin. NOW do you get my point?

..............What did I say about her that wasn't factual?

Re your last sentence? And YET there are sooooo many who do "waste their emotion hating Sarah." Obviously, you included.............Never intended to give the impression that if "you criticize her, you hate her".

................So why do I hate her?

Please, just don't leave crickets........

Question #1. When I said "strike a blow" it is a metaphore...he didn't literally, physically "strike a blow". He texted or e-mailed her slamming her mother. She sent him a reply. Big deal.

Question #2. For one Rachel Maddow, I watched and heard her desk thumping rant tossing blame and accusations, also the sheriff in AZ, within a few hourse after the incident, said on TV that he blamed her visual aid posters, and metaphores from her and the Tea Party for the shootings and murders. Also, I assume that since you are on these pages you surely have read those accusations over and over again. If not one had made any accusations or cast any blame, she would not have made that video in her defense. The President even addressed the unfair accusations and blame being called out without any evidence whatsover that any of what people blamed had anything to do the the actions of the shooter which were the result of anything other than his psychosis. He asked for the rhetoric to cease. He is/was aware of the heated, accusatory rhetoric and wher it was aimed. If you heard his speech, what did you think he was referring to when he asked for calm, civility, etc.?

Question #3. "She has never contacted the FBI." Your words, re the ramping up of death threats since the AZ fiasco. You don't know that she did...or didn't. " her thought process and vocabulary is limited", Again,your words. How can or could you, or anyone else, know her, or anyone elses, "thought processing". Can you read minds?. Same goes for vocabulary. Have you heard and defined her entire vocabulary?

#4. Read my comment again. I specifically said in a couple of my posts that I was not referring to you, individually, personally

Then you say/ask "So why do I hate her?" Are you saying you do hate her? Or are you asking me why you think I think you hate her? In that case, please refer to my #4 above. In either case I'm not about to change your mind, and you're not about to change mine. And that's okay with me.

Question #1. When I said "strike a blow" it is a metaphore...he didn't literally, physically "strike a blow". He texted or e-mailed her slamming her mother. She sent him a reply. Big deal.

Not true. He wrote this on his facebook page..."Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing so hard right now." Her daughter said "Tre stfu. Your such a f**got." Palin supported her daughter and claimed the kid attacked her son Trig, which was a lie....So, he is not allowed to criticize her tv show. No one is allowed to criticize Bristol's dancing, even after she slammed the AI contestants. Bristol acted more like the adult when she said this..."Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize." Daughter apologized, mother lied.

Question #2. For one Rachel Maddow,

Not true. She blamed both sides and was entirely non-partisan. Some of the visuals were the crosshairs that was on Sarah site. Before the shooting there were quit a few in the media who denounced them. She did not blame Sarah or anyone else............The Sheriff was totally wrong and out of line. I heard his other statements, but just read one where he blamed her. President Obama was right. The hateful rhetoric with references to guns and killing was not a good thing, but it wasn't all about Sarah. She choose to make it so. Sharon Angle, Jesse Kelly or any of the others did not rush to defend themselves and also blame others. Yes, like I said before, in this vine there are a lot of far left/far right who will look for a reason to blame someone for anything.

"She has never contacted the FBI." Your words, re the ramping up of death threats since the AZ fiasco...Not true. I mentioned the FBI regarding her children. (4th paragraph in 6.79).

her thought process and vocabulary is limited", Again,your words. How can or could you, or anyone else, know her, or anyone elses, "thought processing". Can you read minds?. Same goes for vocabulary. Have you heard and defined her entire vocabulary?........Don't need to define her entire vocabulary. I have heard her speeches. I have seen her respond to questions and like everyone else, drew a conclusion and this was mine.

I did read your comments and what you said was....Re your last sentence? And YET there are sooooo many who do "waste their emotion hating Sarah." Obviously, you included. Then you said ....Never intended to give the impression that if "you criticize her, you hate her". Criticism is one thing, name calling, people actually SAYING they hate her, well......there you go. (Not you personally)

I am not asking you to change your mind. Obviously you won't. You have disregarded the instances where it shows that its one standard for Sarah and one for everyone else. If everyone agreed on everything, then there would be no real conversations. As long as we treat others with respect, we should and continue on with great conversations.

I do not hate her. I just wish she would stop claiming to be a victim, while doing the same things to others. She puts herself in the spotlight and then says "leave me alone" She writes books and give speeches where she constantly criticizes other people. But if you criticize her books and speeches, she suddenly becomes a victim. She blames the "lame stream" media for everything ever since the Katie Couric interview, as if Kate gave her a script to read and then claimed that she said those things. Everyone who runs for public office, opens themselves up for the media digging up every dirty thing they can find. She has used those findings against her opponents. But she should be exempt. Leave her alone. You don't have to agree with me, but these are factual statements.

Fletch you insist on writing your own story. If I touch on something that makes you squirm, you change the subject.

I don't know which Rachel Maddow show you saw, but I SAW, HEARD what I saw, heard. No doubt Maddow did some backpeddling once the President told people to be civil. And the accusations morphed to include Sharon Angle, Tea Party, et al. You neglected to mention the Sheriff's tyraid.

I don't care if you were referring to Palin, OR her kids death threats. You think splitting hairs makes a difference? Either way YOU DON'T KNOW if she alerted the FBI. You didn't address my comment about how you know her thought process.

I've not heard her claim to be a victim until this last round of accusations re AZ.

So, a few messages back I said, "Obviously you do too." That was certainly the impression you gave. After your replies, I did aquiesce that I made an assumption. So why do you find it necessary to bring it up....twice?

Every politician "puts themselves in the spotlight"....Palin didn't invent that. She gives speechs, they give speeches; she makes comments, they make comments;she gives interviews, they give interviews; she criticizes, shares her point of view; they criticize, share their point of view; several have written a book or books, she's written books, ........yet she is drug over the coals and called every vile, vicious name they can come up with when or because she does those same things. People don't always agree with the others, but it's not a public lynching.

Ever hear the names that FOX TV is called? That's okay? But not okay to say "lame stream media"? I know you haven't said anything about FOX, but I am speaking about others' cracks. That's what I have been addressing all along........the bully gangs who feel the need to post false and viscious things.

Her daughter used the word fa**ot. She said stfu...Biden said that word on National TV. He never meant for it to be heard...Willow never meant for her words, post to be national either. Yet she is given the equivilant of a scarlet letter by the media, and it's laughed off, ha ha, for the V.P. People have called her little brother a retard...How dare the Palins to find that offensive, right? Calling a disabled baby a insensitive name is okay, but using a slang word that is no longer p.c. warrants shock, disgust, string her up! Neither name is okay...but I guess it's worse to be insensitive to someone who can live a full life, go to college, get a job, than it is to a child who will be unable to pursue those things because he happend to be born with Downs Syndrome.

You don't hate her, and I don't cling to her every word, nor necessarily agree with everything she says. But DO see a double standard, I do see, hear and read a constant barrage of lies, name calling, "slings and arrows" so often unfairly aimed at her and her family, and it is disgusting and shameful.

I think we've reached an impasse.

So, I guess this conversation is exhausted. Ciao...

If I touch on something that makes you squirm, you change the subject....I have never done that. I have re-read all my posts, can you give me an example?

So, a few messages back I said, "Obviously you do too." That was certainly the impression you gave. After your replies, I did aquiesce that I made an assumption. So why do you find it necessary to bring it up....twice?....This is what you said.......Read my comment again. I specifically said in a couple of my posts that I was not referring to you, individually, personally...I simply re posted what you said, thinking you would understand the point I was making was that these were the only two instances where you addressed my hate. It was not an attack.

I don't know which Rachel Maddow show you saw, but I SAW, HEARD what I saw, heard..No doubt Maddow did some backpeddling once the President told people to be civil......The pieces I saw on the show and reffered to, was before the Presidents speech. Can you give me an approximate date that Rachel blamed and accused her? I will watch it. Like I did with the sheriff.

You didn't address my comment about how you know her thought process.... This is what I said.........Don't need to define her entire vocabulary. I have heard her speeches. I have seen her respond to questions and like everyone else, drew a conclusion and this was mine. My apologies I should have said " Because of the way she responds to questions, I believe her thought process is limited. She starts to answer and then goes off on tangents"

I don't care if you were referring to Palin, OR her kids death threats......But this is what you said...I am aware of the fact that probably most public figures lives have been threatened at one time or another....but have their CHILDREN'S???......I responded Look, I would love to see some proof where her children were threatened. All we hear is that they are being threatened. Where is the proof? She has never contacted the FBI. Could she be doing it for attention?......The children of public figures are often threatened. George Bush's daughters certainly were. and you replied.. ..She has never contacted the FBI." Your words, re the ramping up of death threats since the AZ fiasco. You don't know that she did...or didn't.....I did not split hairs, I answered your question. The FBI statements had nothing to do with AZ fiasco.

You neglected to mention the Sheriff's tyraid....Not true.....This is what I said about the Sherrif.......The Sheriff was totally wrong and out of line. I heard his other statements, but just read one where he blamed her.

yet she is drug over the coals and called every vile, vicious name they can come up with when or because she does those same things. People don't always agree with the others, but it's not a public lynching....Who did the public lynchings? Whose books concentrate on criticizing and condemning others, like hers do? If you can give me an example I will read the book. Please give me an example of a person, like Sarah who wrote books like hers. When she gives her speeches and attack people who never even address her on any occasion, where is the comparison? Who has done it to her?

But not okay to say "lame stream media"?........Yes it is ok. The reason she said it, is because she gave an interview and she didn't like what SHE said, so she blames "the media"

.the bully gangs who feel the need to post false and viscious things. Who are these bully gangs. I have said before, the far left/right will always have something negative to say about everyone, including Sarah. So who are these gangs?

You see, you never address what Sarah does. You deflect. You bring up and blame and try to compare everyone else, but will never admit that she is wrong. You never address the double standard she has and that's why she claims to be a victim. Yet you claim that I changed the subject. Can you reread my posts and tell me when I ever did that? If you are honest you would go over your posts and realize that you never address the statements I've made. You mention, then deflect.

Look at your response to the facebook fiasco. You brought in Biden. What does that have to do with her daughter attacking a young man for criticizing her show? What does he have to so with her lying about the young man attacking Trig? No one said it was ok to call her son names. What I said was she has a double standard. Its not ok to call her son or anyone retarded, the word should not be used. But she support others who call other people demeaning names, including her daughter. We were not discussing just the "word" she used, it was about the attack made towards someone who criticized tv show. I don't care about whether Willow or Biden used the F word. It's about Sarah defending her daughter, when she attacked someone who criticized her show, and even lied to justify it. Willow called the young man a "faggot", her mom thinks it's ok. Dr Laura called and mentioned the word"@!$%#" and Sarah supports her. But no one should ever use the word "retarded", even out of context, not addressing children, because then her son is victimized and these people should be severely punished. You just don't see a double standard, right?

.Willow never meant for her words, post to be national either. Yes she did. She did it on a public social network. Her mom also post on FB when she wants anyone to read it.

I'm finished going around in circles with you. You ask a question, even number them, and I answer them..by the number. Then you say I didn't answer. I give up. It appears you argue, just for the sake of aruging. Oh, and BTW you ask what has Biden got to do with her daughter? It was the WORD. He is in the circle of the political arena, whereas, what does American Idol have to do with that?

You want this, that, "proof" citing dates, times, yet I don't see any "proof" of your comments either.

But don't bother to answer, because you just don't "get" where I'm coming from.

I'm finished going around in circles with you. You ask a question, even number them, and I answer them..by the number. Then you say I didn't answer. I give up..............Not true....This is what I said.......If you are honest you would go over your posts and realize that you never address the statements I've made. You mention, then deflect......You answered my questions with non-answers and not always truthfully...for example........Help me here. What blow did he strike?.....Your answer.......Question #1. When I said "strike a blow" it is a metaphore...he didn't literally, physically "strike a blow". He texted or e-mailed her slamming her mother. She sent him a reply. Big deal... This was so not true......... When I said what really happened you deflected to Biden and...People have called her little brother a retard. Which is what Sarah lied about..The young man never said anything about her son..

Oh, and BTW you ask what has Biden got to do with her daughter? It was the WORD. He is in the circle of the political arena, whereas, what does American Idol have to do with that?............You are deflecting. There was no WORD reference. Nothing to do with politics or Biden. This is what I said..............He wrote this on his facebook page..."Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing so hard right now." Her daughter said "Tre stfu. Your such a f**got." Palin supported her daughter and claimed the kid attacked her son Trig, which was a lie....So, he is not allowed to criticize her tv show. No one is allowed to criticize Bristol's dancing, even after she slammed the AI contestants. Bristol acted more like the adult when she said this..."Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize." Daughter apologized, mother lied........ You came back blaming Biden. As usual it's someone else's fault, never Sarah's.

You want this, that, "proof" citing dates, times, yet I don't see any "proof" of your comments either........I never asked for those things......This is what I said......The pieces I saw on the show and referred to, was before the Presidents speech. Can you give me an approximate date that Rachel blamed and accused her? I will watch it. Like I did with the sheriff........Who did the public lynchings? Whose books concentrate on criticizing and condemning others, like hers do? If you can give me an example I will read the book. Please give me an example of a person, like Sarah who wrote books like hers. When she gives her speeches and attack people who never even address her on any occasion, where is the comparison? Who has done it to her?.........Who are these bully gangs. I have said before, the far left/right will always have something negative to say about everyone, including Sarah. So who are these gangs?..

Since it's obvious you are simply saying things that aren't true, its now "It appears you argue, just for the sake of aruging."..

But don't bother to answer.........I will answer. You twist, deflect and defend and make yourself look rather silly. You answered my questions with non-answers and not always truthfully...The proof that you are doing these things are in your posts... It is amazing how you seem to make things up as you go along. Did you even consider the fact that you are posting these things and they are there to read and re-read? Do you even remember that this conversation started with you saying Sarah became a half-term Governor because Clinton or someone else started it?.......Maybe "half-term Sarah" got the idea from "half term Clinton" (Bill, quit as Governor of Arkansas in the middle of his term) ...I only brought it up because you seem to think it all began with Palin. Actually, it probably began long before either one of them...

because you just don't "get" where I'm coming from............. I suppose I won't get where you are coming form, since the place is ...It's never Sarah's fault. She is not responsible for her words or actions, since someone else did it first and she should never take responsibility. She is always the victim. She can criticize and slam people all she wants. But don't you dare do the same, those actions are reserved for "Sarah Palin Only".

Have a good day........

This all began because I simply made an observation that Palin wasn't the first, nor will she be the last, to leave a post (Gov) before the end of their term.

Along you come expanding, expounding, zigging, zagging, cobbling, myopic vision, and putting words in my mouth...

You want the last word, you go right ahead, I couldn't care less.

So you are hoping to point a crooked finger and not get a response?

This all began because I simply made an observation that Palin wasn't the first, nor will she be the last, to leave a post (Gov) before the end of their term.................TIMOTAYO....Maybe "half-term Sarah" got the idea from "half term Clinton" (Bill, quit as Governor of Arkansas in the middle of his term) Aren't you glad you brought that up???.

Fletch2-1565982

Just to set the record straight.

Bill Clinton served 5 terms as Govorner...From 1978 - 1992, when he won the election to become President of The United States.....................Clinton quit after 5 terms.....Palin quit after 1/2 term.....Where is the comparison?

Along you come expanding, expounding, zigging, zagging, cobbling, myopic vision, and putting words in my mouth..............NOT TRUE...I suppose I am putting words in your mouth like Katie Couric did to Sarah. Your words are here for everyone to see and read. Read over your posts and you will see that you standard MO is to lie, twist and deflect. Now because it is obvious that you are delusional, it my fault. It's a good thing this is a written conversation and the proof is here for everyone to see. Can you imagine if we were having a face to face conversation, what you would accuse me of?

You want the last word, you go right ahead, I couldn't care less.............You obviously care about the last word. I don't. It's just that I refuse to let you get away with lying.

It is very typical. Blame someone else for your shortcomings. The truth is not something you handle very well.

expanding, expounding, zigging, zagging, cobbling, myopic vision.....You need to look up the meaning of these words before you use them.

Fletch, you just continue to throw every piece of crap against the wall you, in your mish mash mix of whatever comes to mind, and hope that something sticks. You say that Palin thinks only she can criticize, but no one else? Well sweetie, you definitely share that podium.

Who is the group of bullies???? Look around you man! Read the various posts. If you don't have a clue as to who makes up the "gangs of bullies", then you are playing naiev or maybe you just ARE. You even ask.." Once again what did the Sheriff do to her"? If you don't know then you are about the only one on the planet who doesn't.

You insist on my showing PROOF for everything. Well, first off I'm not about to take my time to look up and supply you with book, chapter and verse. Furthermore, I've not seen anything along those lines come from you either.

You also do a lot of reading between the lines...don't do that...you misread. I NEVER said I blamed Biden for that Facebook/teenager/retard comment. I never said that word ever came up in that Facebook thing either. I never defended Palin IF she did say it did...I don't know that she did or that she did not. I DO know Palin addressed the use of that word someone used as referring to her little boy, but that incident was months and months before the Facebook fiasco ever happened. It was when she was touring with her first book and had Trigg with her. Sorry I don't have the date, time, city and bus number.

If you know sarcasim then you SHOULD have understood what I meant when I said to TOMTAYO that "maybe Palin got the idea of quitting mid term from Clinton". Do you not recognize sarcasim? And it was in reference to the constant overuse of snarky nicknames alluding to her leaving mid term. If you took that literally, well you need to work on your comprehension......

Katie Couric? You bring up Katie Couric? No connection to ANYTHING I either said or insinuated. That is exactly what I mean by you zigging and zagging.

You say that I believe/buy/defend EVERYTHING Palin says and does. WRONG. I SPECIFICALLY said that I DO NOT.

Here's something you would NEVER admit to. I may be "mistaken" about some minor things or time frames, NOT including Maddow's rant..... however I am NOT LYING about anything.

As far as people reading what I said, or what you said....if they are half as bored with this so-called conversation as I am, they stopped reading days ago. IF we were having this conversation face to face, what would I blame you of? Probably spitting when you talk!

I thought you were finished.......

SHE WAS A VICTIM...of the media, the left wing, the sheriff........................Once again what did the Sheriff do to her? You never responded and I said.........The Sheriff was totally wrong and out of line. I heard his other statements, but just read one where he blamed her...

You are upset that I want to know why you are blaming everyone for attacking Sarah without any references. You are blowing smoke and no one should challenge you.

.Who did the public lynchings? .When she gives her speeches and attack people who never even address her on any occasion, where is the comparison? .Who are these bully gangs. I have said before, the far left/right will always have something negative to say about everyone, including Sarah. So who are these gangs?

I don't know which Rachel Maddow show you saw, but I SAW, HEARD what I saw, heard..No doubt Maddow did some backpeddling once the President told people to be civil......The pieces I saw on the show and reffered to, was before the Presidents speech. Can you give me an approximate date that Rachel blamed and accused her? I will watch it. Like I did with the sheriff.

These statements were made in response to your saying this:..............Every politician "puts themselves in the spotlight"....Palin didn't invent that. She gives speeches, they give speeches; she makes comments, they make comments;she gives interviews, they give interviews; she criticizes, shares her point of view; they criticize, share their point of view; several have written a book or books, she's written books, ........yet she is drug over the coals and called every vile, vicious name they can come up with when or because she does those same things. People don't always agree with the others, but it's not a public lynching....

And since I know this is not true, I asked for references(proof if you want). You can't prove or validate anything, yet you choose to say them. For example....She write books criticizing and putting down other people, no one has done that to her. Yet when she is criticized for doing so "she is drug over the coals" in your assessment .You can't even give one instance as reference.

Katie Couric? You bring up Katie Couric? No connection to ANYTHING I either said or insinuated. That is exactly what I mean by you zigging and zagging.

She blames the "lame stream" media for everything ever since the Katie Couric interview, as if Kate gave her a script to read and then claimed that she said those things. ( POST 6.83)................I suppose I am putting words in your mouth like Katie Couric did to Sarah....You did not mention Katie, I did as reference. You said I put words in your mouth......I referenced the fact that Sarah felt the same way, even though Katie only asked questions and SHE answered. DO YOU GET IT?......

Her daughter used the word fa**ot. She said stfu...Biden said that word on National TV.........I NEVER said I blamed Biden for that Facebook/teenager/retard comment. I never said that word ever came up in that Facebook thing either......But you obviously were responding to 'that facebook thing' since that's the only place the WORD came up...and you brought up Biden.

You insist on my showing PROOF for everything. Well, first off I'm not about to take my time to look up and supply you with book, chapter and verse. Furthermore, I've not seen anything along those lines come from you either........... If you notice on every occasion I have provided a reference as to why I draw the conclusion or make the accusation.

I accused her of double standard....I referenced facebook, her book, her speeches. I have noted specific cases and you call that zigging and zagging. What should your statements be called?

Can you imagine if we were having a face to face conversation, what you would accuse me of? I said this because you accuse me of ..."and putting words in my mouth." You are writing your own words, so how am I putting words anywhere?

The problem with Sarah is that she feels that she is entitled to free speech, but no one else is. Rham Emanuel should be fired for calling some of his colleagues "retards", but Dr. Laura should "reload" when she was criticized for using the 'N' word numerous times. This is the only reference I have made regarding the word retarded....Sorry I don't have the date, time, city and bus number.......Never asked for it...

You say that I believe/buy/defend EVERYTHING Palin says and does. WRONG. I SPECIFICALLY said that I DO NOT..........Reread your posts and you will see how much you have.

Comparing Clinton to Sarah was not sarcasm on your part. It was an unqualified reference/comparison.

Just a few words of advise. If you are having a written conversation. Rather than make yourself look silly, reread your statements. Don't go off half-cocked saying what you did or did not say when it's there, in writing. Don't respond when you are upset. Calm down, then type.

I tend to be analytical, that's why I tend to reference what you say, by copying and pasting your own words.

If you are so bored, why are you still writing? You were finished in 6.86 &88. So why are you still here now?

Dear Aggie: You are coming across like a mind in a washing machine. Like other Teabaggers, you simply are enthralled by Half-Term Sarah and have locked yourself into a constant attempt to rationalize everything she says and does. Your anger is electric.

Half-Term Sarah is well on her way to being a political has-been who never was. Her accomplishments are insignificant. She is a close-minded harpy with a mean streak miles wide. She has no fully cooked ideas. She mangles language like no college grad I've ever known. She makes things up, like "death panels", the way Michelle Bachmann makes up her own rewrite of early American history. It's devious and un-American. They are destroying what is left of the Republican Party.

Right about now, intelligent and thoughtful Republicans are beginning to understand what they have to lose by letting these nutbags poison the national dialogue. Teabaggers are going to suffer the same fate as McCarthyites in the 1950's. I suppose you are too young to remember McCarthyism. I'm not. I remember very clearly.

The day will come that most people will be too ashamed to admit they ever fell for the teabagger baloney. At least, those with any sense of shame. 2012 will be a difficult year for you, dear.

By the way, Aggie, the only person who ever made any comparison between Half-Term Sarah and either of the Clintons is you. And, it wasn't sarcasm. You were serious.

Fletch has you coming and going. Come up for air.

Yeah, I'm back Fletch. So what? You add the opening. The rest is simply redundant.

FLETCH & TOMATAYO... WHY do either of you care SO MUCH that you find it necessary to get your drawers in a bunch? So, it's okay for you both to comment....but no else? Is that it? The fact that both of you speak with such authority on my motives, dissecting each of my comments into splinters for you to rage about is just protesting too much. You seem to have very sensitive "sore spots".

And, I am NOT, never have been a "Tea Partier." So save your breath, You're WRONG. Once again let me point out that you two DO NOT know nor can you speak with any authority or accuracy whatsoever about ANY person. You simply demonstrate narrow minded speculation. You know NOTHING about me. I KNOW I made the comparison of Clinton and Palin leaving mid term Governorships. TERM as in 4 year term. Not cumulative. That was, indeed, a reference, a SARCASTIC reference and that was my INTENTION to simply point out the difference in reactions to him doing it vs Palin doing it. And the reaction from you and Fletch is completely off the charts and waaay more than a rational and adult person would demonstrate. Are neither of you savvy enough to recognize SCARCASIM when it's used? That's your problem, not mine. And FLETCH has a particular problem with metaphores. And NEITHER ONE OF YOU will get it through your thick heads, much less acknowledge, that I have STATED that I am NOT "enthralled" by Sarah Palin. Just because I think it shameful how people call her names doesn't mean I worship her. Hell, I'd do the same for you..IF it was warranted. I was SIMPLY pointing out the uncivility directed toward her and her family compared to others when they do/say the same. That's IT!!! That's ALL!!! Hell, even the President talked about that accusations and uncivility in his address during the memorial in AZ, and while he may not have used her name specifically, any thinking person would know EXACTLY what and who he was referring to as the receipient.. You are unable to accept what I have said, and continue on with your assumption insisting that I am her biggest supporter, agree with everything she says and does. You have chosen, obviously, to ignore what I've put down in black and white, because then you wouldn't have much, if anything, to hone your bashing and slashing and psychic skills on, and TELL me that I am a Tea Partier, Palin worshipper, blah, blah, blah. It IS possible to not support someone, yet simultaneously, not condone uncivility toward them. But, I guess for you it is. More's the pity. You are BOTH just making the President's speech a much needed chastisement.

GET OVER IT! GET OVER PALIN! LEARN A LITTLE COMPASSION!

You are a scream Aggie.

YOU...DENSE

Yeah, I'm back Fletch. So what? You add the opening...................
My work here is done...
So, I guess this conversation is exhausted. Ciao..
This all began because I simply made an observation that Palin wasn't the first, nor will she be the last, to leave a post (Gov) before the end of their term.
Along you come expanding, expounding, zigging, zagging, cobbling, myopic vision, and putting words in my mouth...
You want the last word, you go right ahead, I couldn't care less.
I'm finished going around in circles with you.
if they are half as bored with this so-called conversation as I am, they stopped reading days ago.
YET HERE YOU ARE.......

Aggie,
You are so busy defending and making excuses you don't realize that you are, which is so sad.
Everything that I have accused Sarah of I have provided instances and proof.

By YOUR definition of zigging and zagging, that's all you have been doing. Making excuses, throwing anything at anyone trying to make her look good. You said this....." I was SIMPLY pointing out the uncivility directed toward her and her family compared to others when they do/say the same " .Yet you can't name anyone or any instance and when asked your evasive response is.......... "..You insist on my showing PROOF for everything. Well, first off I'm not about to take my time to look up and supply you with book, chapter and verse.............. " ALL YOU HAD TO SAY IS "I CAN'T SHOW PROOF SINCE I HAVE NONE, I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO BLOW SMOKE.

You are accusing me of ......." WHY do either of you care SO MUCH that you find it necessary to get your drawers in a bunch?.So, it's okay for you both to comment....but no else?......."
Who is asking you not to comment?. I responded to your statements and never once asked, told or implied that you should not comment. Your thinking is somewhat off.

You need to know what "SCARCASIM" is before claiming you used it.....these are your statements:
......."This all began because I simply made an observation".
...".I only used him for retaliatory purposes, and I got the response and reaction that I was expecting."
....."Let me spell it out for you since you insist on making it more than it is.. BOTH he and Palin were in office as Governors, BOTH "quit" as GOVERNORS, mid term. That's all there is to it".
...."He was, AT THAT TIME, in the exact position as Sarah Palin. BOTH GOVERNORS. I am speaking SOLELY to that. Get it?"
.....".Here's the thing though...I don't care that he quit during his term as Gov. of Arkansas. I only brought it up because you seem to think it all began with Palin. Actually, it probably began long before either one of them".
..".Clinton quit to campaign for President. The people of Ark. were very upset about that, because they were concerned he wouldn't complete the term because of rumblings that he was considering a run for President.. He promised if he was re-elected as Governor, he would complete his term. He didn't complete the term, he ran for President.".
......"If you know sarcasim then you SHOULD have understood what I meant when I said to TOMTAYO that "maybe Palin got the idea of quitting mid term from Clinton"...
..... Do you not recognize sarcasim?" ................................................................................................................
.Yes I do, none of these statements were sarcastic.

".... And FLETCH has a particular problem with metaphores".............Can you point out one instance?....or is this more smoke?

It seems you take offense to anyone commenting on your posts, while you don't have a problem commenting on others. Or maybe if I agreed with everything you said, then you would be so happy.

"GET OVER IT! GET OVER PALIN! LEARN A LITTLE COMPASSION! "
Ok Compassion for what . This is what I have said about Sarah and have backed up my statements:
1....She criticizes people in very condescending ways, but when criticized in the same way , she is a victim.
2........She puts her and her kids in the spotlight and then ask to be left alone.
3....She uses every opportunity to call attention to herself and then asks to be left alone.
4.....Its ok for her and the people she supports, to use derogatory names, but when others uses names or terms she doesn't like, they should be severely penalized .
5......She is a supporter of pro-life, but when it comes to her its pro-choice.
6.....No one should dig into her past and use these findings to criticize her. But its ok to dig into others and she is allowed to use those findings to criticize them.
7.....Its ok for her to say nasty things, criticize people who has never said anything about her, good or bad. But if someone does the same to her, they are victimizing her.
8.....She find every reason to play the victim card.
9....No one should comment on these things. Everyone should mind their own business. Even when she is in our faces every day and use every opportunity to put her self in the spotlight. We should buy her books, read them but never say a negative word about them even though the books are all about criticizing others. Watch her show, but make no comments, leave her alone.
10......One standard for Sarah and one for everyone else.
11.....When she is asked a question and gives an ignorant answer, she blames the person asking the question.
Show her some compassion. While she shows none. She doesn't have to, everyone else is supposed to. Get over Palin. She cant get over anyone or anything. We are supposed to get over her, when she is in our faces every day.
She claimed she quit after half term, because she has to be defending herself all the time from various attacks(the same type every other Governor gets) . Yet all she does is get in front of every available camera and criticize others. I suppose she is hoping they will also quit.

If we can just keep Sara in their faces, front and center, day in and day out, many lib-spewing America hater's heads will EXPLODE ! ! !
Her fellow GOP MAY very well eat her alive, so what are bitc***g about? Why let it bother you and why do you care??? Why not just LEAVE HER ALONE!
SHE should stay in everyone's faces........but they should leave her alone....WOW....

Fletch:

Surely you have more important things to obcess over. How about you just GET OVER IT !!!

Aggie, are you still at this? You keep saying you're done, yet you never leave. I know you want to win the argument but you lost your case several explosions ago. Fletch did the Flamenco all over your Palin fantasy.

You must be exhausted.

Change topic please. Try Egypt.

Aggie,

Fletch:

Surely you have more important things to obcess over. How about you just GET OVER IT !!!

Can't handle the truth can you? Cant answer the questions? Backed in a corner so now I should find other things to "obcess" over..........What should I get over, your fanatical "obcess" with Pailn?

Bye,Bye and good luck.

I've TRIED to say I'm done...but Fletch just can't take a hint.

He seems to think if he types the word "FACT" in all CAPS, that suffices as proof.

Both of you....IF I wasn't getting under your skin, you'd just ignore me. Like I said, surely there really ARE more important things for you to OBSESS over than me or Sarah Palin. Seems YOU just CANNOT LET IT GO! That's not an argument, it's a FACT.

I agree Jennifer. But, the can only focus on the unimportant things. They're on a crusade here.

Appears that Aggie DOES have to have the last word. At least I hope this is the last word. Please, make it the last word!

Sniffles,
I was having so much fun. But out of respect for a fellow viner. You have my word.

:-)

WORD :-)

That was a joke...but seriously..

When I said he could have the last word, of course I meant on whatever issues he has about Sarah Palin. It was not intended to give him, or others, free reign to insult me, TELL me what I am thinking, feeling, my motives, say I am a liar, etc. He couldn't be happy with accepting that I was willing to let him have the last word....he had to go on with his redundant manifestos and add personal insults. I agreed to just let things go and agreeing to disagree, doesn't mean I will stand by without defending MYSELF. And yes, I can give it back in kind...trying to be the reconciler can go just SO far.

I've tried humor once or twice, to tone down the "coversation"(?). He just kept on with his laundry list of indictments. Even though my original message addressed ONE thing. You can see how many times I've suggested we just let it go...

It's not in my nature to just stand by and be insulted and lied about..

Ooohh, now I've gone and done it..I smell another ranting indictment in the works.....

More karma than anything I think.

Yes, if we can believe that crosshairs are 'surveyor symbols' then surely we can believe that as well.

ZOMG!!!! Google Earth uses crosshairs when I use the distance measurement tool! Hurry up! Call the DoHS! Anyone who uses Google Earth is a political whacko who intends to do harm! This is proof positive.

Hey "Bloody" Sarah

what does this sign mean?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." as seen by a guy carrying a gun at a tea party event

Gosh...amazing how many times I've seen that passage used here...and each time it is attributed to a DIFFERENT person. A Republican politician's speech...a Tea Party member...and attributed to other Republicans/conservatives that I can't recall specifically.

It is a quote from the past..... The tree is a symbol of LIBERTY. And the quote, as it is intended to say, is that it...liberty, freedom... is kept alive by the blood of those defending those ideals and defeating tyrants.

It's NOT a threat. It's NOT a wish.

You don't believe people are responsible for their own actions?

The "left" is to blame simply because they knowingly "lie & tie" the shootings with malice to people who have nothing to do with it for political gain, evidence shows the "shooter"was one of theirs and, who knows?....probably sent him to do it...what?...too much?....you'd scream a foolish claim like this. Then when the mental midgets are programed by this dumbass, "Hick", sheriffs irresponsible accusations, do actually set people off on violence say, the rights claims are hypocritical.............OMG, the level of stupididy will be the end of the US, sadly......really glad I don't live there!

The shooter was no more one of "ours" than the man in the moon.

The tendency to grab at a small straw and fill in the rest does not work in this case. If anything, Loughner was just plain "crazy"---but, what was working in his fevered brain was an anger at Giffords' liberal policies. This he made clear, if clarity can be used at all in describing him.

Don't you agree that hate speech and gun/weapon speech is a bad idea for a society of 300 million people endowed with both freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms? A pretty lethal mix. What is it about this whole conversation that makes you so defensive?

Librarian

Do you have a link or some kind of evidence that this was what he thought?

"The shooter was no more one of "ours" than the man in the moon". Maybe not, but he was a fan of Hitler and Marx, common to the left leaning types. Since that was inconvenient for Libs, they had to make vapid connections to Palin over some idiotic idea that "targeting" elections had anything to do with the shooting. The left has proven the old adage that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts. Congratulations, you've remove all doubts!

Dan-299885

"The shooter was no more one of "ours" than the man in the moon". Maybe not, but he was a fan of Hitler and Marx, common to the left leaning types.

Are you stupid?

He also had an Ayn Rand book - I suppose that is common to the left leaning types too.

More reading - less Glen Beck.

Dan-299885

"The shooter was no more one of "ours" than the man in the moon". Maybe not, but he was a fan of Hitler and Marx, common to the left leaning types.

*sigh* Hitler was neither socially nor economically liberal - as is evident by him murdering millions of jews and subscribing to fascism. Thats more a right wing thing - you know, that whole hating someone because they're different idea and then wanting to kill them for it.

Since that was inconvenient for Libs, they had to make vapid connections to Palin over some idiotic idea that "targeting" elections had anything to do with the shooting.

Right - what does a rifle retical have to do with guns. LOL! You people belong on very short buses.

TenAngryHamsters (running circles in your head)....I think my question is: "Where has the emotional support for this shooting victim been all week?" He "drove" himself to the hospital? Those injured have all been left out of the public conversation and anonymous in lieu of the dead.

This man was a victim of a mass shooting for no other reason than being in a parking lot in his community. He may have been doing his shopping or he may have been there to listen to or talk to his Representative, it is immaterial given the fact that he was in his own element when the violence happened. He is going to be angry, hurt and have tremendous over whelming feelings.

He arrived to this memorial with a camera and took pictures and issued public death threats. It is obvious that he is not emotionally in a safe place. It is obvious that he needs individual emotional support and counseling.

Hearing the general public talk about how Tuscon suffered and how Arizona has been suffering because some unbalanced lunitic decided to go on a shooting spree....It seems they have lost track of the individuals who were wounded in the attack.

I do hope this man receives the support and care that will bring him back to center. I do hope that he can be rational moving forward and that he is now in a place where he can receive the individual emotional support that is necessary to move forward.

My thoughts and prayers are with him and the others injured to receive that individual heeling because the collective will move on but those who were struck with bullets are still feeling the physical and emotional pain of the tragedy.

My how the mindset changes. It's okay to threaten a tea-partier or republican but don't even think it on a leftist. No wonder this country is on a fast train to h-ll.

Hum...i think this guy getting arrested is a prime example of a person being responsible for their own action...he made a serious threat and action was taken. This isn't the problem however. The problem is, why wasn't action taken before when the same insane threats were being made?

Liberallibrarian just cannot give it up. Loughner was not a TEA Party member. He was not a conservative. He was not a liberal. The only "party" to which he belonged was "lunacy", and he leaned " crazy".

In fact, most of the political vitriol I have seen since November has been emanating from the left. It seems that the liberals, er, progressives, er, democrats- whatever the heck you are calling yourselves this week- are having a really hard tine accepting that their spending and government expansion has been rejected by the majority of the electorate.

So great is their resentment at this turn of events that even seizing on a tragedy, and exploiting it for political gain, is not beneath them.

That this tactic, too, is failing is the cause of even more angst.

I have to agree with No Joe to some extent. I watched and read a lot in the last few weeks. The week after the Nov election the mid left didnt know what to do. The president was using terms like "Shellacking" "we took a beating" so they were questioning whether they really do have the pulse of america. The real left progressives went even harder left and immediately started yelling and screaming louder and with more zeal. About several "reasons" for the Misunderstanding at the poles. When frankly they just plain got beat. I know your all going to say that traditionally Democrats dont vote in large numbers at a mid term election, But really if your supporters really support your ideas........... they would have been at the polls and you would have kept your majority in both houses. I consider my self a normal US citizen (well semi normal) and most of what I have heard from my employees and my friends is that unless the republicans lock up this country in gridlock and accomplish nothing the next election should be theirs to lose. I know you liberals hope they run Ms Palin I dont see any way that will happen.

Those of you still on the teaparty, Palin acusation train...please pay attention: You are beginning to sound like a monotonous loop. Your accusations have proven to be invalid and yet you persist in believing them and spouting them off as fact. This denial of reality is not healthy.

As to the article stating that an individual threatened to kill someone...golly, but it seems he was a 'gasp' liberal.....Imagine, a non-tea party, Palin supporter threatening to kill someone, no, say it isn't so...gosh, could we be off base a tiny bit...nah, we're liberal, ergo we ignore facts and continue to make false accusations to bolster our ever weakening foundation.

To all the clairvoyants and mind readers who have been posting, Id like to suggest we meet tomorrow at 2:00pm at Santa Anita, bring money. With you guys on board I cant lose.

steve: Forget Santa Anita, lets head to Vegas for some real money:)

Mike-416:

"*sigh* Hitler was neither socially nor economically liberal - as is evident by him murdering millions of jews and subscribing to fascism. Thats more a right wing thing - you know, that whole hating someone because they're different idea and then wanting to kill them for it."

The Nazis were the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Hitler believed the rule of a government/corporate partnership elite (you know, kind of like Government Motors). He believed that these elites had the right to define what was acceptable about the general population's beliefs, habits and behavior.

In Nazi Germany those who ran afoul of these ideals were arrested and killed. In today's US those who run afoul of liberal's ideals (if the liberals get their way) will be arrested for hate speech, illegal use of salt, the audacity to use an incancescent light bulb and daring to buy their kids a Happy Meal.

In today's US the "Right" means conservative. It means an embrace of individual liberties, and the rejection of "elitist" government primacy over the rights of the individual. The political right in the US embraces classically Liberal ideals.

In the US a "liberal" does not believe in classic Liberal ideals, the liberal believes in the state controlling the individual. You know, kind of like those nasty little German folks from a few decades ago.

NAZISM

Founded by Ernst Rohm S/A Brown shirts(until "absorbed" by the SS and Hitler)

German workers party, UNION

Funded by JOE KENNEDY

In the US a liberal will SELL YOU OUT and can't distinguish between Life and a lump of Stem cells used to create a "Master Race" you know kind of like those nasty little Hollywood folks from just a few moments ago

Mygirl

Now youre singing my song! Arrive in a taxi, leave in a limo.

Steve: ^_^

You fool! She was the one who was targeted!

If she was THE target, he sure as hell was a lousy shot. There were many targets. He just wasn't really caring who he killed or injured. They all represented what he hated. They were a fixation in his sick mind.

good point! i dont know any of the names of others who died

Ben, he may have been a lousy shot, one afternoon potting at popcans won't make anybody a gunslinger. But he shot the congresswoman FIRST, from less then 4', then blazed away at everybody else. But, having said that, somewhere in his ramblings he did say he was ready to kill a cop. This was just a better target in his sick mind. And this guy? Lets see he got shot twice for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, then went to a meeting where they made statements he apparently just couldn't handle. (I don't know what was said, I wasn't there). If he had been serious, he'd have brought a gun, or gernade, or pipe-bomb, or just a can of gas and a road-flair or something like that. What he SHOULD have done, is get up and walk out. but tempers rise quick, and he shot his mouth off. Poor judgement.

I also think it was handled correctly, with his being forced to undergo psychological examination, to see if he IS dangerous.

You cannot threaten an individuals life in a public place. "You're dead!" is pretty clearly a personal threat, no euphamism here. He clearly continued to fight with the police and rant and rave after the fact, enough to get you a mental health evaluation in any state. Of course since he is a Democrat then his comments are taken out of context, clearly they never mean what they say.

But you can stand up at a Palin rally and scream kill him and there was no doubt that Obama was who he was talking about...but according to you, that's okay...yeah right...typical teabagger thinking...bs bs bs!!!

But you can stand up at a Palin rally and scream kill him

Please provide a reference or evidence.

Here is the article...and yes it was said..whether you want to believe it or not..enjoy....I'm sure you won't.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html

LMFAO the bluffinton hoax......you call that a reference holy hell why not bring up the Holy liberal book of support lines!

That is not a reference, it's blog post that references another blog piece by the thoroughly discredited Dana Milbank from WaPo, who was not at that event so must have been hearing that second or third hand. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people have lost any notion of what real, unbiased evidence is.

Your right I only know of the little girl that died I think they may have had some info on them 1 other time. Who are they?