I tuned in to NPR’s To the Point this morning, just in time to hear Republican framing guru Frank Luntz insist that liberal political rhetoric has been just as violent and inflammatory as that on the right. And to prove his point, Luntz referenced former Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson’s infamous health care speech, in which he provocatively proclaimed:
“If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”
Uh-huh. As I tweeted back at Luntz a few minutes later: “No, saying your opponents want to kill you is not as inflammatory as saying you want to kill your opponents.” So far, Luntz has yet to reply.
Luntz is no idiot. In fact, he’s probably the best there is at what he does. So the fact that Luntz is out there pushing the bullshit frame that liberal rhetoric has been just as violent and inflammatory as right-wing rhetoric, pretty much establishes this frame as the default posture for the Republican Party as a whole, and their surrogates. No apologies, no regrets.
So the GOP establishment not only defends its violent rhetoric, apparently, they think it’s a winning strategy.
Accuracy is not the concern here, just how loud and how often you can repeat your claim.
We have to start cataloging endlessly used nonsensical Republican rhetorical devices like this to save venting space (e.g. “#17!!!”).
Enough to make you want to chew your own foot off.
Overton Window:
We will look back on this time and realize that the violent right wing eliminationist rhetoric was really about the batshit crazy preparing the battlefield for the somewhat less batshit crazy to seem reasonable by comparison.
“Luntz is no idiot.”
Neither was Goebbels.
I’m not sure when they started this, but sometime over the past twenty years, the Republicans decided to adopt the old Goebbels strategy: keep repeating a lie over and over again, and eventually enough people will believe it.
Or at least in this democracy, where the millions of Americans who work for a living and raise kids and don’t have an endless amount of time to research every claim and counter-claim, will just give up and say “whatever”.
Either way, the Republicans win, not having to pay the price for their own bad conduct or lies.
I well remember in 1972 when the Watergate burglars were arrested. Most people just shrugged and said “it’s politics, everybody does it”. It wasn’t until Nixon looked straight into the camera and called upon everyone to believe that he was not a crook, and the evidence quickly proved otherwise, that he lost that battle. But back then we had a media which was prepared to finance reporters to chase down the truth, and then back them when the Republicans put political pressure on them.
Saying that your opponents are trying to kill grandma is not as inflammatory as saying that grandma should try to kill your opponents.
@5 It could have gone either way. Ben Bradlee agonized over the decision to run with what Woodward and Bernstein had stumbled upon, and did so against strong opposition from the Washington Post’s considerably right-of-center owners.
I wonder if any of those independents out who swing back and forth are picking up from this unfortunate episode just how morally bankrupt the Republican spin machine and its acolytes are.
@ 8
Why would it? It is a major aspect of their paradigm, and they’re proud of that fact.
The Rush Limbaugh billboard in Tuscon describing him as a “straight shooter” and riddled with images of bullet holes is to be taken down. Not by those who paid to put it up, but by Clear Channel.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....hp?ref=fpa
I’m sure that such imagery, like words of violence, has no effect on the deranged.
Yeah, right.
Clever teabagger. It’s now Giffords fault that she was shot.
http://videocafe.crooksandliar.....ords-blame
Give them another day and I’m sure they come up with an explanation as to why it’s little Christina Taylor Green’s fault that she was murdered.
I wonder if any of those independents out who swing back and forth are picking up from this unfortunate episode just how morally bankrupt the Liberal spin machine and its acolytes are.
Wasn’t there some local liberal paper around here that published the home addresses of people who donated to Republican politicians, along with the pictures of their homes?
“Yeah Troll, but that wasn’t a threat, that was a joke.”
Ok, then would it be okay if I published your address with a picture of your home?
“No, I would consider that a threat.”
What’s the difference?
“There just is a difference, that’s all! One was a joke, you idiot! BTW, if you do publish my address, I will call the police!”
@13 On my ignore list.
@10 “I’m sure that such imagery, like words of violence, has no effect on the deranged”
Remember, only the crazy people hear the dog whistles…
@5 rhp
I think it was Hoover.
@13 T
You COULD cite a source to refresh our memories. Offhand I don’t know, but seeing that ANYONE can look up EVERYONE’S donations on opensecrets.org, that doesn’t seem like such an awfully nefarious plot. Did that “liberal paper” advocate shooting them?
And you should have seen those shoot-me pumps she was wearing. You can always tell when a woman is looking for it.
A lot of newspapers around the country regularly print the home address of anyone arrested for a crime, regardless of the fact that they haven’t yet been prosecuted, much less convicted, of a crime.
A few years ago there was a crime in Everett where the Everett Herald gave the description of the crime, and mentioned that it was on the same block as Scoop Jackson’s widow, if I remember correctly. The paper then went on for a paragraph or two talking about how important Scoop Jackson was.
I sent the editor an e-mail, saying that I didn’t think it was a good idea for him to be advertising the home address of the widow of a prominent politician. What if some loony terrorist decides he wants to make a point by kidnapping (or worse) the relatively undefended home of an elderly widow? The Herald editor just brushed me off, saying, in effect, that he didn’t think that a terrorist would ever bother to read an Everett newspaper.
@17
http://captainleadbottom.wordp.....upporters/
@18 Yeah, those pumps basically cried out, “Shoot me!”.
I missed this one. Apparently our President want to give the entire United States back to the Native Americans and to make them our overlords.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....?ref=fpblg
Geez, and here I was thinking that he wanted to turn us over to the Jihadists. Sheesh. My bad.
Krystalnacht — That’s my ‘frame’.
The threats of the jihadists to kill us are just as inflammatory as the U.S. claiming that the jihadists want to kill us.
Republican reply would be the apples and oranges defense.
@5
“I’m not sure when they started this, but sometime over the past twenty years, Goldy decided to adopt the old Goebbels strategy: keep repeating a lie over and over again, and eventually enough people will believe it.”
There, I fixed it for you.
@25 back up your bullshit. What lie does Goldy keep repeating over and over? I thought you would not have an answer because clearly facts and reality have no place in your brain.
You guys obviously could use a diversion… try this:
I know you — Pharisee — one thing I can tell you is you’ll crucify me! (to the tume of Come Together)
I wish I had a dime for every time that fascist fuck Hannity bleated that “the muslim community had an obligation to denounce the violent extremists in their midst”.
And, of course, all liberals had to horsewhip themselves for the antics of Bill Ayers 40 years ago.
I mean, for god’s sake, these shits think they own you if you signed a petition started by Michael Moore.
There is nothing new here from wingnuttia. They have been and continue to be pure scum, but I pledge on my sacred honor their right to the pond of their choice.
See this…
http://www.lookingattheleft.co.....15;800.jpg
So “the left” is not as violent?
The assertion that the professional left is not violent in it’s presentations is false. Ditton the professional right.
There. Both sides use it…
The real question is why, and getting into that is where, IMO, the discussion should go…
The whole “they do it, we don’t” stuff is nonsense. I don’t expect many here to agree.
#29: Really? There is an exact equivalence between an individual’s stupid remarks (and killing Bush was really stupid, given the available nexts in line), and an entire national party rhetoric complete with graphics, text, visuals, and lies (along with the above mentioned party strategist)?
@30
I was responding to Goldy’s
To your point. No I don’t associate the entire Republican party with her rhetoric. I think it’s over done, and she tries too hard to prove her “rugged outdoors” bonafides… Nor do I associate the whole party with Limbaugh or Beck etc etc etc…
The whole political party does not rely on violence. Does the left use such imagery?
Sure.
http://www.postonpolitics.com/.....et-map.jpg
Why do both sides use it? What is at stake? Who benefits?
In case you missed it, Right Stuff, I addressed this comment to you in what turned out to be the end of a dead thread.
I’ll add that the photo you linked is the work of a damned fool idiot and I utterly reject that kind of crap, as I’m sure would nearly all other progressives. I support the man’s 1st amendment right to express himself, but it stops there. He does not represent me in any way, shape or form. Period.
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”
That would be FORMER Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., kicked to the curb in November.
The fever swamp on the left was blaming the right before the bodies were cold. And as it turns out, the shooter was just plain crazy, not attuned to either party. So either the left was intentionally lying to score morbid political points or so delusional they can’t tell truth from fiction.
I have yet to hear ONE lefty apologize for their rhetoric and accusations. Any of you lot willing to admit you were over the top? Not even an apology, just an admission that politics had nothing to do with the shooting.
@33 On ignore list.
I’ve decided to start ignoring most trolls. I will no longer indulge in conversing with them. Some, like Right Stuff, I will still attempt to ingage in meaningful conversation. The others drag me down to their level and it’s my own damned fault for letting that happen. No more. I will only post a “On ignore list” reply and let it go at that.
@33…
Jesus, Delbert…just go fuck yourself.
4. ArtFart isn’t ready to be classified as a “useless eater” spews:
“Luntz is no idiot.”
Neither was Goebbels.
(Like)
Without question, and without exception, todays republicans all suck.
@36 Mr. Shit-fer-brains @33 who is posting from Planet Freakazoid made my ignore list, refer to 34. If he was something more than a fucking coward and could quit his slithering and stand up to me like a man, he might be worth my fucking attention. But he’s not. So it’s off to the ignore list for Mr. Shit-fer-brains.
Steve @ 35
I wish I could just put trolls on my “just ignore” list. You are a better man than I am. I like to bash them. You are right about Right Stuff. At least, he brings something to the table. Delbert, Puddy, LD? Not so much.
re 25: Except — You haven’t said what Goldy’s lie is.
A good strategy — as you would be unmasked as the actual liar.
The Republicans are planning on TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS. Quick, Liberals. be afraid and stock up on GUNS AND AMMO before the Republicans take them away from you
Doesn’t sound credible, does it?
Re 31: Can you cite a Democratic political rally in the last presidential election or even in the Bush years where Democrats were slavering and yelling: “Kill him!!!”
You can’t. Because it didn’t happen. But it happened on your side uncounted times.
So, the equivalency argument doesn’t work. Your side deliberately stirs up the ‘tards because they represent about 25% of the electorate. You stir them up with simplistic and violent imagery of the sort where you have borderline personalities driven over the edge by the harsh rhetoric and killing MD’s and 9 year old children in the belief that they are somehow being patriotic.
re 31: You should should repent instead of justify.
Hey Steve,
With regards to your comments. I can understand what you are getting at, but I do disagree with the premis that Democrats, Liberals or Progressives are “pussies”. In my experience, both sides give as good as they take. With regards to crosshairs and target symbols…I really have to fall back on my impression that Sarah Palin tries way to hard to boost her “I’m a rugged outdoors women, who can live of the land and shoot guns”…..etc…
I mean, she has to live down the whole “beauty queen” thing…
Use of those symbols IMO is just fine. Should we ban them? Make them illegal? Why? There is zero evidence of a causal relationship with the events of Saturday and those images. None.
I don’t want this next bit to come across as cras, but here it goes…..
I reject that we as a nation, based on the act of a lone, crazed murderer, need to overhaul or over think this. We tend to over-react. If you don’t believe me? I give you….TSA….DHS….Patriot Act……and the list goes on..
I don’t know. I have no answers, just sadness and anger over those lost and wounded, especially that little girl.
re 31: You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don’t know why I’m doing this…..
What is the citation for this?
@44..
No
@46
Nope
re 45: …and which party was the source of those hideous pieces of legislation. You guys DID declare a fake war in Iraq and demagogues the thing to where ‘pussy’ Democratic politicians voted along with it.
This you cite as ‘bi-partisan’ support for those travesties? Oh, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
Fine: Your side deserves 90% of the blame and mine 10%.
You have brought something to the table — but Krispy Kreme doesn’t cut it here.
re 47: “What is the citation for this?”
Ordinarily, I would think that you are trying to be a smart ass. But I think that word actually put you in a quandary.
Would the word ‘mention’ instead of ‘cite’ make it a little easier for you to divine my meaning?
Hint: I’m not talking about the Divinr Miss M or Andy Devine.
@43 – Here’s one. Scroll down:
“Bush, the only dope worth shooting”
@50
here ya go. Tell me again how it was “you guys”
http://www.bordc.org/involved/.....php?bill=3
http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....=s2001-295
http://educate-yourself.org/cn.....vote.shtml
Do you have any original thoughts?
@51
No, I’m pretty dense. Please provide a source for your comments.
Not even an apology, just an admission that politics had nothing to do with the shooting.
@Steve & Rujerk- so you’re both doubling down on stupid? Are you lying or delusional?
I’ll help you both out:
If you can’t cite proof that the shooter had political motivations and continue to blame politics, you’re lying. Quoting other liars is not proof.
If you can’t cite proof that the shooter had political motivations, you just know it must be true because Republicans ate your brain, you’re delusional. The nice men in white coats have a comfy jacket with extra long sleeves waiting for you.
Delbert, m’lad,
Going through life with ideological blinders on and an aversion to seeing what is actually happening out there ain’t no way to live life. C’mon, try to grasp what is, rather than what happens in your narrow little mind when you close your eyes. I actually feel sorry for people like you, except when I start thinking about how your nonthinking harms the planet.
@55 On ignore list.
@45 I can hear what you’re saying here. I haven’t considered that point about Palin ditching the beauty queen image and developing a Ms. Rugged Outdoorswoman persona. I didn’t see the “mama grizzly” thing as outdoorsy so much as an intent to be threatening. I’ve seen this in a much different context with her targeting a specific group that’s very angry and packing heat, with her pandering to that anger with possible consequences beyond her control. It’s a “don’t play with matches, especially near fireworks” kind of thing.
“There is zero evidence of a causal relationship with the events of Saturday and those images. None.”
Indded. Probably not. But we stand near a precipice. I went through the 60’s and that wasn’t shit compared to where we’re at now. Symbolism is fine. It’s at the heart of politics. But standing where we are, near the precipice, I believe we must give a lot more consideration to what symbolism we use. One reason is because you’re right, we’re not pussies. The perception that we are is a very dangerous misperception with possibly very dangerous consequences.
“I don’t want this next bit to come across as cras, but here it goes…..”
No, this doesn’t strike me as being crass at all. Like yourself, I don’t want to overhaul or to overthink. I just want to see us step back from the precipice. I believe this cannot be done unilaterally. That would likely be percieved as weakness, and that will not help.
“I don’t know. I have no answers, just sadness and anger over those lost and wounded, especially that little girl.”
This might be the most important piece of common ground that we share. Maybe we don’t need an overhaul or deep answers to complex questions. Perhaps we just need to take that first step back away from the precipice.
This is the precipice to the abyss. If we as a nation fall into the abyss we will not hit bottom and bounce back up. We’ll hit bottom and go splat. This is to say that more little girls will be buried and both you and I don’t want that.
For you and I, and I hope many others, that little girl’s death can having meaning and can inspire the kind of change that reaches to the heavens and touches her soul. I pray that the day comes when we can make her proud and that she can know that her passing wasn’t for nothing. I owe her that and I believe that you understand that you owe her that. You and I have taken a step back from the precipice. Maybe, just maybe, we’re doing something very important, you and I.
@29 Uh, pal, what we have going on here is a tiny handful of fringies on what you call the “left” (we, meaning progressives, mainstream liberals, and Democrats call them “fringies” and refuse to have anything to do with them) whereas on the right an entire goddamn political party and millions of its followers are rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, let-God-sort-em-out lunatics calling for mass exterminations and civil war. Apples and oranges.
If Loughner is a “lefty” as wingnuts claim, why didn’t he try to shoot a Republican congressman?
If Loughner didn’t have political motives as wingnuts claim, why did he attack a political meeting instead of a restaurant, school, college campus, or military installation?
@56
You’re avoiding the question. Can you even just admit the shooter is crazy or does it ruin the narrative running through the media, and the narrative can’t be allowed to fail?
@59 You mean like fringies like Paul Krugman and Keith Olberman?
@60 The Federal Judge was a Republican according to ABC News.
re 53: Your ‘information’ sources prove my point. It’s the goddam Republicans and the weak sister Democrats.
Where are your civil liberties going? The Bushistas took them away.
You are so fucking lame (and that’s a bipartisan opinion0. I found one Republican who agrees with me about that.
re 62: The whole point is that the inflamed rhetoric of that fat bastard Limbaugh and his ilk push the crazies over the edge.
If you can’t see that point, you are one of the crazies.
re 62: Nobel prizewinner Krugman is a ‘fringie’? Maybe in your Conservo-BizzarroWorld.
@54 Tandaleo
Please answer and provide the source for your comments
Understanding the meaning and intent and consequence of speech laden with violent imagery requires understanding who the speaker is, and, very importantly, who the intended audience is.
The right has been very quick to point out examples of left-leaning politicians whose words nominally contain images of guns and violence. This is disingenuous, at best. As has been discussed here, and here, these statements must be analyzed in context and with an understanding of the audience. (I know, I know, the right doesn’t do nuance, but I persevere) In particular, the wide swath of the conservatives for whom guns are a fetish, and the notion that armed citizens are the only restraint on a rapacious government, need be understood both as the intended audience, and as a group that is predisposed to viewing violence as a legitimate political act.
And by legitimate political act, I mean a spectrum of behavior from unquestioningly supporting war as a first tool of foreign relations to the belief that the right to bear arms is not about defending property from criminals or about hunting and recreation, but about affecting the behavior of government. I refer to the widespread belief (on the right) that only the possession of massive firepower by unregulated citizenry is all that stands between freedom and dictatorship.
As I’ve said here before, and Maddow did last night, these are the fever dreams of little boys hoping their (relative) pea shooters are going to keep away the boogyman. Just like my 7 year old did when taking a toy gun to bed to keep away the ‘ghosties’, these many many fervent gun-owners seem to think that their personal arsenals are going to keep the coercive force of the US government at bay. As Maddow asked, doesn’t that mean that they really need personal nukes? (using reductio ad absurdem to get at the absurd)
Again, this is part consequence of the view, stoked by the powerful and manipulative on the right, of the notion that government is this evil, alien, foreign thing that must be tamed. It’s a very valuable worldview from the POV of the very tiny very wealth elite for whom the whole process is working out just fine, and they’ve found a ready and willing audience of dupes to act against their own real interests in following such nonsense.
We have to get to the point that we all see that we’re in this together, and that government is us. That is not able to be accomplished with firearms, but with participation in government and with democracy.
@66
I believe he refers to Palin rallies, where she called Obama a terrorist (in essence) and audience members yelled “Kill him!”
For that, see here, or here.
@61
It is possible if in his delusions he became fixated on her. I mean that in the context of who can understand the insane?
@68
Interesting the secret service investigated and found both allegations false.
Right stuff:
Part of the point you are missing is what the “establishment” does when confronted with violent suggestions. When Rush Limbaugh, Tea party leaders, republican candidates for congress say or do things that are suggesting violence (such as the tea party congressional opponent of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (friend of Gabby Giffords) having a rally at a gun range and firing at a silhouette marked DWS) – where is the denouncement of the statements. Where are the republican leaders who stand up to Limbaugh?
I know that I denounce violent threats by crazy left-wingers and so do most democrats. It is true that there are crazies on both extremes – but what do the “respectable” leaders do?
Republicans…not so much denounciation. Where was the reply to Palin about the ad with cross-hairs (by the way, the republican excuse machine that those were not crosshairs is just too funny – anyone who has ever shot a gun knows what those are.
Where was the condemnation of the congressional candidate in Florida?
I sure did not see any republicans condemning it…
http://articles.sun-sentinel.c.....-and-range
When good people stand by and do nothing – that is what is truly scary.
@70
According to the Brits, the Secret Service linked Palin’s speeches and the tone of her rallies to an increase in death threats against the Obamas. Seems they were actually counting discrete, verifiable statements.
Do you really believe that her messaging has not been one of hate and alienation?
@70: Right Stuff
Words matter – they did not find the “evidence” false – they did not find enough evidence to prosecute…very different.
And in the same article it also relates how McCain failed to respond respond to a person in his campaign crowd clearly yelling out that Obama was a terrorist.
Again, political figures can not be held responsible for the crazies – but the failure to denounce or correct the crazies is the failure to marginalize them and implies acceptance.
@70 and 73
Guys, I’m not going to get into linking opposing evidence of both sides using extreme rhetoric. It’s been done. The evidence is there. If you believe that Repubicans are the only ones doing it, that’s your choice.
I’m not going to let the murderer in AZ have any more power. He is not going to cause me to “naval gaze” this any further.
People have a choice whether or not they appreciate or dislike political rhetoric. We are free to do it. This is not a “teaching moment” this is a tragic murder and attack.
That’s what this is to me. I denounce any and all political violence no matter the source. That’s not what this was. I hope our justice system finds dude guilty and he is put down. He should’nt IMO be allowed to steal anymore oxygen.
I continue to pray for the victims and families of those killed and wounded.
Have you not been listening at all? The point is about leadership and prominent people doing it, not responding to the crazies in their midst, and doing it amid a culture of gun-worship and anti-government paranoia.
Nope, wouldn’t want to engage in any introspection or dialogue, especially if the topic is the culture of violence and the evidence appears that the right is exploiting it in a much more vicious fashion.
I think that this event, whether there are discrete identifiable links between the shooter and Sarah Palin or not, has opened up a conversation that clearly was in the national psyche. I think many many people are very disturbed by the adulation of the gun, and the culture of violence that suffuses the right’s discourse, and the very disturbing link between the two.
You can cover your ears and say, “NA NA NA NA you guys do it too” all you want – we’ll have the conversation without you.
re 74: You pretend to be the soul of sweet reason as you play your game of equivalency — all the while refusing to confront the fact that you are wrong about this and have been proven wrong time after time.
You are a prevaricating liar. My source for this information is the stream of denial and obfuscation you present in this thread.
A valid rebuttal for every point you’ve attempted to make has been offered and ignored by you as you continue to repeat the same equivalency lie over and over.
Perhaps you should consult PuddWaxx on the therapist he’s found as your obdurate denial of what is clearly and demonstrably true (right wing overblown rhetoric inflames the insane to political violence)shows that you have an obsession about ‘never being in the wrong’.
Too bad someone told you that you were bringing something to the table. If you were, that has ceased quite a while back.
You belong on the ignore list.
@75 and 75: Welcome!
‘Rong stuff is worse than pudpuller, IMO. He’s the steam (and stench) on a pile of dogshit looking for a shoe.
It’s too bad some here (Steve) allowed / encouraged his whiny equivocation to go on for so long.
Re 77: 75 and 76
There were gun stores selling target Obama profile silhouettes for several months around the 2008 election, before and after. They were selling posters of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, with sticker packs of fluorescent green markers to mark where you’d hit the paper.
I don’t know of a single gun store anywhere, and I used to do business with a few, that did anything comparable with Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin.
I went to two teabagger rallies, just for shits and giggles, and what I saw was a very agitated montage of KKK, hard core white “christians”, obviously mentally ill skinhead types and many seriously uneducated people. The same sort of folks that go to book burning rallies. The same sort of folks that laugh out loud when they hear about a black man being grabbed off the street and dragged behind a pickup truck.
So, the responsibility for the rhetoric lies with the ones who speak it, and agree with it, not the ones they aim it at.
Shorter “Rong Stuff:
@74 “That’s not what this was.”
Bullshit. Loughner took his gun and 30-round ammo clips to a POLITICAL event and shot a DEMOCRAT.
It’s time for your side to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. Republicans are always prattling about “personal responsibility” but they never accept any. All we ever get from them is another shovelful of hypocrisy.
For over a decade now they have bombarded the airwaves with invective against liberals and eliminationist rhetoric. (“Socialists! Communists! Terrorists! Put them all in concentration camps! Execute them!”)
One of the people listening to that crap was Jared Loughner. Loughner is a very political guy. His YouTube videos parrot the ideology of a very rightwing guy. And … he took his gun and 30-round ammo clips to a POLITICAL event and shot a DEMOCRAT.
Get your head out of your ass.
75, 76 – Right Stuff is nothing but a craven apologist for the haters of the extreme right who go around saying they want civil war and can’t wait for it to start.
Maybe it just did — 20 people shot, with 6 dead, in the first salvo. Including a little girl.
Maybe they should think about the fact that war is indiscriminate — it kills everyone. Including the people who start it.
@76 and after….
Predictable.
LS
I simply mean that one lone, insane gunman will not get the “power” from me to alter my way of life. That is all.
Not hiding, or covering my ears. I’d argue those commenting after you are more likely to be covering their ears…and eyes…
Rabbit, tonadeleo, zotz, DF don’t offer anything to the conversation, just name calling etc etc etc… pathetic and predictable.
Let me help you all out….
It was George Bush’s fault…..
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@80 “It’s too bad some here (Steve) allowed / encouraged his whiny equivocation to go on for so long.”
My last post was @58. I’ve received no reply. I’m not responsible for any comments since then.
I tried to engage in dialog with someone on the other side. It’s about the only constructive thing I could come up with. It was an attempt to honor the dead and wounded. This thread, as with most here, is now going nowhere. I had hoped that it would turn out better.
I had earlier decided to quit responding to trolls. Most of these fucks with their vile comments have been begging to die. I’ve got better things to do than to go out of my way to oblige them. I’m mean, really, other than that, what’s left to do? I’m going to continue giving each of them a proper sendoff and that’s it for me.
Steve,
Agree, as always there is a few honest, thoughtful comments and then the “haters” pill on…
How do you have a meaningful dialogue with
I don’t and won’t waste my time.
At least you give an honest answer. I try to give mine.
Peace.
There have been some demonstrators in our town who have a huge poster of Obama with a Hitler moustache.
I want to pose behind them with a huge poster of George Washington with a Hitler moustache. It would be Kafkaesque in the gravest Woody Allen sense.
She won’t do it. She’s afraid they will hurt her.
re 85: You flogging the same dead horse for 2 days without acknowledging that we have a point is not my idea of a dialogue.
You are an ideologue and you have nothing to contribute here.
I’m being honest with you, too.
@84, Steve: That wasn’t a dig. You can be a nice as you wanna be.
It just bothers me that someone who is so clearly trying to be David Gergen — a passive aggressive slimeball — got to have his fantasies fulfilled here for so long.
It did surprise me a bit that your street sense didn’t pick that right up.
BTW: David Gergen is actually smart. ‘Rong stuff is just a passive aggressive slimeball.
.
Easy words from an internet tough guy…
Your mother must be so proud….
@81
Roger, you seem to have it backwards, as usual.
You keep banging the drum this guy was somehow a Republican, I’m stating he was just plain nuts, but it’s coming out the guy was drinking the lefty kool-aid. His favorite flicks are a film about anti-Christian, post-modern socialism and a truther flick?
BTW, neither of those have popped up in the rotation at GOP movie night.
AP: “Loughner’s favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie
Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the Christ myth theory, alternative theories for the parties responsible for the September 11th attacks and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(film)
Loose Change is a series of films released between 2005 and 2009 which argue that the September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and conducted by elements within the United States government, and base the claims on perceived anomalies in the historical record of the attacks. The films were written and directed by Dylan Avery, and produced by Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas and Matthew Brown.
@90
The guy was nutters, that’s for sure. But, even nutters are influenced by what goes on around them.
And in AZ “what goes on around” mostly stinks right.
@90 On ignore list.
I can understand the liberal-fascist thing Republicans are into calling us. After all, Hitler was obviously a flower-waving hippie who would never do harm to a commie, well, other than kill them all. But truthers? I’ve been hearing this one more and more of late. The raging psychotic who posts in the third person often pulls that one out. Where do these wingnut freaks come up with this shit? Can’t they come up with something to slam us with that doesn’t require a sixth-degree of separation disconnect from reality?
@84, “Steve: That wasn’t a dig.”
I know. I would have put a smiley face there but I don’t do that kind of thing.
“You can be a nice as you wanna be.”
Just an abberation, I’m sure, as it doesn’t happen very often.