A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous liberal atta

[blastoff]

Well, blaming Reaganomics is ridiculously stupid.

Hell yes. Besides, everyone knows it was Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al responsible for the lunatic pulling the trigger. Try to keep up!

 

[Truthmatters]

Well, blaming Reaganomics is ridiculously stupid.

"# The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion.

"That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years.

"In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.


# Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion."

Speaking of ridiculously stupid

How I wish facts really mattered.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's so shameful about this?

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth.

But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder.

Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

Seriously. Someone argue to me that those points are worthy of being labeled the most shameful of the week. Bring it on.

I take issue with "phoney plausible deniability."

It contradicts the rest of his statement, because what's the opposite of denying?

What is plausible deniability? It's the condition where, put simply, a direct link can't be established between Person A and Person B. If Bill O'reilly rants for years about Tiller the Baby Killer, and then someone shoots Tiller, can O'Reilly be held liable? No. Was his rhetoric inflammatory and hateful? Yes. Did his rhetoric contribute to a hateful climate? Yes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan and his fucking wealth transfer programs like Social Security Medicare and Medicaid and failed $850B Stimulus have ruined the country

 

[georgephillip]

Reaganomics Caused Tucson Shooting, Says CNN Guest

I personally ALSO blame the Battle of Hastings, the NEW DEAL, and of course one can immediately connect the dots from the administration of Warren G Harding to this tragic event, too.

In fact, everything that ever happened in the world lead up to this shooting.

And everything that happened in this world is leading up to my taking another sip of coffee, too.

My goodness, folks, isn't it time to move on, yet?

Personally, I'm reaching for the Red Bull.
It's a damn holiday, Ed.

Tell me your honest opinion of Karma's possible role in Tuscon's head shot.

In 2001 Gabrielle Giffords made a pilgrimage to Israel that she called a turning point in her life. That same year Israeli forces killed 103 children, 31 by head shots.

"Ironically, the American Congresswoman recently so tragically shot in the head has been extremely close to the Israel lobby, which has played a critical role in enabling the tragedies sketched above.

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) works year after year to ensure that the approximately $7-8 million per day of American tax to Israel /13/ keeps flowing regardless of how many civilians its troops kill. "

See: Shot in the Head

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, blaming Reaganomics is ridiculously stupid.

"# The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion.

"That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years.

"In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.


# Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion."

Speaking of ridiculously stupid

How I wish facts really mattered.

You are genuinely certifiable

 

[G.T.]

What's so shameful about this?

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth.

But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder.

Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

Seriously. Someone argue to me that those points are worthy of being labeled the most shameful of the week. Bring it on.

I take issue with "phoney plausible deniability."

It contradicts the rest of his statement, because what's the opposite of denying?

What is plausible deniability? It's the condition where, put simply, a direct link can't be established between Person A and Person B. If Bill O'reilly rants for years about Tiller the Baby Killer, and then someone shoots Tiller, can O'Reilly be held liable? No. Was his rhetoric inflammatory and hateful? Yes. Did his rhetoric contribute to a hateful climate? Yes.

In his article, he states: Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill.

Then, he stated that their plausible deniability was "phony," in other words, he's saying they ARE in fact responsible, which is ludacrous. Otherwise, their denial is not a phony one.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did Kanye West and the MSM contribute to a racist climate when he claimed Bush didn't care for Blacks during Katrina?

You bet your ass they did.



Let's get real here.

The question is what caused the attack. Who gives a shit what the atmosphere was because according to his friend, the shooter wasn't tapped into reality.

 

[georgephillip]

Reagan and his fucking wealth transfer programs like Social Security Medicare and Medicaid and failed $850B Stimulus have ruined the country

Have you forgotten/forgiven Wall Street's $13 trillion contribution to our ruin?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I take issue with "phoney plausible deniability."

It contradicts the rest of his statement, because what's the opposite of denying?

What is plausible deniability? It's the condition where, put simply, a direct link can't be established between Person A and Person B. If Bill O'reilly rants for years about Tiller the Baby Killer, and then someone shoots Tiller, can O'Reilly be held liable? No. Was his rhetoric inflammatory and hateful? Yes. Did his rhetoric contribute to a hateful climate? Yes.

In his article, he states: Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill.

Then, he stated that their plausible deniability was "phony," in other words, he's saying they ARE in fact responsible, which is ludacrous. Otherwise, their denial is not a phony one.

Point taken. I would have to hear the author explain his choice of words. The phoniness might be that of rightwing media's general refusal to concede even an inch on whether the rhetoric contributes to a hostile, divisive environment.

 

[rightwinger]

Did Kanye West and the MSM contribute to a racist climate when he claimed Bush didn't care for Blacks during Katrina?

You bet your ass they did.



Let's get real here.

The question is what caused the attack. Who gives a shit what the atmosphere was because according to his friend, the shooter wasn't tapped into reality.

Must have missed the crosshairs and second amendment remedies part......

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course it does, but in this case as has been pointed out, the claim is patently false, and everyone knows it. Even the perps know it. But that never stops them from opening their mouths.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and i called callybrat out for trying to lend this opinion piece more credibility by introducing "journalistic standards". that sidetrack is all hers.

even funnier coming from the phony loudmouth that has posted a myriad of times how much she does not give weight to blogs.

but this blog she agrees with, therefore it meets her standard.

next time a blog from the telegraph is posted here, you will be able to see her shifting her opinion depending on the content of the blog.

The best irony of what CG did?

She claimed credibility for the blogger by claiming that the Telegraph had strict standards about bloggers and wouldn't allow baseless claims,

then she refused to back up her claim, which made HER claim baseless, which, according to her,

would mean that the Telegraph would reject HER as blogger. lol

 

[daveman]

Oh it's not whining dear, it's NOT going to sit here and turn the other cheek this time while you all LIBEL and SLANDER OTHERS.

You will be HELD RESPONSIBLE. We will make sure of that.

Classic SOB Story

Citizens are dead in the street and all the Conservatives care about is whining about how they are the REAL Victims here

Breaks my heart Steph.........breaks my heart

Yeah! You all shut up and let the left stand on the bodies and point fingers at the right!

 

[Toro]

Well, blaming Reaganomics is ridiculously stupid.

"# The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion.

"That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years.

"In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.


# Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion."

Speaking of ridiculously stupid

Right.

And how does Reagan's deficits have anything to do with an insane man shooting up a grocery store?

 

[daveman]

I just love how the horrific Tucson shootings have now become about how rightwingers were called names.

Talk about shameless victimization from the right? Can you guys possiblu be bigger drama queens?

Its not about Giffords, its not about a dead 9 year old and five other victims

Its all about poor Sarah Palin and her right wing counterparts being the victims

The left made them the victims when they started accusing them, purely for political gain, of having connections to this slaughter, when they knew fully well that they didn't. So if you're upset that the focus has shifted off the real tragedy, well, you have only yourselves to blame.

The left turned them into a bunch of whiny little girls. How many were arrested? How many served time?

What?

Their feelings were hurt? Right wing talk radio and FoxNews spend more time whining about how their dignity was besmirched than about the fact that 6 Americans lost their lives

They are an embarassment

You should be embarrassed about standing on the body of the little girl to point fingers.

But you lack the class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

The shooting was an assassination attempt on a politician, on a political officeholder. If you were to add up all the assassinations/attempts on politicians, and assigned them a motive,

would most of them be political? If so, then Krugman is factually correct in assessing the odds. If not, then he is wrong.

Only problem is Loughner turns out to be a Pothead who didn't listen to talk radio.

Didn't stop Krugman from adding this.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

What is wrong in what Krugman said? Everything, and that becomes more obvious, the more we know about Loughner.

:

Seems like almost nobody on the right believes that the creation of a climate of hate by propagandists with an agenda could EVER contribute to violence in America,

but how many of those same people are all but certain that a climate of hate created by Muslim extremists (i.e. propagandists with an agenda) DOES contribute to violence????

 

[daveman]

I think all ten articles/comments quoted were over the line, except that I agree with #3.

3. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Press Conference, Tucson, January 8, 2011
When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

So, you agree that a US Law Officer should, in an official media conference, to brief the media on updates in the investigation - should go ahead and blame the incident on a specific group - with absolutely no actual evidence to back that up? You think that a police officer should name Rush Limbaugh as being responsible for the shooting? You think it is ok to mix fact and opinion from a police spokesperson?

Really?

You might agree with the sentiments. But what you are saying is that you think it's ok for him to have come from this particular source. Personally, I find that worrisome.

In that paragraph, he's not blaming a group and not naming Rush Limbaugh. I agree with that paragraph.

And let's not forget, Sheriffs are Elected. They are political. It's not some pius position.

He's not blaming a group? Then can you point out to us the liberals who are spouting "vitriol...about tearing down the government"?

 

[daveman]

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

Allowing your bloggers to inject opinion is the lack of standard everyone's telling you about. That it's opinion based in fact or not doesn't change that, it's injecting an opinion at all.

Which is what Sheriff Dupnik did.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh it's not whining dear, it's NOT going to sit here and turn the other cheek this time while you all LIBEL and SLANDER OTHERS.

You will be HELD RESPONSIBLE. We will make sure of that.

Classic SOB Story

Citizens are dead in the street and all the Conservatives care about is whining about how they are the REAL Victims here

Breaks my heart Steph.........breaks my heart

Yeah! You all shut up and let the left stand on the bodies and point fingers at the right!

Poor right wingers.....always playing the victim card

People called us names because we talk about "Second amendment remedies and armed insurrection against the gubmint"

What a bunch of drama queens....always about them