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

[California Girl]

Where in Sheriff Dupniks quote does he mention Republicans? Where does he mention Conservatives?

Why is it when anti-government speech, vitriol , anger hatred and bigotry is mentioned that the right wing assumes it is about them?

For the record, he did go on to specifically mention Rush. But that is not the point. The point is that he voiced his opinion in a press conference. Press conferences by law enforcement are supposed to be to brief the media on factually accurate information to inform the public. They are NOT about giving a personal opinion.

I would have thought this was fucking obvious.

He was asked about Rush after Rush had attacked him.

He did not state opinion. What he stated was factually correct. He stated a possible motive which is within his responsibilities. He knows his community better than anyone. He held a mirror up to the state of political affairs and it was not pretty. That is why the right wing attacked him so viciously

No, it was not 'factually accurate'. It was not a 'possible motive'. It was an opinion about rhetoric.... the equivalent of saying 'the perp was probably black because most violent crime is committed by blacks'.

 

[G.T.]

It's Journalistic Standards to bash a side of the Political spectrum with a no-holds-barred, unapologetic bias?

Yes, it is. What a journalist should no do (and this is where the standards apply).... is to lie, misrepresent facts, or provide opinion as fact. That's where this whole shit started. The liberal media lied. And when the right wing defends itself against those lies, we're told that "it's not about you, you're not the victims"..... The liberal media made the right wing the victims by accusing them of being accessories to a bloodbath. And it was not true. There is no evidence to back up that claim.

Would you not be outraged by Fox News if they had run with the 'left wing extremist' angle within an hour of the tragedy? Would you not be screaming blue murder about Fox lies? You would. You know that. I know that. So why do you hold the right to a different standard?

Journalists should report actual stories, not political hit pieces. This guy's article is not without intent, and the intent is that which makes him political, and not having said standards.

 

[teapartysamurai]

nile gardiner.

political hack.

"journalistic standards", hahah.

You just proved you don't know what 'journalistic standards' means.

please explain what journalistic standards are and why you posted about it.

and no deflecting to "secret sources".

Your entire argument is a deflection.

What has that got to do with the quotes from the article?

Unless you are have evidence they were never made, your argument is mute.

Harold Meyerson, The Washington Post, January 12, 2011

The primary problem with the political discourse of the right in today’s America isn’t that it incites violence per se. It’s that it implants and reinforces paranoid fears about the government and conservatism’s domestic adversaries.

Much of the culture and thinking of the American right – the mainstream as well as the fringe – has descended into paranoid suppositions about the government, the Democrats and the president. This is not to say that the left wing doesn’t have a paranoid fringe, too. But by every available measure, it’s the right where conspiracy theories have exploded. A fabricated specter of impending governmental totalitarianism haunts the right’s dreams.

… That doesn’t make Beck, Erickson, Rupert Murdoch and their ilk responsible for Tucson. It does make them responsible for promoting a paranoid culture that makes America a more divided and dangerous land.​

A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous left-wing attacks on US conservatives following the Arizona shootings – Telegraph Blogs
​

 

[G.T.]

So to ask Mr. O'Reilly's question. If the poooodink knew the rhetoric was "hot down there" the enviornment was toxic, and that the Congresswoman had been threatened before why in the sam hill didn't he have the foresight to place some security around Mrs. Giffords. This sheriff is bad at politics and bad at his job.

I don't answer for the Sheriff's competence.

I rest my case.

What case might that be?

 

[jillian]

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

Actually, it's about the media publishing accusations with no basis in fact. But don't let the facts get in the way of more total fucking bullshit.

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

and palin's diatribe was all about her her her...

not an ounce or compassion or interest in others.

and even if there was no relationship between *this* shooter and the congress woman... what about the next? and the next after that?? why the need to hold onto violent imagery? do they feel macho? is it an intimidation factor? you know, we'll shot you and start a revolution if we don't get our way?

or is it that palin only cares about talking to the type of person who thinks violence is the appropriate means of problem solving? you know, the whole insane second amendment remedies thing...

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Where in Sheriff Dupniks quote does he mention Republicans? Where does he mention Conservatives?

Why is it when anti-government speech, vitriol , anger hatred and bigotry is mentioned that the right wing assumes it is about them?

For the record, he did go on to specifically mention Rush. But that is not the point. The point is that he voiced his opinion in a press conference. Press conferences by law enforcement are supposed to be to brief the media on factually accurate information to inform the public. They are NOT about giving a personal opinion.

I would have thought this was fucking obvious.

Oh yes Dupnik went on to blame Rush:

It Begins… Sheriff Dupnik Goes There – Blames Rush Limbaugh For Shootings (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

 

[teapartysamurai]

Where in Sheriff Dupniks quote does he mention Republicans? Where does he mention Conservatives?

Why is it when anti-government speech, vitriol , anger hatred and bigotry is mentioned that the right wing assumes it is about them?

For the record, he did go on to specifically mention Rush. But that is not the point. The point is that he voiced his opinion in a press conference. Press conferences by law enforcement are supposed to be to brief the media on factually accurate information to inform the public. They are NOT about giving a personal opinion.

I would have thought this was fucking obvious.

He was asked about Rush after Rush had attacked him.

He did not state opinion. What he stated was factually correct. He stated a possible motive which is within his responsibilities. He knows his community better than anyone. He held a mirror up to the state of political affairs and it was not pretty. That is why the right wing attacked him so viciously

Um try again?

He did not state opinion??????

 

[georgephillip]

According to Justine Sharrock's "Explained: Jared Loughner's Grammar Obession" many of Loughner's seemingly random statements and references to 'grammar,' 'the ratifications,' 'the new currency' echo the teachings of the "sovereign citizen" movement, " a right wing school of thought alleging Americans have been surreptitiously stripped of their God-given rights."

"These are not random parallels, as I discovered in reviewing Loughner's YouTube videos.

"In multiple instances, he uses the precise talking points sovereign-citizen theorists teach via a thriving cottage industry of books, websites, bogus legal companies, and seminars; one popular theorist, David Wynn Miller, told the New York Times that Loughner has 'probably been on my website.'

"(It's important to note that the sovereign-citizen movement is a philosophy, not an organized movement; Loughner's interest in its teachings doesn't implicate any individuals or organizations in his actions.)

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

Actually, it's about the media publishing accusations with no basis in fact. But don't let the facts get in the way of more total fucking bullshit.

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

and palin's diatribe was all about her her her...

not an ounce or compassion or interest in others.

and even if there was no relationship between *this* shooter and the congress woman... what about the next? and the next after that?? why the need to hold onto violent imagery? do they feel macho? is it an intimidation factor? you know, we'll shot you and start a revolution if we don't get our way?

or is it that palin only cares about talking to the type of person who thinks violence is the appropriate means of problem solving? you know, the whole insane second amendment remedies thing...

In other words we have another liberal who agrees with every over the top quote in the op.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't answer for the Sheriff's competence.

I rest my case.

What case might that be?

The sheriff was a political hack who wasn't doing his job.

 

[G.T.]

I rest my case.

What case might that be?

The sheriff was a political hack who wasn't doing his job.

And I never commented on whether or not he was doing his job.
I said that I agreed with the paragraph. I still do.

 

[jillian]

Actually, it's about the media publishing accusations with no basis in fact. But don't let the facts get in the way of more total fucking bullshit.

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

and palin's diatribe was all about her her her...

not an ounce or compassion or interest in others.

and even if there was no relationship between *this* shooter and the congress woman... what about the next? and the next after that?? why the need to hold onto violent imagery? do they feel macho? is it an intimidation factor? you know, we'll shot you and start a revolution if we don't get our way?

or is it that palin only cares about talking to the type of person who thinks violence is the appropriate means of problem solving? you know, the whole insane second amendment remedies thing...

In other words we have another liberal who agrees with every over the top quote in the op.

only a moron would extrapolate that from what i said.

oh yeah, right..

nevermind.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I can agree with this, and he did go on to blame specifics, but in this paragraph quoted I agree with his statements 100%.

So to ask Mr. O'Reilly's question. If the poooodink knew the rhetoric was "hot down there" the enviornment was toxic, and that the Congresswoman had been threatened before why in the sam hill didn't he have the foresight to place some security around Mrs. Giffords. This sheriff is bad at politics and bad at his job.

I don't answer for the Sheriff's competence.

Just stand behind his comments.

 

[Mr Natural]

The more they claim their innocence in this mess, the more complicit they look.

Keep it up, morons!

 

[teapartysamurai]

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

and palin's diatribe was all about her her her...

not an ounce or compassion or interest in others.

and even if there was no relationship between *this* shooter and the congress woman... what about the next? and the next after that?? why the need to hold onto violent imagery? do they feel macho? is it an intimidation factor? you know, we'll shot you and start a revolution if we don't get our way?

or is it that palin only cares about talking to the type of person who thinks violence is the appropriate means of problem solving? you know, the whole insane second amendment remedies thing...

In other words we have another liberal who agrees with every over the top quote in the op.

only a moron would extrapolate that from what i said.

oh yeah, right..

nevermind.

Oh really????????????

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

Oh we would NEVER extrapolate from that, that you blame conservatives for the shooting.

You have a quote of giffords saying she was scared of the cross hairs?

And why would that be? Because, Palin cost so many of her ilk their jobs last November?

 

[G.T.]

So to ask Mr. O'Reilly's question. If the poooodink knew the rhetoric was "hot down there" the enviornment was toxic, and that the Congresswoman had been threatened before why in the sam hill didn't he have the foresight to place some security around Mrs. Giffords. This sheriff is bad at politics and bad at his job.

I don't answer for the Sheriff's competence.

Just stand behind his comments.

I 110% stand behind the paragraph in your linked blog, yes. Yes I do.

 

[WillowTree]

The left looks soooooooooooooooo bad they are begging the right to sit with them at the SOTU.. I've never seen them so pathetic, so humbled.





Now in stead of playing one side jack in the box we can see them play every other jack in the box. It will be fun really.

 

[California Girl]

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

Actually, it's about the media publishing accusations with no basis in fact. But don't let the facts get in the way of more total fucking bullshit.

not really... the truth is that giffords was scared of palin's cross hairs and knew what could happen. it's the right that has run amuck. and palin's disgusting BS about 'blood libel' was the mischaracterization. it's the same mentality that makes some in the christian majority act like they're victims if they're not allowed to put a creche in a school....

and palin's diatribe was all about her her her...

not an ounce or compassion or interest in others.

and even if there was no relationship between *this* shooter and the congress woman... what about the next? and the next after that?? why the need to hold onto violent imagery? do they feel macho? is it an intimidation factor? you know, we'll shot you and start a revolution if we don't get our way?

or is it that palin only cares about talking to the type of person who thinks violence is the appropriate means of problem solving? you know, the whole insane second amendment remedies thing...

There is no link between the shooter and Palin. There is no evidence that he visited the site or was in any way influenced by the 'cross hairs'. And, for the record, the use of 'targets' in the media is pretty mundane.

Palin uses the language of her audience. They understand it. It is not about violence - it is about the ballot box.

It pisses me off that I have to defend Palin... she's a fucking moron.

 

[mudwhistle]

nile gardiner.

political hack.

"journalistic standards", hahah.

You just proved you don't know what 'journalistic standards' means.

please explain what journalistic standards are and why you posted about it.

and no deflecting to "secret sources".

What makes someone a journalist? What makes someone a commentator or an entertainer?

A journalist is supposed to report the facts, plain and simple. They are duty bound to adhere to a code of ethics. If not they're pure entertainers. Using fiction and attempting to pass it off as fact.

Commentators spin the news and offer opinion.

Entertainers make it up as they go along.

Journalists are held to a higher standard.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The more they claim their innocence in this mess, the more complicit they look.

Keep it up, morons!

The more liberals try to spin this mess away from themselves the more they look like they are trying to have us forget who started it.