Massacre, Followed by Libel

[MarcATL]

When did the Right come together to decide they would all but unanimously support the idea that words don't have consequences? That what comes out of the media can't influence anyone's behaviour?

Setting aside Loughner for a moment, when did that change of heart, as a general principle occur?

Excellent questions...excellent!

When did the Right come together to decide they would all but unanimously support the idea that words don't have consequences? That what comes out of the media can't influence anyone's behaviour?

Setting aside Loughner for a moment, when did that change of heart, as a general principle occur?

when a hint of having to own up came about

It appears that way.

Yeah..the shooting of a Democratic Representative..is just about as random as it gets.

See?

Yep...politics had NOTHING to do with it. She could have been a teacher, janitor or secretary...same thing would have happened you know. Honest.

Let's just say I'd be surprised if there aren't a whole lot of lawsuits and Senate hearings in the near future.

Then I'd prepare to be "surprised" if I were you.

wrong, conservatives dont "hate" government
we believe in smaller more efficient government

even though the GOP insists on growing the government almost as much as the dems do

Wasn't it Reagan, the literal RW Messiah, who coined the now infamous, and oft used term: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help?"

Does that not, at least suggest, hate for the government?

Ronald Reagan - Wikiquote

The left has blamed them/the right since the shooting. How do you not know this? Hell, even the AZ sheriff blamed the right. Krauthammer isn't the liar.

Really? Did the sherriff identify the right specifically?

His comments, combined with all the shit that the left is flinging? Yup, pretty much. Aside from which the vitriol isn't the boogyman, Loughner is. The sheriff should have just keet his trap shut and done his job.

Really?!?? Please provide evidence that he made a direct connection.

Thanks.

At the same time it appears that these same talkers don't seem to want to engage in the wider conversation about how their eliminationist rhetoric has the potential effect of stirring other people up. .

How big does the government have to get before you object?
Or is it about the Rs And Ds?

What does that have to do with this?

What the RWer is suggesting is that its OK to hate the government. More specifically, THIS government administration. It's tantamount to an excuse.

No one has been libeled.

Someone make a case for libel, let's say, against Palin. Let's hear it.

Krauthammer did.

You'll have to be more specific, granny.

You'll have a very hard time getting specifics from the majority of the Right on here. Vague seems to be the new black on that side.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC spent most of his shows last week blasting Sarah Palin for just about everything.
Every show Monday through and including Friday spent a good portion bashing Sarah.Chris Mathews doesn't miss his chance to poke fun at her every chance he gets.But to link her to this event is deplorable.They say they are not then then spend the rest or most of the show linking her.Must be a legal thing to cover their asses or maybe to give them a clear conscience if anything bad happens....Well maybe they should use their own advise about turning down the noise.

Death threats against Sarah Palin spike after Tucson, Arizona shooting and 'blood libel' claim

So you listen to his radio show or watch his TV show every day?

 

[Rozman]

When did the Right come together to decide they would all but unanimously support the idea that words don't have consequences? That what comes out of the media can't influence anyone's behaviour?

Setting aside Loughner for a moment, when did that change of heart, as a general principle occur?

Excellent questions...excellent!

when a hint of having to own up came about

It appears that way.

Yep...politics had NOTHING to do with it. She could have been a teacher, janitor or secretary...same thing would have happened you know. Honest.

Then I'd prepare to be "surprised" if I were you.

Wasn't it Reagan, the literan RW Messiah, who coined the now infamous, and oft used term: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help?"

Does that not, at least suggest, hate for the government?

Ronald Reagan - Wikiquote

Really?!?? Please provide evidence that he made a direct connection.

Thanks.

What the RWer is suggesting is that its OK to hate the government. More specifically, THIS government administration. It's tantamount to an excuse.

You'll have to be more specific, granny.

You'll have a very hard time getting specifics from the majority of the Right on here. Vague seems to be the new black on that side.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC spent most of his shows last week blasting Sarah Palin for just about everything.
Every show Monday through and including Friday spent a good portion bashing Sarah.Chris Mathews doesn't miss his chance to poke fun at her every chance he gets.But to link her to this event is deplorable.They say they are not then then spend the rest or most of the show linking her.Must be a legal thing to cover their asses or maybe to give them a clear conscience if anything bad happens....Well maybe they should use their own advise about turning down the noise.

Death threats against Sarah Palin spike after Tucson, Arizona shooting and 'blood libel' claim

So you listen to his radio show or watch his TV show every day?

If you want to know my listening habits here they are.

In the car which I'm in 30% of the day it's music in the morning,Noon till 3 it's Rush,I sneak over to Ed Schultz just to see what topic he starts the show off with....why bother it's Sarah Palin....3-6 pm it's usually Hannity.6 pm I give Mark Levin a few minutes....
Love that guy.

At home around 6PM-7PM It's angry guy Schultz then Mathews 7PM-8PM then 8PM-9PM Bill O'Reilly 9PM-10PM It's Hannity...Some time I stay up for Gretta.

Anyway I split my time 50-50 between the left and the right, some days I skip Ed Schultz
I watch him for the laughs....I'ts amazing how dishonest he is when he reports on things that the right is doing,he leaves out a few things like the truth.

Anything else you need to know,I'm always here.

I have a few stories about some intestinal issues I had the last couple of days...Let me know if you want them and I will email them to you....I don't want to share them with everyone....

 

[MarcATL]

If you want to know my listening habits here they are.

In the car which I'm in 30% of the day it's music in the morning,Noon till 3 it's Rush,I sneak over to Ed Schultz just to see what topic he starts the show off with....why bother it's Sarah Palin....3-6 pm it's usually Hannity.6 pm I give Mark Levin a few minutes....
Love that guy.

At home around 6PM-7PM It's angry guy Schultz then Mathews 7PM-8PM then 8PM-9PM Bill O'Reilly 9PM-10PM It's Hannity...Some time I stay up for Gretta.

Anyway I split my time 50-50 between the left and the right, some days I skip Ed Schultz
I watch him for the laughs....I'ts amazing how dishonest he is when he reports on things that the right is doing,he leaves out a few things like the truth.

Anything else you need to know,I'm always here.

I have a few stories about some intestinal issues I had the last couple of days...Let me know if you want them and I will email them to you....I don't want to share them with everyone....

Although you do seem to honestly see what the other side is saying, I'd hardly call it 50/50.

Thanks for that though.

 

[editec]

The left has blamed them/the right since the shooting. How do you not know this? Hell, even the AZ sheriff blamed the right. Krauthammer isn't the liar.

Really? Did the sherriff identify the right specifically?

ah, so his use of the broad brush gives him that out


i get it

Don't you find it odd that when a person speaks about the toxic hateful political environment it's the RIGHTISTS who immediately imagine that they're the people the speaker is talking about?

Why is that, do you suppose?

 

[MarcATL]

Don't you find it odd that when a person speaks about the toxic hateful political environment it's the RIGHTISTS who immediately imagine that they're the people the speaker is talking about?

Why is that, do you suppose?

Things that make me go "Hmmmm....!"

 

[daveman]

hmm....




Methinks the Cons doth protest too much.

You know exactly what the left is doing. And you agree with it.

You mean pointing out how nasty and potentially dangerous the eliminationist rhetoric from the right has been since even before the current Prez took office? Yeah, I guess I do.

Of course you do. And you conveniently ignore the hateful rhetoric coming from the left.

 

[peach174]

It started with just two - a blogger and a sheriff putting blame of political retoric on the shooter in Tucson and then it just took off from there.
It has been proven that it wasn't, yet they still are trying to tone down political speech.
You keep repeating untruth's over and over again then you can get political movement's that you want. The left are very excellent at doing this. It's been working for them for 45 years or more.
We need to get the spining out. Look at the Rep. Alan Grayson -with his stupid spining that he was doing. He was fired was'nt he?

 

[daveman]

liberal hate speech DOES lead to violence

conservative hate speech DOES NOT!

right?

Who's saying that?

Palin did.

First she said the 'blood libel' against her was the left inciting violence. Then she said the crime begins and ends with the criminal, which is another way of saying there's no such thing as incitement. Of course THEN she was referring to any incitement Loughner may have acted on.

Oh, you mean the incitement that no one has been able to show Laughner was exposed to? The incitement the left desperately insists he saw simply because they want to blame the right for this tragedy? That incitement?

 

[daveman]

Really? Did the sherriff identify the right specifically?

ah, so his use of the broad brush gives him that out


i get it

Don't you find it odd that when a person speaks about the toxic hateful political environment it's the RIGHTISTS who immediately imagine that they're the people the speaker is talking about?

Why is that, do you suppose?

Because mostly the left refuses to see the hateful rhetoric coming from the left.

 

[Sarah G]

Why oh why to Cons continue to create threads like this when the whole thing looks so bad for you and your gunhappy teaparty faction?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why oh why to Cons continue to create threads like this when the whole thing looks so bad for you and your gunhappy teaparty faction?

Lunkhead much?

 

[Sarah G]

Why oh why to Cons continue to create threads like this when the whole thing looks so bad for you and your gunhappy teaparty faction?

Lunkhead much?

Does this indecipherable babble mean you disagree?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why oh why to Cons continue to create threads like this when the whole thing looks so bad for you and your gunhappy teaparty faction?

Lunkhead much?

Does this indecipherable babble mean you disagree?

Did you read the OP and my comment? It means that neither right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had squat to do with Lougner's rampage. I thought the OP was pretty clear and didn't need further explanation. Apparently not.


edit: There isn't any proof that right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had anything to do with his rampage. But that isn't stopping the spin, is it?

 

[Sarah G]

Lunkhead much?

Does this indecipherable babble mean you disagree?

Did you read the OP and my comment? It means that neither right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had squat to do with Lougner's rampage. I thought the OP was pretty clear and didn't need further explanation. Apparently not.


edit: There isn't any proof that right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had anything to do with his rampage. But that isn't stopping the spin, is it?

Oh one of the parties uses violent imagery as strategy. I think we both know which party is guilty of that.

 

[WillowTree]

Does this indecipherable babble mean you disagree?

Did you read the OP and my comment? It means that neither right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had squat to do with Lougner's rampage. I thought the OP was pretty clear and didn't need further explanation. Apparently not.


edit: There isn't any proof that right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had anything to do with his rampage. But that isn't stopping the spin, is it?

Oh one of the parties uses violent imagery as strategy. I think we both know which party is guilty of that.

Yep... lunkhead it is. please review the Bush years, and please review the Hanging of Sarah Palin in effigy, course when that happened it was called "free speech"

 

[DiveCon]

Does this indecipherable babble mean you disagree?

Did you read the OP and my comment? It means that neither right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had squat to do with Lougner's rampage. I thought the OP was pretty clear and didn't need further explanation. Apparently not.


edit: There isn't any proof that right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had anything to do with his rampage. But that isn't stopping the spin, is it?

Oh one of the parties uses violent imagery as strategy. I think we both know which party is guilty of that.

sorry sarah, but you are proving how inept you are in the political arena again

 

[DiveCon]

so once again we have a devoted leftist saying that crosshairs are violent imagery and bullseyes are not


thanks sarahG

 

[Sarah G]

Did you read the OP and my comment? It means that neither right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had squat to do with Lougner's rampage. I thought the OP was pretty clear and didn't need further explanation. Apparently not.


edit: There isn't any proof that right or left wing rhetoric/violent political imagery had anything to do with his rampage. But that isn't stopping the spin, is it?

Oh one of the parties uses violent imagery as strategy. I think we both know which party is guilty of that.

Yep... lunkhead it is. please review the Bush years, and please review the Hanging of Sarah Palin in effigy, course when that happened it was called "free speech"

And yet another example of indecipherable babble. Sarah Palin and friends are their own worst enemies.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh one of the parties uses violent imagery as strategy. I think we both know which party is guilty of that.

Yep... lunkhead it is. please review the Bush years, and please review the Hanging of Sarah Palin in effigy, course when that happened it was called "free speech"

And yet another example of indecipherable babble. Sarah Palin and friends are their own worst enemies.

I can't help it if you find the english language indecipherable.

 

[Sarah G]

so once again we have a devoted leftist saying that crosshairs are violent imagery and bullseyes are not


thanks sarahG

Only because Palin/Bachman were bringing that imagery home with violent verbage. Reload, armed and dangerous, etc..