Need to point fingers? Use the facts.

[blastoff]

Liberal media framing a debate without a shred of evidence...which turns out to be total hogwash.

Neither right nor left wing rhetoric had a thing to do with Loughner, Tuscon or Rep Giffords.

The facts bear it out.

So what is the left calling attention to?

Scoring political points against those they disagree with.

Can't waste a crisis. It's in their playbook, their DNA.

 

[rdean]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

The rhetoric that absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

You are making an assumption. Either way, it's an assumption.

Did the offices of Democrats being vandalized across the nation have anything to do with the rhetoric? Even that's an assumption.

 

[rdean]

Liberal media framing a debate without a shred of evidence...which turns out to be total hogwash.

Neither right nor left wing rhetoric had a thing to do with Loughner, Tuscon or Rep Giffords.

The facts bear it out.

So what is the left calling attention to?

Scoring political points against those they disagree with.

Can't waste a crisis. It's in their playbook, their DNA.

Liberal William Ayers blew up an empty office building because he wanted to make a statement and didn't want to hurt anyone.

Conservative Timothy McVeigh blew up a post office killing 168 men, women and children and injuring scores of others because he wanted to make a statement and kill as many as possible.

The radical right and the radical left have different values and that shows up in the way they do things.

 

[peach174]

The county sheriff's department does NOT get its money from the state.

Napolitano left the state in deep debt.

This is all moot anyway, just a pissant deflection, since the Sheriff would have billed the US for the protection anyway and never made any statement about budget problems.

You continue to fail, defending the indefensible. It is STANDARD procedure to have police presence at such events. Dupnik had the jurisdiction. It happened on HIS watch, it's on him.

While your losing, here is your governor cutting the mentally ill budget in the state, and old Reagan trick. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now does it? You fail Loser & take your governor with you.

Some $36 million was slashed early last year, and Gov. Jan Brewer called the cuts,

Has nothing at all to do with Dupnik not having protection at the event. In fact, it supports my contention that he should have had. It's just another infantile deflection.

Rep. Gabby Giffords did not request police protection because she said that the police had enough to do as it was and did not want to take them away from their duties.

 

[Missourian]

What we should be discussing is how to fix the reporting of mental illness.

The college didn't report what was an obvious deranged person, they kicked him out and figured he was now someone else's problem.

The parents knew something was terribly wrong, yet did nothing.

The campus police deferred to the authority of the college administrators instead of following their intuition.

These are the problem that led to this tragedy.

The question is...does the left want to solve the problem, or score political points?

Thus far it's been the latter.

I agree with you. And I believe you are falsely accusing the left of not agreeing with you. IMO, most liberals would agree, but take it further.

How do we revise the process that allowed someone like this to be issued a gun permit?

How do we not only 'fix the reporting of mental illness'...how do we fix or properly treat mental illness itself?

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but what I see on the national level and on this board is the left taking advantage of a tragedy to score political points.

For the reporting, I think a police officers or school administrators report to law enforcement should be enough to put a flag in the national database. Perhaps require therapists to report to the national database if they believe a patient is a threat to themselves or others.

For mental illness treatment, this kids parents knew he had problems, for all we know he had been seeing a therapist. The mother worked for the government, so she likely had insurance.

 

[daveman]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

The rhetoric that absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

You are making an assumption. Either way, it's an assumption.

Did the offices of Democrats being vandalized across the nation have anything to do with the rhetoric? Even that's an assumption.

You mean like the vandalized Denver Democratic Party HQ that was blamed on the right, but the vandal was actually a leftist?

 

[Missourian]

It's no one's fault, yet words have consequences. Make up your minds.

Exactly...can't have it both ways.

Ironically enough in this case we CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Why?

Because that nutter is, just like everybody else, exposed to the hate coming at us all from the MSM and political climate.

To say that that did NOT influence him is silly.

It influences EVERYBODY.

But what it does NIOT do is turn us ALL into assassins.

That's where the mental state of the perp comes into play.

If this guy had lived in the 16th century, he might very well have assassinated a RELIGOUS FIGURE since at that time the thing on most people's mind was the titantic struggle between CAtholicism and Protestanism.

But the guy live now in this political climate.

So his delusional and irractional thinking involves things POLTICAL, rather than theological.

We are ALL affected by the zeitgeist of OUR time.

I see what you're sayin', Ed, but take my example of the cheating wife above.

Should I withhold information, evidence and observation because there's a 1 in 300 million chance that you might kill your wife?

Do I have to stop using figurative speech and hyperbole , because someone reading this board might take my statement literally?

How about "Liberals are destroying our country", or "By ratifying the START treaty, Liberals are endangering every American", can I no long say that, because some nutter may take it to mean we should kill liberals to stop them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Excellent point.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

Then you blow it by proving yourself an idiot.

What about the many on the left that not only speak in incendiary terms, but use actual incendiary devices to make their points? They not only point out that government is the enemy, they attack it with bombs. Putting targets on political maps, and airing ads that show people targeted in sniper scopes. Why aren't you referring not only to the imagery, but the actual violence perpetrated by the left?

Is it because you are actually part of the problem, and that we should treat you that way?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's no one's fault, yet words have consequences. Make up your minds.

I have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree with you. And I believe you are falsely accusing the left of not agreeing with you. IMO, most liberals would agree, but take it further.

How do we revise the process that allowed someone like this to be issued a gun permit?

How do we not only 'fix the reporting of mental illness'...how do we fix or properly treat mental illness itself?

Mental Health Funding was Recently Cut in Pima County, AZ

While our nation comes to grips with the recent Arizona tragedy and we look for someone or something to blame, we cannot forget mental health. As a previous mental health counselor working at a non-profit center in Florida, I have seen first-hand how easy it is for the government to ignore mental health funding. It is often the first expenditure cut, leaving thousands of mentally ill without medications or counseling. In Pima County, Arizona—where the mass shooting occurred over the weekend, it was no different. The county has seen more than 45 percent of its mental health service recipients forced off the public rolls. This is where austerity measures can deeply affect public welfare and safety. Despite strong protests from advocates for the mentally ill, the Arizona government cited the need to control the budget and ignored the promise of increased suicides, hospitalizations, and public disturbances. Although it is not known if any better mental health services would have made any difference with regards to this shooting, mental health funding is important all around the nation to prevent massive tragedies such as this one and to prevent all the smaller tragedies of suicide that occur daily.

Clarke Romans, executive director for southern Arizona’s branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

“So they have cut the budget on paper, in Phoenix, but they now expect the local community, like Tucson, to increase the police, the emergency room, the response to suicide attempts, incarcerations and hospital stays," he added, noting that these services are among the most expensive a local government can provide. "It’s madness."

Now you are trying to help someone else exploit the tragedy to get money. Does it make you feel special to be part of the problem, and not the solution?

If Laughner had been had tried to get mental health care, and been refused, the budget cuts you referred to might have a place in this discussion. Since he didn't, they are irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's no one's fault, yet words have consequences. Make up your minds.

Exactly...can't have it both ways.

Ironically enough in this case we CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Why?

Because that nutter is, just like everybody else, exposed to the hate coming at us all from the MSM and political climate.

To say that that did NOT influence him is silly.

It influences EVERYBODY.

But what it does NIOT do is turn us ALL into assassins.

That's where the mental state of the perp comes into play.

If this guy had lived in the 16th century, he might very well have assassinated a RELIGOUS FIGURE since at that time the thing on most people's mind was the titantic struggle between CAtholicism and Protestanism.

But the guy live now in this political climate.

So his delusional and irractional thinking involves things POLTICAL, rather than theological.

We are ALL affected by the zeitgeist of OUR time.

That must explain why all the politicians have been shot the last couple of years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Need to point fingers? Use the facts.

Fact 1: Sheriff Dupnik knew this cluck Loughner was a danger to the community. His deputies had gone to the cluck's home on several occasions in the months prior to the shootings, concerning death threats.

Fact 2: Immediately after the shootings, Dupnik claimed "right wing rhetoric" was responsible. Repeating a mantra he'd used many times before the shooting.

Fact 3: Using fact 1 and fact 2, it's apparent that either A) The sheriff lies, and doesn't really think "right wing rhetoric" is a danger or, B) He thinks it's a danger but not really a bad one or C) He believes it IS a danger and was just hoping for some such to happen, as did.

Either way, we get to Fact 4: The survivors and the families of the deceased have a very good lawsuit case, for wrongful death and injury, because Dupnik didn't have ANY deputies at this public event led by his US Representative, in the middle of what he claims is a "hot political climate" where "violent right wing rhetoric" might drive someone to violence.

Loughner is responsible, alone, for the shooting. DUPNIK is liable for damages, for not doing his fucking JOB and making at the very least a token effort, to prevent it.

When did the Right take a vote and decide that they were going to support the government/law enforcement, etc., to be more intrusive, to be more aggressive in getting into people's personal lives and liberties?

Recently? Because that sure as hell hasn't been the common theme from the Right over the years.

The last time was last year when they voted with the Democrats to extend the PATRIOT Act.

Just saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

The rhetoric that absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

You are making an assumption. Either way, it's an assumption.

Did the offices of Democrats being vandalized across the nation have anything to do with the rhetoric? Even that's an assumption.

Do you seriously want to bring that up? Has anyone yet explained how someone threw a brick through the window of an office on the 23rd floor of a skyscraper? Or are we simply supposed to believe it because it was the office of a Democrat?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberal media framing a debate without a shred of evidence...which turns out to be total hogwash.

Neither right nor left wing rhetoric had a thing to do with Loughner, Tuscon or Rep Giffords.

The facts bear it out.

So what is the left calling attention to?

Scoring political points against those they disagree with.

Can't waste a crisis. It's in their playbook, their DNA.

Liberal William Ayers blew up an empty office building because he wanted to make a statement and didn't want to hurt anyone.

Conservative Timothy McVeigh blew up a post office killing 168 men, women and children and injuring scores of others because he wanted to make a statement and kill as many as possible.

The radical right and the radical left have different values and that shows up in the way they do things.

That's rich. Lew Ayres blew up buildings, and never went to jail. I guess the real difference between the left and the right is the right holds people accountable when they break the law.

 

[DiveCon]

The rhetoric that absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

You are making an assumption. Either way, it's an assumption.

Did the offices of Democrats being vandalized across the nation have anything to do with the rhetoric? Even that's an assumption.

Do you seriously want to bring that up? Has anyone yet explained how someone threw a brick through the window of an office on the 23rd floor of a skyscraper? Or are we simply supposed to believe it because it was the office of a Democrat?

someone threw a brick through a 23rd story window?

that guy needs to be found if he can throw a brick that far with that kind of accuracy
i'm sure some MLB team would be happy to have him or her, around

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

And as folks like you and I acknowledge this, for some reason it seems like it just disappears into the mist.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

And while prominent voices on the Right deny their words have had any effect, a bullet-riddled billboard for Rush Limbaugh's radio show gets taken down in Arizona.

Have fun with your delusions... enjoy!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are making an assumption. Either way, it's an assumption.

Did the offices of Democrats being vandalized across the nation have anything to do with the rhetoric? Even that's an assumption.

Do you seriously want to bring that up? Has anyone yet explained how someone threw a brick through the window of an office on the 23rd floor of a skyscraper? Or are we simply supposed to believe it because it was the office of a Democrat?

someone threw a brick through a 23rd story window?

that guy needs to be found if he can throw a brick that far with that kind of accuracy
i'm sure some MLB team would be happy to have him or her, around

Believe me, you aren't the first to point that out. I think Dallas wants to sign him up as their next QB of the future.

 

[Bfgrn]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Excellent point.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

Then you blow it by proving yourself an idiot.

What about the many on the left that not only speak in incendiary terms, but use actual incendiary devices to make their points? They not only point out that government is the enemy, they attack it with bombs. Putting targets on political maps, and airing ads that show people targeted in sniper scopes. Why aren't you referring not only to the imagery, but the actual violence perpetrated by the left?

Is it because you are actually part of the problem, and that we should treat you that way?

You have transcended into a world of total projection. The right embraces and revels in the idea of '2nd amendment' solutions. The Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. Since Obama was elected, there is a right wing paranoia similar to what we witnessed when Clinton was President, screeches of impending tyranny and collapse of our republic. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language from the right that saturates every single domestic political debate.

The right loves to project a underlying threat of violence and a macho image. It is not a trait of the left. Yes, there are always examples that occur, but it is not the left's MO.

You can't call people on the left limp wrists, wimps, pacifists, peaceniks and bleeding hearts when it suits your argument, and turn that around 180 degrees when you right wingers are caught in your deep beliefs in punishment, intimidation and the threat of violence and hurting people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This fruitcake acted alone. He apparently was not influenced by anyone on either side of the political spectrum. Those are the facts.

Excellent point.

Here are the perceptions. There are a great many on the right that have spoken in terms that are incendiary. First in suggesting that our government in this democracy is our enemy. Second, by stating that 2nd amendment solutions should be sought because a majority voted in someone they do not like. And third, by images and referances to crosshairs and guns. None of the people making these statements meant to actually carry them out. However, as we recoil in horror at the events in Tucson, we cannot but remember the rhetoric and images. This is the kind of horror that they were refering to, and it will be reflected in peoples attitudes towards those created the rhetoric and images.

Then you blow it by proving yourself an idiot.

What about the many on the left that not only speak in incendiary terms, but use actual incendiary devices to make their points? They not only point out that government is the enemy, they attack it with bombs. Putting targets on political maps, and airing ads that show people targeted in sniper scopes. Why aren't you referring not only to the imagery, but the actual violence perpetrated by the left?

Is it because you are actually part of the problem, and that we should treat you that way?

You have transcended into a world of total projection. The right embraces and revels in the idea of '2nd amendment' solutions. The Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. Since Obama was elected, there is a right wing paranoia similar to what we witnessed when Clinton was President, screeches of impending tyranny and collapse of our republic. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language from the right that saturates every single domestic political debate.

The right loves to project a underlying threat of violence and a macho image. It is not a trait of the left. Yes, there are always examples that occur, but it is not the left's MO.

You can't call people on the left limp wrists, wimps, pacifists, peaceniks and bleeding hearts when it suits your argument, and turn that around 180 degrees when you right wingers are caught in your deep beliefs in punishment, intimidation and the threat of violence and hurting people.

And your messiah says that the very rhetoric you are pointing to had nothing to do with the shooting in Tuscon, yet you keep pointing to it, and ignoring the same stuff you are doing.

Did you have a problem with a with the actions of Irene Morgan, Sarah Keys, Claudette Colvin, or Lizzie Jennings exercising their civil rights? Why do you have a problem with white men doing the same things? Is it because you, at heart, are a bigot and believe white men are inferior?

I don't call anyone on either side limp wrists. I do, however, call hypocrites like you idiots. Thanks for making it easy for me to prove just how stupid you are.

 

[Flopper]

The rhetoric that absolutely nothing to do with the shootings.

There is a documented case of someone who tried to murder people at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU who stated it was listening to Glenn Beck that caused him to try to do that.

This is from the "Democracy Now" (Amy Goodman) site.

AMY GOODMAN: On December 31st, Glenn Beck’s website, "The Blaze," published an article titled "Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Calling for Violent Revolution." In response to that article, several readers posted direct death threats to Piven. A user named JST1425 wrote, quote, "be very careful what you ask for honey... As I mentioned in previous posts…ONE SHOT…ONE KILL! 'We The People' will need to stand up for what is right…a few well placed marksmen with high powered rifles…then there would not be any violence," unquote.

User name SUPERWRENCH4 wrote, quote, "Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas [sic] ready and I’ll give My life to take Our freedom back. Taking Her life and any who would enslave My children and grandchildren and call for violence should meet their demise as They wish. George Washington didn’t use His freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them," unquote.

Another reader wrote on Glenn Beck’s website, quote, "We should blowup Piven’s office and home. And while at it. Keel haul Bernardine Dohrn under one of her freedom ships and blow up Bill Ayers’ house cars and anywhere he can be found," unquote.

And a user who goes by the name GREEN_MANALISHI wrote, quote, "I’m all for violence and change Francis, where do your loved ones live?" unquote.

Despite the overt threats, Glenn Beck has not removed any of the messages from his site, even though readers of "The Blaze" are encouraged to highlight troublesome posts.

Now, I want ask you, Frances Fox Piven, about the case of Byron Williams. He’s the California man who admitted it was Fox News host Glenn Beck who inspired him to plot the assassination of employees of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. Byron Williams was arrested last July after he opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers. The shootout occurred as Williams was driving to the headquarters of the Tides Foundation in San Francisco. The case received little national attention. The media watchdog group Media Matters released audio from a jailhouse interview in which Williams talked about Beck’s influence.

BYRON WILLIAMS: I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn’t for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed, that blew my mind. I said, "Well, nobody does this." Beck will never say anything about a conspiracy, will never advocate violence. He’ll never do anything of this nature. But he’ll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need. Go look at all the stuff that you’ll find. I would suggest you go back and see, try to find the videos about—all the June videos.

JUAN GONZALEZ: That jailhouse interview was conducted—with Byron Williams, was conducted by John Hamilton from Media Matters. I spoke to John in October, and he played for us more excerpts of Byron Williams.

JOHN HAMILTON: I think this is one of the most important points, that, no, Glenn Beck doesn’t advocate explicitly for violence, but in Byron Williams’s mind, Glenn Beck gives you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need.

BYRON WILLIAMS: You know, I’ll tell you. Beck is going to deny everything about violent approach, deny everything about conspiracies, but he’ll give you every reason to believe in it. He is protecting himself, and you can’t blame him for that. So, I understand what he’s doing.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Byron Williams, recorded by you in the Santa Rita Jail. Go on with what he’s saying.

JOHN HAMILTON: I think Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it best. He has a compendium of Glenn Beck quotes. Here is some of the rhetoric that you’ll hear on Glenn Beck’s radio program or see on his TV show: “The war is just beginning," "Shoot me in the head if they try to change our government," "You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head," "The other side is attacking," "There is a coup going on," "Grab a torch," "Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers," "They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered.” I mean, these are quotes, and I could go on. I mean, there’s any number of these from Glenn Beck.

AMY GOODMAN: The issue of Glenn Beck and violence and the other things that he has said or the images of pouring gasoline on someone on the show?

JOHN HAMILTON: Right. Well, we titled the piece “Progressive Hunter,” and that’s taken from a line that Glenn Beck used on one of his programs. And he said, “’Til the day I die, I’m going to be a progressive hunter.” He said he was going to be like "the Israeli Nazi hunters." “I’m going to find these big progressives, and 'til the day I die, I’m going to be a progressive hunter. I'm going to find these people that have done this to our country and expose them.”

Now, he says he’s going to expose them. He’s not advocating violence. But when you liken liberals and progressives in America to Nazis and saying you’re going after them like an Israeli Nazi hunter, when you raise your level of rhetoric to that point, and you have an audience like Byron—people like Byron Williams are watching this—it’s unsurprising that we get these incidents.

I read/watched a video about this. IMO, it's quite plausible that glennbeck had a lot of influence over this guy.

History is filled with nuts being influenced by radical speakers and writers. For example: Leon Czolgosz assassinated President McKinley after attending speeches and meetings with Emma Goldman, an anarchist calling for the overthrow of the government. After the assassination, Czolgosz was arrested as well as Goldman.

I believe the primary responsibility for an attack lies with the perpetrator. However, those that influence him must bear some of the responsibility as well as all those that encourage violence as a solution to our problems.