Need to point fingers? Use the facts.

[Bfgrn]

Excellent point.



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.

Are you really equating the Rosa Parks of the world with these gun toting goons? The people who bravely faced intimidation with people trying to intimidate? Are you really that scurrilous of an individual?

I have to ask...why did you lie about being a classic liberal? You are nothing but a right wing fanatic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you really equating the Rosa Parks of the world with these gun toting goons? The people who bravely faced intimidation with people trying to intimidate? Are you really that scurrilous of an individual?

I have to ask...why did you lie about being a classic liberal? You are nothing but a right wing fanatic.

Are they intimidating you? If no, don't worry about it, if yes, grow up. Their purpose is not to intimidate, and your insistence that it is shows just how out of touch you are with what is happening in the real world. You do have a large group of spiritual brethren though, including the people who tried to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus.

I never lied about being a classical liberal by the way, I said that is the closest to my philosophy. It isn't my fault you are so obsessed with putting people into boxes they do not fit into.

I am curious though, what is it you think I am not living up to in this definition?

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free. Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).
Although classical liberals agree on the fundamental importance of private property to a free society, the classical liberal tradition itself refracts into a spectrum of views, from near-anarchist to those that attribute a significant role to the state in economic and social policy (on this spectrum, see Mack and Gaus, 2004). Towards the most extreme ‘libertarian’ end of the classical liberal spectrum are views of justified states as legitimate monopolies that may with justice charge for their necessary rights-protection services: taxation is legitimate so long as it is necessary to protect liberty and property rights. As we go further ‘leftward’ we encounter classical liberal views that allow taxation for (other) public goods and social infrastructure and, moving yet further ‘left’, some classical liberal views allow for a modest social minimum.(e.g., Hayek, 1976: 87). Most nineteenth century classical liberal economists endorsed a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization (Gaus, 1983b). Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n). Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Ravi]

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.

Link?

Still waiting.

 

[Rozman]

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.

Link?

Still waiting.

This guy was feared by the teachers and classmates alike,the police knew he had issues after responding to calls from the parents but there was no need to do anything to him.

According to the sheriff Fox news is the cause of all criminal behavior so why would he need to do anything to someone who was involved with complaints from the citizens in the area....

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Really, without reducing the liberty of some, the most obvious thing that could have been done differently was action on the part of the parents to seek help and inform the authorities of their sons activities.

 

[Ravi]

Link?

Still waiting.

This guy was feared by the teachers and classmates alike,the police knew he had issues after responding to calls from the parents but there was no need to do anything to him.

According to the sheriff Fox news is the cause of all criminal behavior so why would he need to do anything to someone who was involved with complaints from the citizens in the area....

That isn't an answer to the question...I want to see what evidence MM has that deputies went to his house regarding death threats.

But thanks for trying.

 

[cisz]

Let's take your hypothisis to an extreme.

I tell you I think it's possible your wife is cheating on you.

I lay out a case, based on evidence and observation.

Am I responsible if you kill your wife?

If you thought that I was extremely jealous and possibly homicidally violent - yes - you are responsible.

Next, Byron Williams, what your left-wing site left out. Williams is a twice convicted felon...he broke the law just by touching a firearm. He opened fire on police not because of Glenn Beck, but because he was going to go to prison for 25 years on a third strike for gun possession !

With two strikes on his record for two previous bank-robbery convictions, Williams faces at least 25 years to life in prison as a three strikes felon.

​

The "3 strikes" law doesn't have anything to do with that he was on the way to murder people at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU when the police, fortunately, intercepted him-- and doesn't reflect at all on the statement he made that he was going to murder those people because of Glenn Beck.

Finally, the Nazi hunter quote...here it is, I'll highlight the operative word:

In his quest to root out these "progressives", Beck has compared himself to Israeli vowing on his radio show that "to the day I die I am going to be a progressive-hunter. I’m going to find these people that have done this to our country and expose them. I don’t care if they’re in nursing homes."

​

Beck has also compared the Progressives directly with Nazis. He has said that Progressives are in favor of euthanasia because they want to create a eugenics program that will murder anyone who is sick.

This isn't just telling a homicidal maniac that his wife is "cheating" -- this is seriously saying that people are out to kill you.

The problem here isn't that unstable people are twisting what Beck is saying - the problem is that unstable people are believing what he's saying.

If what Beck was saying were true, you would have the same justification to go after the Progressives as the Allies did with the Nazis.

 

[editec]

When you pollute the media with lies?

BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

We exist in a WOIRLD OF LIES, folks.

And many of you here believe this shit, too.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I've read just about everything I could get my hands on written by Loughner and about Loughner by law enforcement, teachers and administrators.

Loughner is irrational.

Loughner neither realized nor understood that he was irrational.

Loughner's parents knew there was a mental concern involved.

The Campus Police identified that Loughner was suffering from a mental condition.

Teachers and Administrators understood that Loughner might be a threat to others.

....ALL, of which, can be CURED....with the swift-application o' the Death Penalty....again....until the next time it happens.

$ $ $ $ $

"GAWD BLESS AMERICA!!!"​

 

[chanel]

Anyone see 60 Minutes last night? His friends described him as a "nihilist" who believed in nothing.

What I found interesting (and a bit troubling) was the Secret Service profiler who suggested that the COLLEGE should bear some responsibility for expelling him. He was suggesting that this might have set him off. He honestly believes that schools, businesses, and whatnot that expel or fire crazy people have a responsibility to follow up on their treatment. Major implications if you ask me.

 

[Bfgrn]

Are you really equating the Rosa Parks of the world with these gun toting goons? The people who bravely faced intimidation with people trying to intimidate? Are you really that scurrilous of an individual?

I have to ask...why did you lie about being a classic liberal? You are nothing but a right wing fanatic.

Are they intimidating you? If no, don't worry about it, if yes, grow up. Their purpose is not to intimidate, and your insistence that it is shows just how out of touch you are with what is happening in the real world. You do have a large group of spiritual brethren though, including the people who tried to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus.

I never lied about being a classical liberal by the way, I said that is the closest to my philosophy. It isn't my fault you are so obsessed with putting people into boxes they do not fit into.

I am curious though, what is it you think I am not living up to in this definition?

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free. Classical liberals employ a second argument connecting liberty and private property. Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. As F.A. Hayek argues, ‘There can be no freedom of press if the instruments of printing are under government control, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly’ (1978: 149).
Although classical liberals agree on the fundamental importance of private property to a free society, the classical liberal tradition itself refracts into a spectrum of views, from near-anarchist to those that attribute a significant role to the state in economic and social policy (on this spectrum, see Mack and Gaus, 2004). Towards the most extreme ‘libertarian’ end of the classical liberal spectrum are views of justified states as legitimate monopolies that may with justice charge for their necessary rights-protection services: taxation is legitimate so long as it is necessary to protect liberty and property rights. As we go further ‘leftward’ we encounter classical liberal views that allow taxation for (other) public goods and social infrastructure and, moving yet further ‘left’, some classical liberal views allow for a modest social minimum.(e.g., Hayek, 1976: 87). Most nineteenth century classical liberal economists endorsed a variety of state policies, encompassing not only the criminal law and enforcement of contracts, but the licensing of professionals, health, safety and fire regulations, banking regulations, commercial infrastructure (roads, harbors and canals) and often encouraged unionization (Gaus, 1983b). Although today classical liberalism is often associated with extreme forms of libertarianism, the classical liberal tradition was centrally concerned with bettering the lot of the working class. The aim, as Bentham put it, was to make the poor richer, not the rich poorer (Bentham, 1952 [1795]: vol. 1, 226n). Consequently, classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government.

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Grow up? I suggest you have an adult hold your hand before you cross the street if you can't make the connection that showing up at public political events wearing firearms and carrying signs that refers to killing patriots IS an attempt to intimidate using the threat of deadly force.

I suggest you read this...

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Absolutely.....because, Everybody knows.... what Loughner was thinking!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

thing is, on the right, what i have heard is "words mean things" not that they had "consequences"

Words do mean things.

But when Obama says "When they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"...I don't think he means that anyone has really brought a knife or for anyone to bring an actual gun...he's speaking figuatively.

When Palin says "Don't retreat, reload." she saying the same thing Obama is saying. Don't give up, comeback with a stronger argument.

So do you believe that Palin will stick to her guns (lol) and continue to use that sort of rhetoric?

Do you think she should? Shouldn't she? After all, it's just figurative, and her fans love it. Wouldn't she be caving in to unjustified pressure, if she tones it down?

No one? Why is that? What is the logic in

Palin did nothing wrong, but she should never ever ever ever do it again??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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....

Gee.....ya' don't think that'd be too, awfully Progressive?????


​

Health Care Reform Contains Major Expansion Of Access To Mental Health Serviceshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/health-care-reform-mental-health_n_807744.html​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Everyone knew it at the time that Loughner was a hopeless nut-case who actually leaned left in his political affiliation.

Ah, yes.....Everyone knew (Everybody knows...also acceptable).....that grand, "conservative"-opener that establishes Absolute-agreement....unless, of course, you hate America, enough, to disagree with any-and-all Absolutes.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

IOW, silencing opponents by scoring political point based on a bullcrap....gotcha.

Silencing? Naw...

Just want 'em to stop talking like people who are lib/dems are so evil they're deserving of having violence done on them, that's all. You may notice Olbermann, Maddow, et. al. don't have to tell they're viewers that they don't want them to go out and actually do violence to conservative Republicans.

Show me where Palin or Beck or Limbaugh or Boehner or any other pundit, talk radio host or politician...hell, anyone...has said that.

Directly....when a mere-suggestion suffices?????

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a8r46PQDbU&feature=related[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Show me where Palin or Beck or Limbaugh or Boehner or any other pundit, talk radio host or politician...hell, anyone...has said that.

Ann Coulter and Savage have said things like that

If they called for violence then they are out of their ever-lovin' minds.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....when Beck says "Rise UP!", he's merely suggesting a Come-To-Jesus-exercise....for real-Americans; coast-to-coast.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ann Coulter and Savage have said things like that

If they called for violence then they are out of their ever-lovin' minds.

I don't listen to either of those two...what did they say exactly?

And why aren't these the folks we're talking about instead of Palin and Beck and Boehner?

Ann has said to poison a SCOTUS judges "creme brulee"
and i dont remember exactly what savage has said, but hes always over the top

"Wolf Blitzer And Larry King "Look Like The Type That Would Have Pushed Jewish Children Into The Oven." - The Savage Nation, 8/7/06

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

thing is, on the right, what i have heard is "words mean things" not that they had "consequences"

Words do mean things.

But when Obama says "When they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"...I don't think he means that anyone has really brought a knife or for anyone to bring an actual gun...he's speaking figuatively.

When Palin says "Don't retreat, reload." she saying the same thing Obama is saying. Don't give up, comeback with a stronger argument.

I've never seen Obama POSING with a weapon.

​

 

[saveliberty]

I've never seen Palin pose with a cigarette either.