Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry bout that,
1. I saw in your clip the liberal media baiting the hook for Mrs. Gifford so she could claim Sarah Palin was trying to threaten her, the cross hairs comment, over healthcare being passed, and asked her after her office doors were broken did she infact want to say on tv, if she was scared, or scared of Sarah Palin and or the Tea Party???
2. This is what MSNBC is doing, and has been doing for years., she tried to dance around it the best she could, but indeed tried to agree with them, to a degree, but still tried to walk her fine line as she said towards the end of the clip.
3. Mrs. Gifford isn't a typical/staunch Liberal, she has a decent understanding of how to be a good politician, she after all was once a Republican, but the liberal media did everything they could to hook her into the monkey shit throwing contest they wanted her to get into.
4. No *Checkmate* back at cha!!!!
regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Mebbe we can change what is "acceptable" by criticisizing our OWN public figures if they go off the reservation. And by guarding our own tongues.
While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?
-Government?
-Political parties?
And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?
We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.
And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.
I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a fucking old hag for it.
Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.
I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
The interesting thing about the vid that Sallow posted....Giffords is poised and on-point. Granted, I would disagree with her vote FOR obamacare, but, she doesn't take the 'bait' the female MSNBC host dangles in front of her, early on.
She does make mention of the Palin "map", and the "crosshairs" (and although she makes no mention of DK using virtually the same "crosshairs" map), but then goes on to say that she would not speak for Sarah Palin in terms of whether or not she really thought Palin meant for the "map" to be taken as an incitement to violence.
I know I would disagree with her on a few things but, she seems to be a rather poised individual. And she equally calls out the rhetoric and actions of extremists on the left, as she notes the same of extremists on the right.
What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.
The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.
Sorry bout that,
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
1. Alex I will take Robert Kennedy 1968 for $500.00?
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?
-Government?
-Political parties?
And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?
We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.
And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.
I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a fucking old hag for it.
It someone disagrees with what you've posted, and wants to claim the mantle of civility, they should say:
"Maggie, while I agree you have a right to your own opinion, I must disagree. Here's why..."
I'd bet you won't see that though.
At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
What does this have to do with my post?
I am truly sorry this happened and every day I hope and pray for more civility in our future. But I can't do it alone. Thoughts such as these need to be from all Americans across the country and that just ain't gonna happen.
I'm actually pretty proud of the way the leadership has come together. Did anyone watch the testimonials on the House floor yesterday? It is THEY who will set the tone and lead the way to civility. We, the public, take our cues from them.
Lead by example. I'm all for it.
In a meditation disc I often listen to, the woman speaking suggests I do daily affirmations for our government. She suggests that our belief in a negative government produces just that and that if I wanted, I could bless our government with love. If we the people want to, we could believe our government is loving, honest, honorable and truly working for the bettement of all people.
Let me just say that my meditation is a work in progress.
I did watch some clips of the testimonials. The main reason I started my http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/150339-men-who-need-to-grow-a-set.html thread.
What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.
The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.
Although Palin's "crosshairs" map, IMO, was meant to be perceived (in a sane world) metaphorically, as in "yeah boy, we got 'em in our crosshairs now! we'll vote 'em out come next election time"....
And although any sane individual would hope and pray this type of horrific event would never happen again....
I think it ironically says something clearly and boldly (although oddly) that the other "targets" on Palin's map are all alive and well, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning: If 'heated political rhetoric' inspires violence that much (which I don't believe), and if the mere sound of Sarah Palin's voice switches on some inate behavior in humans to kill each other (which again, I don't believe),...then those other "targets" would've already been "taken out" (so to speak), no?
Sorry bout that,
I'm actually pretty proud of the way the leadership has come together. Did anyone watch the testimonials on the House floor yesterday? It is THEY who will set the tone and lead the way to civility. We, the public, take our cues from them.
Lead by example. I'm all for it.
In a meditation disc I often listen to, the woman speaking suggests I do daily affirmations for our government. She suggests that our belief in a negative government produces just that and that if I wanted, I could bless our government with love. If we the people want to, we could believe our government is loving, honest, honorable and truly working for the bettement of all people.
Let me just say that my meditation is a work in progress.
I did watch some clips of the testimonials. The main reason I started my http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/150339-men-who-need-to-grow-a-set.html thread.
1. Dingey.
2. Now back to the real world.
3. Swallow has parting gifts at the door, no worries mates!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?
What does this have to do with my post?
Because you're attempting to make this seem like a "normal" event. It was not. And the number of crimes committed in this country..especially murders..were on the decrease.
And "normalizing" violence..what ever the source..as a part of political discourse is an extremely dangerous path.
And it's one that needs to be stopped.
In the end, people who willingly kill people are a little disturbed. Even if the killer said it was politically motivated, they would still be considered "deranged".
Our politicians are responsible for motivating us to war on other nations, why couldnt they motivate to kill? The rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides.
Calling people names for their political beliefs means the debate is finished. The name caller is the loser. Lets all remember that. When the name calling starts, stop responding.
What does this have to do with my post?
Because you're attempting to make this seem like a "normal" event. It was not. And the number of crimes committed in this country..especially murders..were on the decrease.
And "normalizing" violence..what ever the source..as a part of political discourse is an extremely dangerous path.
And it's one that needs to be stopped.
If murder was on the decrease, it still will be on the decrease. Murders and crime happen all the time....free will of Man. Before all the vile rhetoric that we now face, there still was crime and murder. I'm just pointing out that what is, is, and no matter how the rhetoric is....it's still not going to stop the crime and murder, Sallow.
Sorry bout that,
1. Well political enemies used to shoot it out, you know ten pace's and all and turn and shoot, Sarah Palin brought that up, it used to be worse, its better now.
2. Evil people have always murdered people.
3. *Edit*, Having read this, swallow attack post above this,.....why are you attacking the messenger?
4. What are you hiding, son? lol!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Civility, I wish people could just bury their personal feelings and compassion for a person's tragedy and remember this is a politician who is in office to protect us first.
This is like a giant cover-up. The Government failed us again and the innocent were killed. Will we ever get our heads out of our ass and question how after the war on terror Congress is not protecting us.
This could of been much worst, what if it was a terrorist with a biological weapon.
We are sitting ducks and all the Rhetoric of the Politicians since 9/11 is just that, Rhetoric.
How many people failed us, the county sheriff, the FBI, Congress, Homeland Security.
Bush started Homeland Security did he not, what did Bush do, tell them to protect everyone but people in the Democrat's district in Arizona.
What went wrong, how. Seems someone tried to sit off a car bomb in Times Square, what action after that was taken by Government.
Yes they cannot protect everyone but at least they could start by protecting elected officials.
Bush was threatened, what actions did he take and were they specific to the president only.
Get over the tragedy of the person, we have the tragedy of the failure of government after so many other tragedies and warnings.
You know what Gabby didn't deserve.
She didn't deserve to be called a "death panel socialist" when she voted for Health Care. She didn't deserve the threats and vandalism she received after casting that vote.
Gabby was constructed as the enemy of freedom because of her congressional votes.
She didn't deserve what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg, Mark Levine, Michael Savage and a million other wingers said about her over and over.
[Imagine the following being said in an ever louder scream, over and over] "Socialist. Death Panel. socialist. Death panel. Socialist. Death Panel. socialist. Death panel"
Over and over.
Was Jared Loughner motivated by this terminal anti-government noise machine? Nobody will ever know.
Should Gabby have been called a treasonous, death panel socialist? No.
(over and over and over)
You people are sick.
Sorry bout that,
1. I saw in your clip the liberal media baiting the hook for Mrs. Gifford so she could claim Sarah Palin was trying to threaten her, the cross hairs comment, over healthcare being passed, and asked her after her office doors were broken did she infact want to say on tv, if she was scared, or scared of Sarah Palin and or the Tea Party???
2. This is what MSNBC is doing, and has been doing for years., she tried to dance around it the best she could, but indeed tried to agree with them, to a degree, but still tried to walk her fine line as she said towards the end of the clip.
3. Mrs. Gifford isn't a typical/staunch Liberal, she has a decent understanding of how to be a good politician, she after all was once a Republican, but the liberal media did everything they could to hook her into the monkey shit throwing contest they wanted her to get into.
4. No *Checkmate* back at cha!!!!
regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Sorry 'bout that.
1. You obviously missed the point..so I will help. Giffords was telling Palin to tone it down.
2. What exactly was "MSNBC's doing"? They didn't put targets on democratic congressional districts.
3. The Media did nothing of the sort.
4. Sorry..your king is in my capture box.
Sallow of the Wolf's Lair.
Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.
I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".
I think you are right. I am sorry this happened to her and I wish she would recover.
It is wrong that anybody is playing games with this.
And the whole business of Tu Quoque is tiresome.
And it is not all the lefties doing this. Just the usual idiots. And of course, the usual total idiots on the right.
We know who the jerkasses are. they are the same ones they have always been. Nothing has really changed, it is just that the whole thing has been amplified a bit. Mostly by the idiots who want to gag other's speech, and this is not new for them either.
Time to chill. But names have been taken. We will remember who the sleazy ones are on both sides. Their reputations have moved from the toilet to the cesspit.
