Democratic Congresswoman Shot in Head at AZ Grocery!

[AZhitman]

Still doesn't answer my question. And still doesn't absolve him of my burning, seething hate for his idiocy.

You think the other folks are a "bigger concern". Hmmm. The word "concern" implies that there's a problem with what they're saying. If there's some untruth or inaccuracy to what they say, by all means, tee off on it. But just because you don't like their message (hard to do if you don't listen to them), then that's not grounds for being "concerned" at their existence.

Surprisingly, Maher calls himself a Libertarian - he's an uneducated twit if he thinks he represents Libertarianism.

I liked Cooper - until he pussed out. He could have made a bigger name for himself - instead, he rolled over and let Maher have his way with him. Pathetic.

[heliochrome85]

if you dont understand after this thread, that some of the things they say are concerning, then you dont understand my arguemtn at all.

inflammatory speech is no less inflammatory coming from someone on tv/radio, versus someone in a cave in afghanistan. why are they treated differently?

[AZhitman]

Exactly. WHY are they treated differently?

Hear any calls for Maher's head? How about the coward (and shooting survivor) that made threats today at the memorial?

Here's a clue to pass around: THIS S*** HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS. Period.

As such, Maher should be called out and help accountable for his big mouth. As far as I'm concerned, HE is inciting violence. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

[heliochrome85]

Exactly. WHY are they treated differently?

Hear any calls for Maher's head? How about the coward (and shooting survivor) that made threats today at the memorial?

Here's a clue to pass around: THIS S*** HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS. Period.

As such, Maher should be called out and help accountable for his big mouth. As far as I'm concerned, HE is inciting violence. Turnabout is fair play, after all.

im sorry but your spearing maher is complete s***. HE IS A NOBODY. IF YOU ARENT WILLING TO CHASTISE AND CALL FOR THE HEADS OF RUSH, PALIN, AND THE ILK YOU CAN NOT CALL FOR THE HEAD OF MAHER.

ive said it before, and ive said it again, maher is worthless and crazy. but he is benign because he isnt national. last i checked, he doesnt have a tv show on TLC, or a multimillion dollar book deal. Nor did he put out a nationally advertised poster with congressional districts with bullseyes over them. Nor did he campaign using terms like "reload."

your move.

[AZhitman]

I'm "spearing" him because he's attempting to lay blame on folks who are blameless.

Why would I call for their heads? Are you saying that Rush / Palin are to blame for anything? If so, maybe we should report them to the police. After all, they should be criminally liable for the actions of a guy who never listened to the news or talk radio.

Make sure you punish the successful ones - the ones who can't keep an audience (Maher, Oblermann, Colbert) can say all manner of stupid s***.

Are we thinking of maybe moving towards some sort of "Fairness Doctrine"?

I vote with my listening time, and I don't listen to ANY of those people.

I'm pointing out the intellectual dishonesty and utter juvenile idiocy of ANYONE who spews BS about "blame" in this case, INCLUDING that dumb clumsy b**** HIllary. Does she have a big enough audience? Can I rip on her?

[heliochrome85]

this is moronic. i quit.

[BusyBadger]

ive said it before, and ive said it again, maher is worthless and crazy. but he is benign because he isnt national. last i checked, he doesnt have a tv show on TLC, or a multimillion dollar book deal..

Real Time with Bill Maher

Bill Maher related media at Amazon

I'd say that having a weekly show on HBO makes Maher pretty national. Not many recent books by him, but quite a few more than Palin and he's expanded into the dvd arena.

[AZhitman]

this is moronic. i quit.

[IBCoupe]

Are we thinking of maybe moving towards some sort of "Fairness Doctrine"?

Of all the people in this thread, Greg, you're the only one acting in a manner akin to the "Fairness Doctrine." You're so obsessed with being "balanced" that you completely avoid the actual point: that political rhetoric is getting to be at an unacceptable level of angry.

Even if the guy's just a nutjob and thought the Congresswoman was a manbearpig out to boil the blood of Christian children into its Passover matsot (yes, I went there), the fact that we all immediately thought of the rhetoric is telling. It was a wake-up call, and the actual connection to the event, if it exists, isn't important.

[szh]

... the fact that we all immediately thought of the rhetoric is telling.

Sure ...

I have the same thought to the "all terrorists are Muslim" immediate reactions to certain insane world events.

I am saddened, and angry at myself, that the first thing I thought of after hearing this bad news was "Is the killer a Muslim? No? Whew!"

Z

[AZhitman]

Are we thinking of maybe moving towards some sort of "Fairness Doctrine"?

Of all the people in this thread, Greg, you're the only one acting in a manner akin to the "Fairness Doctrine." You're so obsessed with being "balanced" that you completely avoid the actual point: that political rhetoric is getting to be at an unacceptable level of angry.

Wrong.

I could give a damn about "fair". I'm all about the survival of the fittest, eat the wounded, and if you can't keep up, you freeze to death on the trail. You KNOW this. The world ain't fair, and I'm glad of it.

I didn't think there was a line on the "angry continuum" that shouldn't be crossed. Absent this event, neither did you.

"But... but..." No, you didn't. I'm right on that point.

...the fact that we all immediately thought of the rhetoric is telling. It was a wake-up call, and the actual connection to the event, if it exists, isn't important.

So, since rooting out the ACTUAL cause is unimportant, let's just cast truth to the wind and instead focus on some other side issue? How about "No."

How about this: I propose that maybe, just f***ing maybe, we could focus on WHY the American public is MAD AS HELL in the first place?

Since our focus need not bear ANY connection AT ALL to the event, let's instead look at our elected leaders' blatant refusal to act in our best interests, listen to their constituents, and carry out our wishes in Washington. See, while you see "rhetoric" as the problem, I see (for example) Pelosi's shrunken head telling us to "pass the legislation and THEN you can read it". In the interest of fairness, I see DeLay making a mockery of the judiciary and screwing thousands of people. THAT makes ME angry, and a lot more Americans than you think. We're PISSED.

So, let's not pussyfoot around: I despise anyone who can be politically opportunistic with tragedy. Let's piss down the backs of the pundits who jumped the gun and hold them accountable. Let's focus on the pursuit of TRUTH and address the root causes of this horrible incident. We OWE it to their memory.

[IBCoupe]

"But... but..." No, you didn't. I'm right on that point.

I didn't have a line in mind, you're right, but I certainly wasn't silent about the tone of the rhetoric (at least not before I disappeared late in 2010). I'd go back and look, but you probably don't care anyways.

So, since rooting out the ACTUAL cause is unimportant, let's just cast truth to the wind and instead focus on some other side issue? How about "No."

How about: "Since rooting out the ACTUAL cause is a matter best left to law enforcement, or at the very least, to people with access to the pertinent data, let's examine the issues that we've come to realize we're not addressing by our collective gut reactions."

How about this: I propose that maybe, just f***ing maybe, we could focus on WHY the American public is MAD AS HELL in the first place?

Because we're whipped up into a frenzy. There. Done. Can we go back to debating politics without the use of crosshairs?

Since our focus need not bear ANY connection AT ALL to the event, let's instead look at our elected leaders' blatant refusal to act in our best interests, listen to their constituents, and carry out our wishes in Washington. See, while you see "rhetoric" as the problem, I see (for example) Pelosi's shrunken head telling us to "pass the legislation and THEN you can read it". In the interest of fairness, I see DeLay making a mockery of the judiciary and screwing thousands of people. THAT makes ME angry, and a lot more Americans than you think. We're PISSED.

I'm really glad you mentioned that quote, Greg, because I've been thinking about the way you rant on and on about it. So here's the context:

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

The bill was available for reading online. Pelosi said what she said in a way not too unlike your boss saying, "In order to see the cash you've earned, you're going to have to take this check to the bank." But it got whipped up and spun by the Right to mean something it didn't. That's not entirely unheard of in American politics (or any Country's, for that matter), but being that you've made it the center of your rage for the past many months, I figured it would be best to add some context. Cliff's Notes: You're mad as hell at jack s***, but you don't realize it.

So, let's not pussyfoot around: I despise anyone who can be politically opportunistic with tragedy. Let's piss down the backs of the pundits who jumped the gun and hold them accountable. Let's focus on the pursuit of TRUTH and address the root causes of this horrible incident. We OWE it to their memory.

Sure, but let's not all ignore that we're active participants in the world, and that our immediate reactions mean something. The minute I heard about it, I thought it was going to be a Mexican and that the right would go nuts about cracking down on them. Then when I heard it wasn't, I thought it was going to be a right-wing extremist and that we were going to overreact. Those were the two thoughts that uncontrollably went through my head, and I'm not afraid to admit that I had them. I'm also not afraid to talk about why those were my two thoughts.

[AZhitman]

Re: Cliff's Notes: The context doesn't make it any less palatable. In fact, her preface reeks of salesmanship and emotionally-charged rhetoric. Did Sally Struthers write that?

Re: Your first thoughts... Mine were spot-on (I heard about it within minutes). White male, crazy, angry, somewhat random. Giffords is too middle-of-the-road to be a target of loons in EITHER party (despite the frenzied reporting), it's not high-profile enough for teh Muslins, it happened in a predominantly Anglo area (so, it's not cartel violence)...

No reason to be afraid of why you thought what you thought. Perfectly rational reactions.

[IBCoupe]

It may not be palatable, but it doesn't support your objection. She's not saying, "I'm not going to let you understand the law before we pass it." She's saying, "You won't feel the benefits of the law until we pass it." Find something else to be pissed off about.

[heliochrome85]

Find something else to be pissed off about.

funny how that victory mosque at the WTC has no longer been mentioned...

[IBCoupe]

Man, you muslims need to take a page from the Jews. When they stop looking at you, don't remind them that they were looking at you before. Just use that opportunity to back away quietly.

And then when you take over Hollywood, you can do your best to keep them looking at you. It helps ratings.

[heliochrome85]

Man, you muslims need to take a page from the Jews. When they stop looking at you, don't remind them that they were looking at you before. Just use that opportunity to back away quietly.

And then when you take over Hollywood, you can do your best to keep them looking at you. It helps ratings.

kim kardASSian is just the start.

[AZhitman]

HEY!

Leave us sexy Armenians out of this.

[AZhitman]

She's saying, "You won't feel the benefits of the law until we pass it."

I don't read it that way. She gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

Find something else to be pissed off about.

...can't find my damn MP3 player, and it was RIGHT HERE yesterday....

[IBCoupe]

I don't think you need to grant her the benefit of the doubt. You're going out of your way to construct an outrageous statement, when that's not what she says if you look at even the entire sentence.