Congresswoman Giffords (D- AZ) gravely injured in shooting

[Disney Duster]

I'm just coming to say I don't have that attitude that they're superior, you're saying I do, but I don't. I just asked why you wouldn't take an extra step in trying to help them, but you just won't believe in that step. Okay. Got it. You won't do it. Okay.

[Wonderlicious]

Well, I'm not going to get involved anything political in this thread (as much as I dislike Sarah Palin and the Tea Party with their unenlightened, populist attitudes), nor do I wish to get into anything spiritual (seriously, I think that it's tactless to want to try and discuss people's religious beliefs in this thread from what is basically a passing remark ). What I will say, though, is that what has happened is awful, especially since innocent bystanders have fallen foul, and anybody of any political belief should be able to understand that. My thoughts go out to the victims and their families/friends.

[Disney Duster]

I don't know who you are to decide what's important to someone else. I was asking someone to do something related to this incident, they refused, and that is that. Both things are important to me. This was a terrible tragedy, I'm sorry for their loss, I prayed for them to get better, and I'm not going to play the blame game on who did it, other than place the blame on the man who did do it.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Since Goliath has in the past made clear his views on religion, why bring it up? I agree with Wonderlicious, it's tactless to bring religion up when you have debated with Goliath about religion in the past and its clear you both have very different views on the subject.

I too would like to send my condolences to those who have been affected by this tragedy. The only solace I can find in this horrific and senseless tragedy is that no more innocent lives were needlessly lost at the hands of this monster thanks to the heroism of some very brave, very selfless people.

[Disney Duster]

Ah, but I didn't bring it up. He quoted someone who said they did something religious to help, Goliath said he wouldn't do it, and I asked why. I was responding to what was already said. I don't need to talk anymore on the matter now, so I won't.

[Goliath]

I said I was sending good thoughts; I didn't put anyone through a third degree examination on why they believe in praying. I don't care what anyone believes will help the victims and their families, as long as they DO it.

Has anybody seen Jon Stewart's bit on the tragedy this monday? His entire opening segment was dedicated to it, and there were hardly any jokes in it. He was very serious, and it reminded me of his speech on his first show after 9/11. Jon was a lot more calm than Cenk Uygur (the guy from the last video, who has been filling in for Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC occasionally). Jon said he doesn't know what tipped off Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter. He says he doesn't know that the political climate inspired the shooter to his awful crime. Although I don't agree, I think he made his point very well and people should watch that segment.

Rachel Maddow also has done a piece on the shooting. She placed this shooting not in the context of other politically motivated violence, but in the context of the enormous amount of these type of shootings that have occured in the past two decades in the US. The frequency with which such tragedies have taken place shocked me --and that was even a random pick by Maddow, who left out a lot of incidents. Her item was more about gun violence than anything else. Although I don't agree with her premise that politics don't have anything to do with it (again, the shooter was vehemently anti-government), I'm going to post it here anyway because I think it's an important piece:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/B1MrT ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/B1MrT ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has called attacks of liberals at her rhethoric "blood libel" --even though she herself removed the image with the crosshairs from her website within an hour after the shooting (feeling guilty?). Now Jewish organizations are calling her anti-semetic for using that term. I didn't know "blood libel" had a jewish connotation?

















Oh, and one more for the road:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/whWrt ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/whWrt ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Siren]

I seriously dislike Palin, but to give her ANY blame is ridiculous.

If we blame Palin and other Republicans, then we need to blame the music and movies many mass murderers listen to and even BLAME for giving them ideas. Judas Priest was brought to trial for this asinine and no basis reason. Alice Cooper, Marlyn Manson, Slipknot and many other musicians have been BLAMED for inserting violent ideas into people's heads and getting them to murder others.

I think Palin is a nutter, but to blame her because she put crosshairs over some names is just giving the ACTUAL CRIMINAL a media scapegoat. He should not be granted such a liberty.

[milojthatch]

I said I was sending good thoughts; I didn't put anyone through a third degree examination on why they believe in praying. I don't care what anyone believes will help the victims and their families, as long as they DO it.

Has anybody seen Jon Stewart's bit on the tragedy this monday? His entire opening segment was dedicated to it, and there were hardly any jokes in it. He was very serious, and it reminded me of his speech on his first show after 9/11. Jon was a lot more calm than Cenk Uygur (the guy from the last video, who has been filling in for Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC occasionally). Jon said he doesn't know what tipped off Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter. He says he doesn't know that the political climate inspired the shooter to his awful crime. Although I don't agree, I think he made his point very well and people should watch that segment.

Rachel Maddow also has done a piece on the shooting. She placed this shooting not in the context of other politically motivated violence, but in the context of the enormous amount of these type of shootings that have occured in the past two decades in the US. The frequency with which such tragedies have taken place shocked me --and that was even a random pick by Maddow, who left out a lot of incidents. Her item was more about gun violence than anything else. Although I don't agree with her premise that politics don't have anything to do with it (again, the shooter was vehemently anti-government), I'm going to post it here anyway because I think it's an important piece:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/B1MrT ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/B1MrT ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has called attacks of liberals at her rhethoric "blood libel" --even though she herself removed the image with the crosshairs from her website within an hour after the shooting (feeling guilty?). Now Jewish organizations are calling her anti-semetic for using that term. I didn't know "blood libel" had a jewish connotation?

















Oh, and one more for the road:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/whWrt ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/whWrt ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

First, thanks for posting the Maddow bit. It was very insightful and I've already shared it in various places on the net. Second, I did see the Jon Stewart piece and can't say that I totally disagree. The fact is, the FBI is still investigating and they can't seem to get Mr. Loughner to work with them and get him to talk.

This whole thing has shown me two big things, besides that we desperately need to re-think how our gun laws work. First, that humans jump to conclusion very fast. We are quick to judge, quick to blame, but slow to accept responsibility. It was like not even a full hour after the first reports star coming in about the shooting that people start using it to blame other people, mostly on political grounds.

Fact is, each one of us carry some blame for something. How different would this world be if say Beck or Oberman would man up and admit they went to far with something, or if the folks in Hollywood would say sorry for going too far with some movie or song? Or if some big corporation would admit to being dishonest or people within community would admit to small things like admitting it was their dog that ruined your flowers, or it was them who said mean things about you behind your back at the PTA meeting and they are very sorry for doing it. We are a society of 100% blame, 0% responsibility. And hey, I'll admit right now, even I do this from time to time. I mess up and then try to blame someone else or not admit it was me. We all do it and until we all stop, nothing is going to get better. We all jump to conclusions as well. We need to stop deciding how something is until we find out how something really is.

The next thing, as shown I think rather clearly in Maddow's bit, is that we always ask questions about what we can do differently each time something like this happens, but that seems to be as far as we go. Fact is, we never do anything to change things, so the mistakes keep coming back to bit us in the butt. Again, we go into the, it is that person's fault, we bicker, don't change anything, and sometime later go through it all over again.

This is the funniest thing about humans. I hear tons of people talk about being adult and mature and yada yada, but most of those same people then turn around and behave very childishly. Basically, life will not get better until we as a people are ready for it to. Amen.

[Goliath]

Fact is, each one of us carry some blame for something. How different would this world be if say Beck or Oberman would man up and admit they went to far with something, or if the folks in Hollywood would say sorry for going too far with some movie or song?

And here's where the difference lies between the left and the right. I'm sorry to make a political point here (not really), but have you watched Olbermann's special comment I posted on page 1 (in the opening post)? Olbermann apologized for a comment he made about Hillary Clinton a loooong time ago which was not, but could -somehow, in a very distorted way, maybe- be perceived as a very veiled reference to violence. Olbermann has already apologized for it the day after he made the comment and now, he re-apologized. I've seen Rachel Maddow apologize several times on television, in her own show, for having provided false information and she corrected herself on air.

Now, how many of these corrections and apologies have we seen from the right? Not one. Ever. Not from Beck for saying Obama is a racist with a deep-seethed hatred for white people; not by Bill O'Reilly for constantly referring to now-dead doctor George Tiller as 'Tiller the baby-killer'; not by Beck (again) for joking about poisining Nancy Pelosi; not by Rush Limbaugh for saying we should kill all the liberals; not by Ann Coulter for saying Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times. And none of them ever apologized for and corrected any false statements they ever made on radio or tv. But then again, that would take them their entire shows for a whole week!

And how can Olbermann be equated to Glenn Beck? Who has Olbermann insulted? Who has Olbermann wished would have died? It's a false equivalency. You're little everyday examples may seem nice, rational and well-intended, but ultimately serve to take away attention from the elephant in the room: that it's always the right wing which does the violence, and always the left-wing which gets violated. Exactly like Cenk Uygur of 'The Young Turks' said in the video.

[Lazario]

Fact is, each one of us carry some blame for something. How different would this world be if say Beck or Oberman would man up and admit they went to far with something, or if the folks in Hollywood would say sorry for going too far with some movie or song?

Hollywood produces music? I always thought they farmed out for it.

Don't just call everything in the entertainment business "Hollywood." People who do that are usually 5 minutes away from joining a cult!

And who the hell do you expect should apologize for going too far in Hollywood? INDEPENDENT COMPANIES wouldn't have made movies like Saw if people didn't keep voting for heartless politicians who pushed for money wars in the first place! And how about the people who've defended the use of torture? Do you think Hollywood does that? Just because they represent something negative does not mean they endorse it - and to say otherwise is the same position those people take who want to ban books because of objectionable content. They refuse to put what they think is wrong in proper context. Family moralists love to blame it all on Hollywood, don't they? They're just so visible. Unlike corrupt politicians who hide behind Fox News and the visibility of political pundits to take the heat for them, which inflates their ego until you get pictures of dickheads like Limbaugh posing with cigars sticking out of their mouths. Who does he think he is- Donald Trump? (And since cigars are inherently phallic, I wonder whose piece he's actually salivating over- probably his own.)

And of course, the whiny traditionalist family-values set never like to blame themselves for any of this, even though they often preach highly intolerant views (and don't think for a second that that isn't noticed by the few with hearts in the entertainment industry) and overreact psychotically over the tiniest things (i.e.: Katy Perry's busty dress on Sesame Street) in the name of moral decency (not that they would know, since they never think of their kids as people- usually they're seen as brainless accessories attached to a lifestyle or shills placed on the top of some stock labeled as a future). Today's cinema wouldn't keep glorifying fashion, hollow beauty, and material possessions over morality and human character if they didn't feel like people were being sold something every 10 seconds!! The whole of humanity itself has already been reduced in worth since we've allowed everyone to put dollar signs on us. Larry the Cable Guy was not that much different than America's own "President" from 01-08. Of course we were going to get a flood of movies just as stupid. And since - again - independent companies put all that street brawling sports on our TV along with sensationalist news reports of disasters 24/7 and war footage when most people couldn't tell you what we went to Iraq for- we ended up bombarded by Michael Bay and Uwe Boll shit, punching-in-the-streets movies, 80's action-figure franchises turned into live-action hero flicks, everything labeled "Extreme" this and that, and endless shows and movies about technology used as a weapon.

You think Hollywood goes too far? Face it - most movies and music are reactions to the world we live in. Don't like it? Complain about who really makes it this way. It's not Hollywood that put us in a cattle market. They just cut into the pie and take a slice.

[Flanger-Hanger]

You think Hollywood goes too far? Face it - most movies and music are reactions to the world we live in. Don't like it? Complain about who really makes it this way. It's not Hollywood that put us in a cattle market. They just cut into the pie and take a slice.

The same goes for advertising too. If a sufficient number of people did not respond to "immoral" practices, they wouldn't be used.

[Goliath]

The same goes for advertising too. If a sufficient number of people did not respond to "immoral" practices, they wouldn't be used.

That's the world upside down. Advertising is about brainwashing people into buying crap they don't need. Advertising is not there because people demand it; advertising is there to *create* a deman amongst people. But this is really, really off-topic and this thread shouldn't be used for this discussion.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is taking advantage of the Arizona shooting to paint herself as the one and only true victim and to -get this!- *repeat* her gun imagery. She even joked about it. She even added some more violent rhethoric to her already deplorable earlier expressions. And she seems to enjoy it. In fact, if you read her comments below, you'll see she revels in it. See, this is why I hate her. Even if she was a hard-left Democrat, I couldn't like her, because she's mean. She laughs at this tragedy. She's like the high school bully.

Poor, poor Sarah


So let me get this straight.

Twenty people were gunned down at a supermarket in Arizona on Saturday. Six were killed, including a nine-year-old girl. Fourteen others were wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of the attack, and who was shot through the head. She is currently lying in a hospital bed with half of her skull removed because brain swelling from her bullet wound could kill her.

Twenty people shot.

Six killed.

Fourteen wounded.

And guess what?

It appears Sarah Palin is the principal victim of the shooting.

No, really.

Don't believe me? Watch the video she posted to her Facebook page. There she sits, in front of a fireplace and beside an American flag like some cruel joke on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wreathing herself in pity because people are coming to the conclusion that politicians like her - the ones who have spent the last two years talking about guns and civil war and reloading and such - should bear some of the blame for what happened in Arizona.

How on Earth could anyone come to such an irresponsible and reprehensible conclusion?

Hm.

In a message posted on her Facebook page Sunday afternoon, Sarah Palin reiterated her call for supporters to "reload" in the battle against health care reform, a term that provoked controversy last week after critics accused her of inciting violence against members of Congress. Presenting her message as an exhortation to college basketball teams competing in March Madness, Palin stood her ground in using firearm imagery against the administration.

"The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons - your Big Guns - to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win," Palin wrote. In the headline of her update, she mockingly predicted that the message would be "subject to new politically correct language police censorship."


That was supposed to be about basketball, and as usual, all sorts of mean people jumped up and down on her for once again vomiting gun-violence rhetoric into the political debate. Yup, she was the victim then, and is now the victim once again.

Poor, poor Sarah.

Before you start spluttering and staggering in an attempt to comprehend the sheer galactic magnitude of this new round of idiocy - "Who the what the where the when the why the how the what?!" was my initial response - stop a second and remember that this is how people like Sarah Palin operate. This is how they get others to follow them. They make themselves out to be victims, and convince their followers that they, too, are victims.

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media machine have turned professional victimhood into a license to print money, and people like Sarah Palin are all too happy to jump on that bandwagon. You're losing your country, your rights, your guns, your family, your religion, the sanctity of your marriage, the supremacy of your heterosexuality, my God, you're losing Christmas, for the love of God! You're losing everything (...psssst...they're talking to White Christians when they say this stuff, by the way, which just cracks me all the way up...), and if you don't "take up arms" to stop it, well, it will just make the Baby Jesus weep bitter, bitter tears.

Speaking of "taking up arms," here is Palin's explanation for such rhetoric: "When we say 'take up our arms,' we are talking about our vote."

Of course. How could we have missed such an obvious reference? Silly us.

Poor, poor Sarah.

Since we're on the topic, here's another hoot from another professional victim: Sharron Angle, the only living human who can make Sarah Palin seem sensible and coherent by comparison. In her own comments on how awful it is that people who think her "Second Amendment remedies" talk might have something to do with politicians getting shot in the head, Angle said, "The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger."

Let that one sink in for a second.

The twenty people who were shot on Saturday were gathered peacefully with their elected representative to petition for a redress of grievances when they were mowed down like grass. But they are not the victims. Angle, Palin, the Tea Party are the ones in danger here. They are the ones whose rights are in peril. They are the victims.

Or something.

Something else happened here, however, speaking of victims. In her puling, self-pitying video rant, Palin accused her critics of committing a "blood libel" against her. From the New York Times:

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin's use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

So was Gabriel Zimmerman, who died on Saturday.

The geometry of all this is a little bewildering, so let me try to sum it up. The victims of Saturday's shooting have caused Sarah Palin and her ilk to become the real victims, so Palin decided to further victimize Saturday's victims by framing her own victimhood with the use of perhaps the sickest anti-Semitic slur ever to exist on the skin of this Earth.

But guess what? It wasn’t even her line. She used it, sure, but lifted it from a Wall Street Journal headline and article by right-wing columnist Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a.k.a. "InstaPundit." So she’s a victim as well as unoriginal. Contain your shock.

Poor, poor Sarah. We weep bitter tears for your travails.

Not. I will save my tears for the real victims here, for the living and the lost, and the America that people like Sarah Palin have been tearing apart for ambition and profit.

From: http://www.truth-out.org/poor-poor-sarah66781

[Flanger-Hanger]

That's the world upside down. Advertising is about brainwashing people into buying crap they don't need. Advertising is not there because people demand it; advertising is there to *create* a deman amongst people. But this is really, really off-topic and this thread shouldn't be used for this discussion.

I'll make one last clarification, I did not mean advertising in general but concepts within it such as "sex sells".

[Goliath]

Good news: Gabrielle Giffords has opened her eyes and was able to move her arms, doctors say. They're optimistic about her chances for recovery.

[ajmrowland]

That's the world upside down. Advertising is about brainwashing people into buying crap they don't need. Advertising is not there because people demand it; advertising is there to *create* a deman amongst people. But this is really, really off-topic and this thread shouldn't be used for this discussion.

I'll make one last clarification, I did not mean advertising in general but concepts within it such as "sex sells".

The fact that they even call that "sex" shows how underdeveloped we are.

The fact that we even have people shooting each other and committing mass murder shows a side of our country that we try to stuff under the rug; the side that makes life too hard for some people.

And it's great news that Congresswoman Giffords is recovering well!

[Goliath]

So the right is not to blame, eh? Glenn Beck proves otherwise; talks about shooting left-wingers in the head. From Democratic Underground:

----
HERE is the ultimate display of deliberate hostile intent:
BECK: "You're going to have to shoot them in the head.

The Smoking Gun: Here Is Why Glenn Beck Should Be Fired NOW!
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=3647

'Glenn Beck': Party's Over for Democrats?

Thursday, June 10, 2010

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594 ... z1BLaeQ600

"Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html


This cannot possibly be justified as acceptable political discourse. This is not merely an expression of opinion. It is not metaphorical. It is a call to arms. And Beck's audience is listening. They have heard him say that "The country will be washed with blood." They have heard him warn that he may have to speak in code:

(more)BECK: "I fear that there will come a time when I cannot say things that I am currently saying. I fear that it will come to television and to radio, and I will stop saying these things. Understand me clearly. Hear me now. If I ever stop saying these things, you will know why. Because I will have made a choice that I can only say certain things, and I haven't lost all of the rights. But know that these things are true. And if you hear me stop saying these things, it's because I can no longer say them to you. But hear them between the sentences. Hear them, please. I will be screaming them to you."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/ ... -Fired-NOW!

----


Here is a special commentary by Keith Olbermann (unrelated to the Beck incident):

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/kCHPK ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/kCHPK ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


And, of course, Bill Maher had something to say about this, and as usual he didn't pull no punches. Here's 13 minutes giving voice to *my* point of view; complete agreement on my part:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/FZpi0 ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/FZpi0 ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>