The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..12..18..24..30..36..40~41~42 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 05:54, Woland wrote:
By the way, if there is a scandal here, it is the failure of the Tucson police to do something about this lunatic before he killed six people. According to the New York Times:

Quote:
TUCSON — The police were sent to the home where Jared L. Loughner lived with his family on more than one occasion before the attack here on Saturday that left a congresswoman fighting for her life and six others dead, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said on Tuesday.

A spokesman, Jason Ogan, said the details of the calls were being reviewed by legal counsel and would be released as soon as the review was complete. He said he did not know what the calls were about — they could possibly have been minor, even trivial matters — or whether they involved Jared Loughner or another member of the household.


I'll bet the sheriff and the chief of police have got their legal counsel hard at work!

Woland

The other day in one of your deleted threads, if IIRC, you were blaming the parents and also saying that the police did nothing about the kid because the parents were city or state workers.

Today it turns out the police WERE doing something after all (we now know they visited the home on multiple occasions), but you are still suggesting that they failed to do anything.

Even though you don't actually know what they did or did not do. As the NYTimes notes, that information is still being collected for release to the public.

Maybe wait until facts are out before assigning blame?

Or, if you want to jump all over the police before knowing the facts, perhaps take this to the "all police are bad" thread. I'm sure that gdw and chance would appreciate the support. Smile (The Smile is also directed at gdw and chance.)
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Chance
View Profile
Inner circle
1385 Posts

Profile of Chance
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 09:18, balducci wrote:
...."all police are bad"....


I've never said that, or supported anyone who did.

But if you say it then it must be true. /snark
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Ask yourself these questions.

What are the names of the people who were killed?
What was the Repubican Judges name?
Time is up. Many of you don't know.

What is the name of the Dem Congresswoman who was shot?

-------------------------------SHAME ON THE NEWS MEDIA------------------------------------------
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, balducci, we'll see what comes of it. I was simply reporting what others had found out. I think the Sheriff still has a lot of 'splaining to do. The fact that the police went repeatedly to the home ***may*** indicate that they knew they had a problem. So why wasn't anything done about it?

And it is mentioned in that New York Times article, that the shooter's mother works for the Parks Department. The father is identified as a carpet layer, so the earlier report that he worked for Child Protective Services may not be current or even accurate.

The thread that was deleted was not "mine," anyway. I had probably contributed less than 5% to it.

In this thread, started by Magnus Eisengrim, we sre talking about the press coverage of the shooting.

Woland
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 02:04, Scott Cram wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-11 23:47, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I'm not making excuses. The blame lies with the shooter.

But I wonder- if there was no violent rhetoric coming from the media, would his target have been the same?


His target has been the same since 2007, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Suspect Fixated on Giffords

Quote:
Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

A safe at Mr. Loughner’s home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords’ office thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on your Corner” event in Tucson. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner’s signature, according to an FBI affidavit.

Federal authorities charged Mr. Loughner on Sunday with two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder and a count of attempting to kill a member of Congress, during a scheduled public appearance by Ms. Giffords here Saturday. More charges are expected, officials said, and Mr. Loughner, age 22, remains in federal custody. He will appear in federal court in Phoenix on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Loughner had complained to a friend about how he was treated by the Arizona lawmaker during an event several years ago, which aggravated Mr. Loughner, according to the friend.


Context: Nobody outside of Alaska even knew the name Sarah Palin until Aug. 29, 2008, when John McCain announced her as his choice of running mate.

Not sure that this is such a good argument. If he was obssessed since 2007, then one could ask, why did he choose now to do it?
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 01:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Any Democrat, or any politician? Or any major candidate?

Al Sharpton was a Democratic candidate for everything from Mayor of New York to President of the United States. Not a serious contender, but someone who has earned hundreds of thousands of votes. He led a mob chanting "No Justice, No Peace" in the immediate wake of the Yankel Rosenbaum killing. His comments with respect to the "Freddy's Fashion Mart" riot were particularly incendiary. Is he an almost-U.S. Senator? No. On the other hand, he has a history of being embraced by the Democratic party, and was a featured speaker at the 2004 DNC.

Sharpton is a total opportunist (and acknowledged FBI informant BTW), but even at Freddy's he wasn't calling for the assassination of an elected official.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--the "other" thread led off with a newspaper that accused Loughner of being a leftist.

Here's more:
"Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.

TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch......g/69153/
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 09:25, Chance wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 09:18, balducci wrote:
...."all police are bad"....


I've never said that, or supported anyone who did.

But if you say it then it must be true. /snark

That's why I included the Smile chance. Two of them, in fact. With the parenthetical note to gdw and yourself pointing the smiley face out! I was hoping you would see that I was being sarcastic or ironic or something like that. Guess I failed. Smile
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-01-12 10:21, Woland wrote:

Well, balducci, we'll see what comes of it. I was simply reporting what others had found out. I think the Sheriff still has a lot of 'splaining to do. The fact that the police went repeatedly to the home ***may*** indicate that they knew they had a problem. So why wasn't anything done about it?

Again, we don't KNOW that they did nothing about it. Perhaps they DID do something. I await the release of more information.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
As do I, balducci, as do I.

landmark, the fact that one independent Tea Party group sent out an email is not equivalent to the barrage of pundits from the leftist media and leftist politicians who all blamed the shooting on Sarah Palin, on the House of Representatives for either attempting to repeal Obamacare or for having the Constitution read out loud, et cetera. As for that actual quote, it seems to me that based on his numerous public pronouncements before and after the shooting, Sheriff Dupnik is a extreme liberal who is using this incident to advance his agenda.

As I've said in the deleted threads several times, the shooter is a lunatic, and there is nothing political about this shooting at all. Like many such lunatics, he was obsessed with a celebrity, in this case Representative Giffords, and his obsession grew until he sprang into action. Why now, and not before? Probably has to do with the evolution of his madness, we'll have to wait to see whether he had ever been in treatment, on meds, et cetera.

Woland
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
In the "other" thread I made a point that I'm going to repeat here, and AFAIK, no one has addressed it. While there is a lot of talk about the metaphoric nature of the gum imagery, there are definitely segments of the right who are giving it with a wink and a nod.

I'm talking about the blind eye given to real guns brought to protests where the President has appeared. In NH, a guy comes with a pistol strapped to his leg to an Obama appearance; In Arizona, at another Obama event, a guy comes with a rifle slung over his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. I've been to many protests in my life, and in the past if anyone dared to do such a thing, they would be immediately whisked away and looking at some very serious time. People in the President's vicinity have been arrest for wearing the wrong T-Shirt, for Pete's Sake! Now, nothing.

So this is about real intimidation with real guns. And I have not seen conservatives talking out against this. And if O'Reilly and Hannity have spoken out against it, then I'll take it back. So, for a definite segment of the right, the "metaphor" argument is just a cover; their actions show their real intent. It's about saying and showing the intention to use violence if necessary to achieve their agenda. A very definite climate has been created, and it's clear to anybody with half a brain, that this "unforseeable accident" would eventually happen, it was just a matter of time.

And I'll go out on a limb and say that for some people that was exactly the intention.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Keeping this thread on topic, here are Professor Victor Davis Hanson's thoughts on the press coverage of the Tucson incident:

Quote:
The Left in the last 48 hours has tried to make the argument that the Tucson shootings were the result of Tea Party angst, health-care furor, talk radio, opposition to illegal immigration — almost any contemporary hot-button hoi polloi issue or any populist forum. And the more the public refuses to buy any of it, instead seeing Tucson as a madman’s evil attack on the innocent and noble, the more the liberal media seems weirdly intent on promulgating its absurd narrative.

Arguments that the liberal community is less prone to reckless speech, or has far less tolerance for those within it who use violent imagery and language than does the Right, are unconvincing. I don’t remember a Krugman column or a Sen. Patrick Leahy speech on the toxic Nicolson Baker novel, the Gabriel Range Bush assassination docudrama, the Chris Matthews CO2-pellet-in-the-face/blowing-up-of-the-“blimp” comments about Rush Limbaugh, the “I hate George Bush” embarrassment at The New Republic, Michael Moore’s preference for a red-state target on 9/11, or the Hitlerian/brownshirt accusations voiced by the likes of Al Gore, John Glenn, Robert Byrd, George Soros, and so on. So why the disconnect? Politics for sure, but I think also the double standard has something to do with style, venue, and perceived class.

If a progressive imagines killing George Bush in a tony Knopf novel or a Toronto film festival documentary, or rambles on about why he finds his president an object of hatred in a New Republic essay, or muses in the Guardian (cf. Charles Brooker: “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?”), then we must certainly contextualize that hatred in a way that we do not in the crasser genres of commercial-laden talk radio, or an open-air demonstration placard. The novelist, the film-maker, the high-brow columnist, the professor can all dabble in haute couture calumny (cf. Garrison Keeler’s “brownshirts in pinstripes”); the degree-less, up-from-the-bootstraps Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh behind a mike cannot. What is at the most atypical, out of character, or in slightly bad taste for the former must be a window into the dark soul of the latter.

So when suave, sophisticated, and cool Barack Obama talks metaphorically of knives, guns, enemies, punishing, kicking ass, relegation to the back seat, get angry, getting in their face, hostage takers, trigger fingers, tearing up, etc. we are supposed to think of it quite differently than the George Bush the swaggering Texan speaking of “dead or alive,” “smoke ’em out,” or “bring ’em on”— even if, empirically, one might find Obama’s confrontational expressions far more frequent and used far more in a domestic context against American political opponents than Bush’s Texanisms, which were spoken of radical Islamic terrorists.

In short, we are asked to believe that Sarah Palin’s use of crosshair symbols is confirmation that trigger-happy Alaskan yokels cling to their guns and incite violence, whereas sophisticated liberals, with their campaign maps replete with shooting targets on Republican districts are at most “edgy.” If a New England governor with perfect liberal credentials, like Howard Dean, M.D., blurts out, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for,” we are supposed to see that as the slightly over the top exuberance of a progressive crusader; if a Southern counterpart from the RNC were to say the same thing of Democrats, it would be derided as confirmation of violent red-state hatred and Bull Connor–era venom.

The same relativism applies to comments on race (cf. the Biden/Reid Obama quips of 2008) and a host of other issues. In short, it is not so much what is said, but the assumed class, contextualized intent, and perceived status of the person who says it and the particular genre he employs in doing so.

In such a warped world as we are in, the suggestion that the unhinged Major Hasan drew on the ubiquitous hatred of radical Islamic imams is as irresponsible and scurrilous as it is certain that Sarah Palin fostered Jared Lee Loughner.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland, "Keeping this thread on topic, . . . "

Don't know if you were addressing my last post, but if so, I think it's exactly on topic. The whole argument is about whether the press language has been symbolic or not. "In short, it is not so much what is said, but the assumed class, contextualized intent, and perceived status of the person who says it and the particular genre he employs in doing so." I agree. And the context of this speech is of a country where "conservatives" are appearing armed at political events. And if these people don't speak for the majority of conservatives, where is the outcry against them?
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest as mentioned above (poster did not say it was illegal I am just asking)? If so, those people who do so should be arrested and prosecuted. However if it is not and all this is just a knee jerk reaction to this incident..well do the math.

Obviously people who do not like other people to carry and pocess firearms this may seem like a great opportunity for them to push ahead their agenda for banning and owning firearms. However I would go on to use the same arguement that the pro abortion people use when confronted...it is legal now. I am not sure if it is legal for someone to bring a firearm to an event such as this.

To add to the comment about people being arrested for wearing a certain T-Shirt. I hope they sued the heck out of the police Dept and anyone else who helped to have them arrested. Even if it was inapproiate it was their right to do so and last time I checked this is The United States of America. One has to go along with the law when it works for them as well as aganist them. The people who did not like the T-shirt were within their rights to ask the individual to leave if this was a public event and or even give him a hard time by saying how stupid he looks, but as far as having him arrested or make him remove it I feel they crossed the line. I could be wrong, but I believe they violated his rights. I would imagaine the ACLU had a great time with that one. That is if it fit their agenda.

Another point I would just like to add here. Who cares what motivated this individual? He is mentally imbalanced. You might as well ask "Woody Woodpecker" what he thinks. Why are you looking for a rational explanation for his motive or actions.

I have a sad incident to relate. Around 12 years ago I had an acquitance that belonged to one of the of the local civic organizations that I also attended. A few times after meetings a few of us would get together have coffee and just chit chat. Well on more than one occasion he had commented that people look and see someone who is in business and drive a nice car and send their children to a nice private school and say to theemselves..wow that guy has it made or words to that effect as I amparaphrasing here. As the conversation progressed he made the point of saying that they do not know what problems some of these seemingly carefree people have but never mentioned any names and no one pressed the issue. So where is this going? Well he hanged himself in the basement of his business establishment. There was a note, and needless to say it expressed the problems he had whether imagined or real. Again the whole point of this is I never knew that he was talking about himself.

Should I or any of us that this was expressed to be blamed for not picking up on this and telling his wife that we feel your husband needs help? Quite honestly I did not know he was discussing himself. After the fact it was obvious and I said to myslelf, I see it now. How many here would go to ones wife, husband or son or daughter and say to them that I think your spouse or your father needs help? What kind of response do you feel you would get? I am only mentioning this because it is easy to see after the fact. The whole point being that if every time we think perhaps someone is a little off kilter are we supposed to have this person seek help? This could be the case here, but it seems like this guy was way out there. I am just saying it is easy to second guess after the fact. Even after an evaluation no telling what would have been done with him.

Do I feel sorry for him? Yes I do. But no where near as sorry as I feel for those he has affected by this senseless act. I cannot even imagine what his parents are going through at this time nor the grief of those affected by this act because of their loss.

Of all the above people mentioned he is probably the one least affected by this tragedy.

Just had to post the above.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Acesover,

Indeed a sad story.

landmark,

There may have been a few armed individuals, acting as individuals, at events such as the one you describe, I think I remember one case; the press was trying to portray the man with the rifle as a racist who was motivated by racial animus against the candidate . . . but when the uncropped pictures were shown, it turned out that the man with the rifle was black.

I don't know what the motivations of those people with rifles was, and I don't even know if they were conservatives. I am confident, however, that they were not trying to intimidate anyone. If anything, based on the comments of the African-American man with the rifle, they were trying to demonstrate that the peaceful expression of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms threatens nobody.

In contrast, the leftwing protesters who attempted terroristic violence against the GOP nominating convention in 2008 were demonstrably motivated by the desire to intimidate, disenfranchise, and silence their political opponents.

Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
I guess Sarah Palin just released a seven minute and 40 second video on 'the facebook' expressing her various thoughts on the shootings.

Unfortunately, she put her foot in her mouth by using the phrase "blood libel". (Which has to do with certain religious groups killing Christian children and using their blood in ceremonies.)

To be honest, I was unaware of its historical meaning. But, I guess a large segment of the population does. And so 'blood libel' is now a news story in its own right. Isn't a speech writer or personal assistant supposed to be aware of, and catch, these things in advance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Since he is both a psychiatrist and a journalist, one might expect Charles Krauthammer to have something to say about the press coverage of the Tucson shooting. And he does not disappoint:

Quote:
The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?


Very wise words.

Woland
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, balducci, according to Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University's......he term:

Quote:
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.


'Nuff said.

Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Woland, that's fine. As I said, I was unaware of the term. I just reported what was said, and how people are reacting. Even if she was correct in the term's usage, it does appear to be a touchy issue. Contrary to what Dershowitz says, I am not convinced that it is a "widely used term".

By the way, here is a conservative National Review Online columnist (who is also Jewish, I believe) arguing that the "blood libel" does not fit and was inappropriate to use. It also shows, BTW, that someone else used it in the recent discussion prior to Sarah Palin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256......goldberg

So it appears that opinion is split on the use of the term. On both the right and the left.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Really, Alan "Torture is fine with me" Dershowitz has been thoroughly discredited as a plagiarist and a liar, but to take him on his own terms, when he used the phrase blood libel, it was precisely to indict the critics of the Goldstone Report as anti-semitic. And he well knows that, which makes him a slimeball. Palin I think OTOH was just ignorant and idiotic, but no big deal really to me, though her hypocrisy is telling. See for example http://www.slate.com/id/2280964/

Quote:
I don't know what the motivations of those people with rifles was, and I don't even know if they were conservatives. I am confident, however, that they were not trying to intimidate anyone. If anything, based on the comments of the African-American man with the rifle, they were trying to demonstrate that the peaceful expression of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms threatens nobody.


I'm tempted to just let that stand as it is. That's kind of in the Wow category. They were just exuding a kind of peaceful Nirvana-gun-love-is-all-you-need kind of bliss. Kind of like when the KKK shows up in uniform, they're only doing it to show that you can wear it and have a nice peaceful event.


acesover--Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest as mentioned above (poster did not say it was illegal I am just asking)?
In both Arizona and NH it is generally legal to carry firearms in the open, though I don't know all the nuances of the laws. However, I would think that the Secret Service has broad discretion to do what the heck they want in a situation like this. And I'll say categorically that under any other president of the last forty years, those guys would not be seeing daylight for quite a while.


And here's news of Arizona Republicans who Tea Partiers have targeted. The Republicans are scared for their lives--they don't think it's just symbolic talk:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co......p?ref=tn
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..12..18..24..30..36..40~41~42 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.42 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL