Yes, Speaker Boehner has done a good job and deserves credit for it.

I agree Amy and Jody---Speaker Boehner has acted like a leader and not a partisan. I wish more people on both sides of the aisle would follow his lead and the lead of President Obama.

An A-men, to Jody and Mr Speaker..

TWO A-Men's to The Real Matt Hofman.

Zing!

So true.

LOL! The shocker for me is that someone actually follows him on Twitter to know that he tweeted that!

A thousand votes for Matt Hoffman. The sad part is that someone like Rumsfeld still gets a forum.

What was Mr. Rumsfeld thinking when he tweeted that? Is that what was needed to be said by a public official?

Many contributing factors and they need to be discussed? That is not what I was told on this blog in 2009. I posted that the Fort Hood massacre may have been the result of Islamic hatred of the United States. I got an earful about that one. I was told by liberals on this site, that the Fort Hood massacre was the result of one lone madman. I had no right to suggest that Islamic hatred of the U.S. may have driven him over the edge.

How different things are now. Now it is apparently OK to deflect blame on to our political opponents. Let's blame Rush and Beck. Maybe we can get them to go off the air.

As of now, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the Tucson nutjob ever listened to Rush or watched Beck's show. Yet some here are quick to blame them for this horrible tragedy.

I am not defending Limbaugh or Beck. I don't care for either one of them. I also don't care for Olbermann or any other self-important windbag from either political extreme.

Deflecting blame from the shooter to a convenient political opponent is weak. Neither side should do it. It shows disrespect to the victims and their families.

He was thinking that we need to get the coverup started. Just like Dallas: You don't have the facts yet, and we're going to make sure that you never get the facts in your lifetime. Files closed until 2027.

Steeler Fan ~ He was thinking that the statute of limitations still hasn't run on his own war crimes.

way to say it mike in woodbridge!

Well said Mike. All the arm chair quarterbacking going on in the media and on these boards isn't the least bit productive. All it's done is further inflame the rhetoric at this point. We don't know the facts, we can't know what was going on in the shooters head and speculating only keeps feathers ruffled.

^this

Bigbear, since I was so young in 1963, I have no clue what the political climate was at that time.

I was, however, old enough to know what was going on when Reagan was shot, and I do not remember hearing that the shooter was a left wing zealot, nor that he was influenced by the angry rhetoric of the left.

I do remember that he was found to have done it to impress Jodie Foster. No one blamed her. . .

Jody hadn't put crosshairs on Reagan's chest. If she had done so, a Sarah Palin essentially did, she would have gotten some of the blame for inciting a nutjob.

http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/democratic-leadership-council-had-target-map-in-2004/

Paul. you fail to accept the fact that the Democrats were using this type of imagrey in 2004. but we understand that you only think its wrong when a Republican does it. Above is from 2004 before Sarah Palin was even on the national Political scene. we understand that you will blame Republicans for anything you can. it doesnt matter whether its truth or not..

really paul, I seem to recall that the target was the district to be won, not the candidate to be shot.

LIAR Steve: Bullseyes and crosshairs are not the same thing. The dems use bullseyes to symbolize what they are aiming at, a target. The RepTEAbags use crosshairs to imply sniper rifle fire and violence.

Paul, a bulls eye and cross hairs imply the same - targets in sight. The little black box below the graphic of the US reads: "Behind Enemy Lines."

Candice: Please. Which would you prefer on your loved ones' forehead, bullseye or crosshair? One would indicate that they are a target, the other that they are marked for death and have a projectile coming their way at 3000ft/second.

Paul, I would prefer neither. The use of either symbol are exercises in poor judgement, in my opinion - mostly because politicians on both sides act like elections and governing are just a sport or a game. The cross hair is more intimidating, I'll agree with you on that, but the intent of the bulls eye is the same. I would also prefer if politicians would cease calling the other half of the country who are not aligned with their particular party: "The Enemy."

Neither wasn't the choice. Is this too difficult? If you place a target on my forehead, I can cover it with a bandana or a visor or a hat or a helmet. If you place crosshairs on my forehead, I am unlikely to know about it, or be able to defend myself from what is coming, much like Gabby Giffords or Judge Roll.

Only the deliberately obtuse would argue that they are the same thing.

Paul,

In the spirit of bipartisanship, can we agree that the use of symbols such as bulls eyes and cross hairs, and calling the opposition "the enemy" sends the wrong message?

The biggest difference I see between a bullseye and crosshairs is that no one went gunning for Republicans over a bullseye.

Kelly (TP) Giffords opponent in Arizona, Advocated violence from day one citing Sharon Angle's (TP) 2nd ammendment solution 100 times, Inviting his followers to join him in firing automatic weapons, and coming VERY close to ordering an armed response if he lost the election.

But,,,,,,,,,,We see no connection

It seems to me Republican politicians should fully understand, Considering how fast they drop to their knees for Insurance and Oil Corporations when told.

Conflict is a selling point. Do you imagine any of the more notorious pundits out there would be able to market as many books as they do were it not for the perpetual melodrama?

Pat: Listen to your brother.

I would be curious to hear what "facts' you have about the JFK assassination or 9/11. Were the FDRs recovered at "ground zero" or not? Why does the FDR from the Pentagon plane indicate that the plane was at too high to have hit the Pentagon?

Paul, it never fails. I try to tip toe around the JFK assassination, hoping not to have to fight this battle yet again. And there you always are, right behind me. Always.

LoL.

Exodite Dragon: It's amazing how many theories people can think up isn't it? But you're right. It sells.

Paul, I'm not going there. I've been debating the JFK death for upteen years. I don't know what people are looking for. You have the rifle, you have the name of the person who bought the rifle, you have the bullets, the casings, the fingerprints, the MIA employee. You have witnesses who heard the shots one floor below. You have a slain policeman who had stopped Oswald because he fit the description of the employee who left the Book Depository where the shooting occurred. And on and on and on.

Why tip-toe around it? It is the opening salvo in the "war" on the truth.

Pat, I have to ask: what is a CT?

no joe - CT = Conspiracy Theorist.

My brother sees conspiracies in everything. I don't believe he has read as much as he ought to on certain subjects, especially JFK/1963.

9/11 - we all know who did this and it wasn't our government.

You think that you know something. Yet you are unwilling to allow the CT's to prove that you are right and they are wrong. That makes no logical sense.

The supposed evidence you cite against Oswald would exist whether he was a patsy or the real shooter. Why is other evidence being hidden from the public until 2027?

Paul, in answer to your question on the JFK assassination and why do I tip toe around?

Answer: Hoping you won't see me. Now THAT makes no logical sense. LoL.

We'll get back to this another time - perhaps some weekend around 3 AM so as to not bog the site down when so many are here during the day.

You come to an article about JFK in 1963, bring up 9/11 yourself and then think that you can tip toe in cyberspace?

What difference does it make how many other people are on the web? If it's 3am here, it's 3pm somewhere else on the WORLD WIDE WEB. I asked you two very basic questions in comment #5.2 about the 9/11 coverup.

"At the scene." ? Your brother asked where your information and evidence came from. Your answer is a lie, unless you were the lead investigator on the scene. You take it on FAITH that the government wouldn't lie to you. We are not so naive.

Pat ~ what we don't have, among other things, is a clear understanding of why Jack Ruby felt compelled to kill Oswald, before Oswald could talk. Until someone answers that to my satisfaction, I will always have doubts about the acting alone theory.

Anna, why does anyone kill anyone? There are never satisfactory answers. Ruby himself said he screwed up by shooting Oswald. Ruby was next door from the jail that Sunday afternoon wiring money to one of his dancers for her rent. He decided to walk over to the jail to see what was going on. None of this was preplanned. Oswald by all accounts should have left the jail half an hour earlier than he did, but he wanted to change his shirt. So they were late leaving the jail. If Ruby planned on killing Oswald, he would not have stopped off beforehand to wire money. And he wouldn't have showed up half an hour later than the planned time for Oswald to be taken to another jail.

It just so happens Ruby was there being his usual nosy self. He walked down the ramp, saw Oswald with some sort of smirk on his face, took out his gun and shot him. Ruby left his dog in the car. Would he have brought his dog if he was planning on shooting Oswald? I doubt it.

Paul, what evidence do you wish to believe then? None? Some?

You tell me - who killed JFK? Who caused September 11th?

Ruby walking into the jail, where a Presidential assassin was being held, with a loaded gun on him, wasn't "pre-planned". That certainly makes perfect sense. Not.

Ruby was always hanging around the jail. He was very well known. He was club owner. He hung around with questionable people. He always carried a gun. He was there the day of the assassination as they were holding Oswald after he was caught, or it was Saturday, the following day - I forget which day it was. He was standing in the back, watching it all. But he shot Oswald on Sunday as he was being transferred to another building.

We all have heard the cover story, Pat. Why you would think that this quaint tale would explain how the authorities just kept dropping the ball in ways that would always help to hide the truth from the public is futher evidence of you naivete.

It was well known, you claim, that Ruby was always hanging around the jail, and that they knew that he always carried a gun. So while holding a Presidential assassination suspect, these Keystone cops never anticipated that RUBY, who was always hanging around with a gun on him, should be told to stay away from the building while Oswald was there. Please. More dereliction of duty going unpunished.

Paul, perhaps someday you can tell me what you have learned about the JFK assassination. I would be very interested in hearing it.

Keystone Cops certainly. No one should have been allowed to go near Oswald. On that we can agree. I don't know who saw Ruby enter that garage on that afternoon. I don't know if they were shocked to see him or if they didn't notice him at all. I honestly can't remember.

But the security was really bad. No question about it.

You continue to buy their cover story, and regurgitate it, hook-line-and-sinker. None of us like to admit that we have been fooled. They used, and continue to use, your sense of Patriotism against you, by telling you a story which you feel obligated to believe, and after enough time goes by they know that you will become emotionally invested in believing that you weren't fooled by the people you, mistakenly, gave the benefit of the doubt.

Believe no "evidence" or allegation until it has been cross-examined in a court of law.

Paul - better go get assange and wikileaks to explain it all to you. Life goes on!

Pat, thank you for showing us all patience in the face of CT's

So to your way of thinking, if you can call it that, the right of our government to hide its criminal activities from the public is justified. Nice philosophy. Move along, nothing to be seen here, pay no attention to man behind the curtain. It is the CTs who are being patient with the sheeple who embrace fairytales.

It was the Martians, its always been the martians who did it. You all know its true. The guvment is just covering up the truth. You'll see. Some day someone will find the secret files and we'll all know the truth. Then you'll all be sorry for not building yr shelters.

The secret files don't need to be found. We know where they are; they just need to be released to an investigative body with subpoena power. Who among us would logically attempt to claim that a request for that information is being unreasonable?

Investigative body like a FISA court ?

A Martian FISA court?

LOL... good one.

We do try to continue to have a sense of humor about this.

That's why trolling can be fun, once in a while. Amazing what happens when you write like a far right or far left wing-nut.

Amy - States already have regulations on the books for gun sales and carrying laws. Woukl you suggest a yearly testing of every gun owners mental state?

Wouldn't hurt.

BTW, Amy and American, have you been tested before receiving your FOID ?

So why is it the Patriot Act in its attempts to prevent terrorist attacks from happening is an invasion of privacy but accessing mental health records or demanding some form of testing of individuals wanting to legally purchase guns wouldn't be an invasion of privacy?

I don't disagree that it would be nice to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable but I also know that someone hell bent on getting a gun is going to do so whether it's legal or not. And had this numpty not gotten the gun, I am guessing there's a good chance he'd have built a pipe bomb (as I understand it, instructions are readily available on the internet and your average 15 year old has no problem locating them, don't think a 22 year old college student would have found it all too challenging either) or some other way of causing mass destruction and death. Twisted mind + twisted plan = result at any cost. Taking guns away from those who follow the rules solves nothing.

And that judgement was correct, even though it was rushed. Allen Dulles went right-wingnut batsh!t crazy over the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He had tried to force JFK's hand on the air-cover and was rebuffed. For John Kennedy, the payback was a real b!tch. And then, of course, Dulles got to control the investigation of his own crime, by getting himself placed on the Warren whitwash Commission..