Nashville_fan

Curious that so many folk would come up with the same obscure phrase . . . time to reset the talking points generator.

Human Events staff writer John Hayward urged the "Right to fight back" against blame for the attacks in a piece titled "The Giffords Blood Libel Will Fail; The Left rides a horse that is dying beneath them."

It's also time to realize Sarah doesn't have an original thought in her brains.

I told ya'll in FirstThoughts I didn't think Sarah wrote that speech.

All right,' said the Cheshire Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly. Go away Sarah. Quit!!!

The billionaires need to give up on their investment. She is no Hillary.

Nash are you snowed in?

Hardly surprising, really. It's a fitting term if one is making a case that people look to place blame and roll heads without rhyme or reason.

Actually, when I heard Palin say it I was a bit confused but seeing in print elsewhere makes more sense. Well, it doesn't make sense to be applying the term to this tragedy, but it reinforces my belief that Palin doesn't have an original thought in her head.

Amazing that in the midst of the tragedy, the rabid right continues the vitriol!

Geesh, the more you hear her speak the more ...

Why doesn't she do what her allies have suggested she do - come out and say she may have gone too far. Or say she is through with the dancing around of issues and wants to talk to the American people in a plain understandable manner. How hard is that for someone who may want to run for the presidency? She just seems to me to be one soundbite after another. And none of it makes any sense. None of it.

What she seems to be doing is taking the advice of media entertainers. Hannity & Beck & Limbaugh are not intellectual heavy weights. They're entertainers in the business of selling hate directed to President Obama and all Democrats. Yet it is they she is listening to for advice. She is seeking out the wrong people for help and guidance, of which she needs plenty of.

Bev,

I was snowed in Monday, but I am at work today! I am efforting to give Former Governor Palin the benefit of the doubt . . . to not dehumanize her. I admit that this is not easy . . . but I am going to try to practice what I preach. . . wish me luck! :o)

I think with this latest controversy, she's finally done.

She won't go easily or quitely, but she's done.

Why doesn't she do what her allies have suggested she do - come out and say she may have gone too far.

When was the last time a rightie EVER admitted wrong doing in any way, shape or form? lol

They view it as a sign of weakness...

She won't go easily or quitely, but she's done

Who's going to be the 'lucky' one that get's to stick a fork in her?

Every member of GWAR, presumably.

Hey Fiesty... Bush jr admitted he may have been wrong about a few things... long after he was out of office of course.

It was wrong for the left to come out and immediately blame this tragedy on the right without first getting all of the facts. My first gut reaction was that this would prove to be some Republican/TPInc. gun nut (no, I am not anti-gun) but my mind overrode my gut and I withheld my criticism.

That being said, the reaction from the right was just as bad. I listened to Rush for as long as I could stand it and the gyrations he was going through to blame this on the left were a wonder to behold. Cirque de Sole has nothing on Rush and a few of the right wingers who post here. I find it very interesting and telling that the people protesting the loudest and refusing to recognize there is a problem are those on the right. The question also needs to be asked, if it was apolitical, why did he target a Democrat rather than a Republican/TP Inc. politician? I believe there was a Republican/TP Inc. politician's office very nearby.

This is how I see it (i.e. it is my opinion and like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink). The kid was a mentally disturbed person who was not receiving the help he needed. For whatever reason, be it money, jurisdiction or inability, many who knew he had problems did not help him. He was just 'pushed away' by the people he was 'bothering' rather than helped or directed to help. He was very susceptible to emotion packed rhetoric and easily influenced.

Yes, the left has called some on the right some pretty mean names but the right has done the same thing to the left. The difference, as I see it, is that the left doesn't accuse the right of 'hating America' or 'intentionally trying to destroy America'. The left does not say things like 'use Second Amendment remedies if we lose' or 'don't retreat, reload' or encourage everyone who doesn't agree with the left to start packing heat. Yes, many years ago, the Democratic Party used targets on a map but they did not use gun sights.

By their own portrait of the left, how could the right be consistent with themselves when they say the left is inciting the violence? They constantly portray the left as 'peaceniks' and weak on defense and not supporting the military but they want to blame the left for inciting violence? That is not consistent.

Basically, the right and left both vilify each other but it is the right that constantly uses violent imagery and encourages violent acts such as breaking the windows of campaign offices, disrupting meetings, shouting over those who disagree with you, reloading, gun sights on targeted districts, etc.

We have heard plenty of those on the left saying that they have engaged in less than honorable language, apologized for it and have promised to try and be more civil going forward. From the right? Not so much. What we have heard from the right is spin to justify what they say, spin to try and blame it on the left and spin to explain away their own rhetoric without apology or even a recognition that there is even a problem.

I doubt it was her words anyway

Why doesn't she do what her allies have suggested she do - come out and say she may have gone too far.

Because that would be leadership, and Palin is no leader.

BTW, excellent post, Matthew in Houston!

Amen to that Nashville

nashville_fan - it snowed about three inches in Nashville Monday. The town was shut down. Another half inch this morning. New York got 11 inches today, and schools are still open. I love Nashville!

Most of the blaming of the right wing rhetoric occurred before anyone knew the killer's name. The fact that so many practically expected him to be a right wingnut with a health care gripe - in and of itself speaks volumes for the level of vitriol in the rhetoric. I do not believe from what I had seen of the blogosphere that afternoon that liberals were out to use this situation to their advantage and lay blame where they knew it did not belong (as the republicans so often do btw). This is precisely what Palin and other pundits are claiming the left is doing. No, what I saw in the blogosphere before the killer was known was people who had heard so much vitriol, so much anger, so much hate from the right that for them it was a purely emotional reaction - "This is exactly what they have been pushing for!" was a common sentiment. A reaction that was primed by the very anger, vitriol, and hate that they blamed. For them (and me) there existed a loudmouth, hate-filled, propaganda machine that simply had the biggest motive and therefore got the lion's share of the suspicion early on.

If I walked around saying I hated someone, openly called for their overthrow, and told all kinds of outrageous lies about the person, like that they were a terrorist or a traitor, or wanted to kill old people, and then they end up dead - don't you think I'm going to be a suspect? The right has no right to feel victimized here. This is the bed they made and now they have to sleep in it!

I still believe that although this killer may just be some schizo, that the rhetoric of the right wing will ultimately produce violence. That is not a statement meant for political purposes or to win votes in a campaign, it is a warning of my heart. If Palin and the rest do not heed that warning, then things will go bad and we will blame them again when they do!

Yet another topic that Eric, Salinas, Ca would have loved.

As First Read's resident anti-Semite, I'm sure he would have had a great deal to say on the subject of "blood libel"...leaving his many admirers here to rationalize, ignore, or timidly admonish those remarks.

Ah...those were the days, eh First Readers?

Matthew,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, or for it to diminish your post by association of the source, but that was the best, most reasonable and rational comment I have seen a FR liberal make. Your first paragraph was perfect. Feisty has always been irrelevant, but not last weekend. I also tried to resist the rampage of the raging rectum from Roselle, but by Monday, I could no longer. Sorry for the attack on her, but...anyway.

Your second paragraph is understandable. I have a different perspective. We have to react. We cannot allow that type contemptible behavior to frame others.

No joe protested the loudest, trying to refrain from rush to judgements, collecting and posting relevant information about his mental health, it being apolitical, etc. She was brutalized for it. She was and still is correct - the real issue is mental health. Not cross hairs and wild hair crap from the Feistys.

Why did he target a Democrat? He targeted, or started following her in 2007, before the Tea Party, before Sarah Palin was the cause of all evil. He talked to skulls - he was crazy. He talked of conscious dreams - hallucinations? Who knows why Giffords...... have Feisty ask the skull. BTW - She was a Republican then became a conservative gun toting blue dog Democrat. Why did he not target a Republican? The federal judge he murdered was appointed by Bush if that makes anyone on the left feel better.

We disagree on a lot, but your post was respectful and reasonable. Thanks for your comments, Matthew.

Sarah Palin wants that spotlight so badly she'll do anything say anything even when she doesn't know what she is saying and how it will imact others. She simply does not think period.

DriveBy: Exactly my thought. I think this will mark the end of any last hopes Palin had for achieving national office. This kind of extremism is no doubt more red meat to her base, but she's crossed a line of fringe radicalism now that moderates and independents will not want to cross with her. And this is what she came up with after a few days of thought.

Radagast

I agree, this killer was just plain crazy. Palin shouldn't be blamed for this act. However, I do think that for the good of the country our rhetoric can be notched down. We should be able to agree that one party or the other isn't out to destroy the country or that those of us in opposite parties are evil. One thing for sure though you would think that Palin could have used a little class and judgement and not used a term that had anti-semitic backgrounds.

BTW, like the nametag - LOTR fan.

She had 4 days to ponder on what was being said by both sides of the aisle....this is the best she can do?

Her anger barely concealed, her words fail to convince she is sincere, she just threw a match on the gasoline. These words were not written by her I hope she pays the writer well for their efforts. I am at the point, that nothing will ever change her attitude she has no shame.

This country is in trouble and she is not helping.

Just four half baked thoughts from my progressive pov.

1. Even perfidy cannot last forever

2. Lay this at the feet of the tea party who habitually show up at rallies with guns

3. Blame also on Fox news and all their nattering nabobs of negativism brethren

4. No one seems to have a sense of shame in our society anymore.

Once again, we are getting away from the real story. A deranged lunatic opened fire on innocent people. Whether or not these victims are Democrat, Republican, Blue, Orange or whatever, is irrelevant. We have lost sight of the fact that a man made the decision to pull the trigger. The true reason may never be known, but we as society continue to point fingers. This whole Democrat against Republican battle is getting ridiculous and if it gets any worse we are well on our way to another Civil War.

palin should keep her mouth shut.

This country is in trouble and she is not helping.

All she is doing is standing over the BBQ with a can of lighter fluid merrily spraying away!

I cannot believe that these people, who claim to be so "educated" are using a term so abhorent. The best thing that Sarah Palin could do for the american people is to shut up and never open her ignorant mouth again. She has single-handedly set the women's movement back a 150 years. In my opinion, there needs to be a barrel of super glue in her future. She makes me embarresed to be female.

That is the problem now fellow, There is too many opinions and not enough agreeing.I also hate to tell you this but there are too many arrogant donkeys out there that want respect who doesn't deserve it.The position has to be filled by someone who respects others.A person is not appointed with respect he or she should build it.A pompous donkey is one who appoints himself as important in his own eyes as he deceives himself by saying he is important and convinces himself that he is a little god.They often say to others, Do You know who I am? No but I know what they are.

Amen to Matthew from Houston and Radagast!! Very thoughtful, articulate posts! And though I don't agree w/ Bob on his disagreement w/ Matthew, he was at least respectful. It's so encouraging to see ppl playing nicely.

I think everyone is missing the point...Idt this is about politics at all...this guy is mentally imbalanced and went berserk...if it hadn't been Giffords, it def would've been someone else, somewhere else.

What many in this country do not realize is that these terms the right uses are not accidental. There is a a kind of secret language spoken by the far right. They use catch phrases and words all of the time to communicate to their base.

Right now there is a huge push by the right against powerful Jewish leftist figures like George Soros. Just listen to some one like Glenn Beck for an hour or so you are nearly guaranteed to hear some kind of attack. These attacks may be cloaked in some manner but the message is their. It is the same old Jewish conspiracy BS that the right wing has used for a hundred years but it still resonates with the uneducated.

The "Blood Libel" quote is not a mistake, it is pointing out she was a Jew and insinuating they are out to get the gentiles some how.

If you look at this kids ramblings on you tube. It may look like just jabber to most of us. Not so, it is laced with the anti-Semitic pseudo philosophy of Ann Rand and a bunch of other hard line right wing catch phrases. This was a message to the right that he was striking a blow for their cause.

Middleoftheroad - The vitriol at GWB wasn't directly from members of Congress. Gore didn't openly call him a traitorous moron in need of second amendment solutions! If you can't see that this rhetoric always existed in the wings, but has now become a tool of republican campaigns and is used front and center even during Presidential addresses to Congress, then you will certainly never understand the concern that moderates have for the state of the rhetoric. There is a difference when some blogger says these things compared to when a man who wants to be Speaker of the House, or a woman who wants to be the Congresswoman from Nevada says them.

Blood libel? It is such a strange convoluted response to the incident. It looks like a troubled kid. But we may never know. Do people really need the drama? Is that why their pea brains immediately try to make it political? Or religious? Just shut up and watch and listen...you may learn something.

These mass shootings happen but are not common. It does appear to be more than a coincidence that the individual who was targeted for assassination had rifle cross hairs put on her by Sarah Palin. It was a sign of approval to hit the target. My educated guess is that the shooting would probably not have occurred without this encouragement. Words mean things and unstable people take them literally. The killer must have believed he was doing a good deed. In his mind, he was justified for his actions. Look at the smile on his picture: no regrets, a job well done.

As far as I am concerned, it is the fault of the unstable finger that pulled the trigger....you can't blame Republican's, the NRA, Sarah Palin, the Tea party, the media.....the man was unstable, he showed the signs....but no one told him to or paid him to pull the trigger. He did it on his owned worped mind volition.... No one tried to get him help, noone reported his bad behavior as to limit his access to firearms....noone wanted to get involved...Now everyone is trying to find someone to blame....he is alive and will pay for his crimes...blame the shooter, he is the one who should assume all the blame...Sarah Palin was just responding to the accusations....she is an amazing politician and Mother...leave her be, because if she were not around for some people to point fingers at, you all would have to get a life and politics would be boring.

It is more to the point that we know who conservatives really are, the same racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-semitic hate mongers they have always been and will continue to be. It shocks me that they believe I or any other civilized, compassionate human being would ever stand on their side.

And there you have your civil outreach by one of the left. What makes you civilized Joebarrett? Freakin' hypocrite!!!! What makes you an authority on racism, bigotry, and hate--oh that's right, you justify it by saying your are a civilized compassionate human being. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Like in October when Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski, talking about Republican candidate for Florida governor Rick Scott, said, "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

Are we talking about the ex vice-presidene candidate with this comment?...It.s time for her to step back and go home.

Saint Michael,

Do you really believe the dribble that you spew? Another person blaming Palin for something she had nothing to do with. And everyone talks about being civil.

But I guess, being a saint, doesn't mean that you have to forgive, especially when it stand for the warrior.

Michael is also considered in many Christian circles as the patron saint of the warrior.

Therefore, I guess this person did well by being a warrior and hitting his so called target?

It is more to the point that we know who conservatives really are, the same racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-semitic hate mongers they have always been and will continue to be. It shocks me that they believe I or any other civilized, compassionate human being would ever stand on their side.

Please be explainin' the existence of Jewish Republicans then, Joe.

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.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz

Seems to me the use of the term respects its orignial meaning and is not anti-semetic. If Jews were unfairly accused of atrocities and it was labeled blood libel, and Palin and others referred to unfair accusations as "blood libel "it appears to be an apt use of the phrase. Why the vilification? If more time were spent debating real issues and ideas rather jumping on every inane comment we might make some progress toward positive reform.

to those on the right please respond to radagast.

On the right and on the left you all need to stop. JUST STOP!!!!! It's all so sickening.

joebarnett - "It is more to the point that we know who conservatives really are, the same racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-semitic hate mongers they have always been and will continue to be. It shocks me that they believe I or any other civilized, compassionate human being would ever stand on their side."

It amuses me that you can call an entire group of people "racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-semitic hate mongers" and go on to say "I or any other civilized, compassionate human being". Typical of both sides of the arguement, I am right and anyone who disagrees is a *fill in the blank with hate speech*. In talking about inflamtory speech you are guily of the very thing that you are bashing. Well done sir... Glad that you are so civilized and compassionate that you can ascertain an entire group 100% correctly.

Sarah could talk about mom's apple pie and the left wing nuts would attack her...

But their hateful rhetoric is what...Oh, I know what they like to say it is... Art...

You know like that artful movie and artful book about assassinating Bush...

middleoftheroad-2859220

Thank you for the perfectly worded comment in 1.25.

Why do people keep citing the killer's Nazi literature as proof of his liberal ties? Are you still so grounded in 60-year old rhetoric as to think that Naziism and Socialism are equivalent ideologies? Naziism happens to be a radical right (or, reactionary) political theory...the OPPOSITE of radical left socialism.

And you are exactly who the right are looking to recruit. You really believe the country is going to turn communist? Really? Or is that whole speech OK with you because you think you need a gun fight?

After reading many posts and blogs over the last week or so, I have seen tunnel vision on the part of the far left. The things that they accuse others on the right of are the same things that the people that they pay homage to have said some of the exact same things as they are accusing. The Daily Kos has also said that Rep. Gifford was "Dead to them" because she was not liberal enough and they also had rifle crosshairs through her. What it has meant is only that both of these sources although opposite in their political thinking wanted her out of office, NOT SHOT AT. To me this just proves that she was sensible and middle of the road in her thinking. Our current president has used violent words from time to time to get a point across. For instance, "If they bring knives, we will bring guns!" or we will put our boot on the neck of B.P." among some of them. I would also suggest that you do your own thinking and research on the people you criticize so vehemently (and sometimes wrongly) instad of only reading the liberal press or the right press. You may be surprised at the real truth that is being manipulated. Glen Beck often says, "Don't listen to what I tell you, research it yourself." People who criticize him, don't listen to or watch his program. If something doesn't seem right, check it out from various sources. Most of the time, his research is right on target. Now I suppose someone is going to say that my using the word target is suggestive of violence. Give it some rest folks. Take a deep breath and think for yourselves without the blue or red colors. Also, I don't know of anyone who has taken more unfair vitriol than has Sarah Palin and her family and from the very people who clain to hate hatred. Oooooh.

"Turning to communism" as you put it, is but one of many possible outcomes, and the most difficult to achieve for those that want it. However, the fallout from those working towards it can be just as damaging.

Loss of civil rights, loss of sovereignty as a nation (handing over jurisdiction to a world body), loss of free speech (which is happening is Europe and Canada), and loss of religion for those that choose to practice. There are already over 70 members of Congress that are admitted members of the Socialist party. We already have socialism in this country (social security, progressive income tax, many social programs to take from those and give to others, nationalization of private business, etc..).

When does it stop?

You liberals just wish you had someone in your corner as bright and as popular as Sarah Palin is. I saw one our liberals said she is "No Hillary" and to that I say "THANK GOD" she isn't! Hillary could be a pimple on Sarah's back side! As for the difinition of "Blood Libel", did anyone ask her what she meant by that? Hell no! I have never heard of the story about the Jews and the Christians in the 11th century and am not interested either! I drew my own definition of the term because I think like a conservative, male AMERICAN! You liberals are sickening with your blame games! Want to blame someone? REALLY? Blame your president for trying to destroy our country! Suck it up!

she really isnt intelligent enough even to know what the phrase means is she? or, maybe shes just PLAYING dumb, after all, she did tell us that she reads EVERYTHING. Much as I cant stand her or her family or followers, I have to give her a pass, since its more likely that some enterprising sycophantic campaign intern copped it from reading the right wing media nutjobs (who either in turn do not understand the meaning of the term or its nuances, or who do know it and use it to tacitly exhibit their closet anti semite leanings.

Bob "Why did he target a Democrat? He targeted, or started following her in 2007, before the Tea Party, before Sarah Palin was the cause of all evil."

Nice assumptions, based on little facts. We only know one thing about 2007 - he went to event she was speaking at, asked a question, she didnt answer it well, and he said he was "done with her". there is nothing beyond that suggests he "began following her". So, it appears, you're doing EXACTLY what you're complaining about the other side doing, making assumptions based on thin facts. In fact, we dont even KNOW if this statement by this long lost friend is accurate in its entirety.

"He talked to skulls - he was crazy. He talked of conscious dreams - hallucinations? Who knows why Giffords...... have Feisty ask the skull. BTW - She was a Republican then became a conservative gun toting blue dog Democrat. Why did he not target a Republican? The federal judge he murdered was appointed by Bush if that makes anyone on the left feel better."

So, it's possible in high school this kid had liberal leaning views, and then come 2010 he had conservative leaning views? If Giffords could go from Republican to Democrat, surely an unstable person like Jared could have been flip-flopping back and forth between the political spheres, right?

Bydand "You call the shooter a right wing nut when he wrote his favourite books are Das Kapital and Mein Kampf."

I keep seeing people on the right claim that Mein Kampf is a liberal read. Yet, I get the impression that you dont actually know anything about Hitler, The Nazi's (Nationalist Socialist Party) or the Holocaust, otherwise you couldnt possibly make that claim with a straight face.

Sure, there are elements of Hitlers ideology that are similar, such as his stance on guns - of course, for very different reasons (not like that matters to you). Granted, there are similarties with Hitler and conservatives, such as the fact that Hitler was all about a narrow group of people - everyone else was to be extinguished. If you look at the democratic party - its a mix of all groups of americans, quite broadly...where as republicans, mostly white, older and male. Hitler was a war mongerer, republicans love them some war too, in fact hitler really loved war...democrats, not so much. liberal democrats, especially. Here's a great war quote, sound republican or democrat? "The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom"

and finally, obviously the "white power" movement is very pro-nazi/hitler

Just curious, here in america...where do you think the White Power folks fall in the political spectrum? Do you think they are voting for liberal socialists or hardline conservatives?

Sarah says exactly what Todd tells her to say. After all, Todd was the governor of Alaska and Sarah's own father spilt that little bit of fact on TV. She's a stepford wife and the worst kind of an example for our daughters you can think of.

Reading a lot of the subsequent comments on this thread stirs up the same sensation as peering into a pot of rancid chowder.

Matthew in Texas has said it best! Thank you for clearly stating what I have long believed, that both sides have contributed to the problem but that the right clearly uses hatred and violence to get their point across. Rather than look to the left to blame for this why can't someone in the Republican party merely say "Hey, we as a party have gone too far?". As for Sarah Palin, I so hope her 15 minutes are over!

What concerns me about this article and about all of the following comments is that once more in this country that is increasingly polarized, increasingly at risk to lose sustainability in any sense of the word, increasingly entitled to everything including an opinion, that we get so easily distracted and side tracked from any issue, but particularly from an incident as grave as the 1/15 tragedy. The events in Tucson certainly rise to the level of tragedy, a personal tragedy, a tragedy for the state that given recent history seems to reside under a perpetual black cloud, a tragedy for the nation. We should all grieve, because that is the appropriate response following a tragedy. All those with any other point of view to share have missed the point altogether.

if you cannot process your thoughts do not post them on the internet or any other public space or place words backed by hate can become weapons it is time to start treating each other as children of GOD and remember that we will have to answer at the end of day to HIM...........Amen

Whoa Tinman,

Why would you want to lower yourself by defending Sarah. A box of rocks has more sense than Sarah darling. I have never heard one speech from this woman that did not consist of anything more than trashing somebody. That's easy. It's a little tougher to have a real discussion or debate with someone who knows what the hell is going on. She's mudslinger number one.

I was really hoping she would slink away after admitting she herself had crossed the border to use teh evil socialist healthcare system in Canada that she and her teabagging flock oppose so adamantly to get a prescription or something. Its funny how short the people's attention spans really are.

Standing up and saying you didn't cause this tragedy by carelessly using another phrase when you have no idea the meaning or power behind it is equally ignorant. If a politician is guilty the first thing they do is deny, deny, deny. Both sides are responsible but the RIGHT has exceedingly profitted from the hate and polluted the airwaves, internet, radio and other media with hate rhetoric, conservative extremism and in some case outright calls for rebellion against the government. If you don't think that a crazy person can be influenced by this kind of talk then you are a complete @!$%#ing idiot and I hope you never reproduce.

Sara Palin's response is so typical of any response from any politician regardless of party affliation. Blame the others with what ever you can to convince yourself that you are right and the others are wrong. Wasn't she the politician in front of others inciting crowds with her speeches on Government? Look at your past video bites and recorded speeches M. Palin you and other politicians like you are the cause behind the anger and violence against innocent Americans with what you so loosely say to get a rise or a reaction out of people, well this time you have gone to far in what you've said in the past and further digging yourself deeper by denying that you and people like you had anything to do with this horror that is becoming reality. I pray for the families and victims of the Arizona killings but as for you M. Palin you and others like you will get what you deserve by that very God you claim to follow

Freestar "Glen Beck often says, "Don't listen to what I tell you, research it yourself." People who criticize him, don't listen to or watch his program. If something doesn't seem right, check it out from various sources. Most of the time, his research is right on target."

Except, he knows damn well 99% of his listeners are not going to ressearch it, and even if they did...they'll likely come to the same conclusion he did, because they all think the same way. Thats the real issue here, is that we can look at any singular situation, issue, topic and come away from with such a vast difference in our understandings of it.

This shooting, is a prime example of taking the same mound of facts and twisting them (by both sides) to fit whatever opinion you are holding. Conservatives, many on these message boards, are doing their best to paint Jared as a liberal...just like Liberals are doing their best to paint him as a conservative, when in reality, he was probably a derranged hybrid of the two. Though, i doubt neither party - even if Jared Loughner came out and said it himself - would believe it. Oh no he's not one of US, hell no...he's crazy, we dont have crazies in OUR party. Right. There's plenty of crazy to go around this nation 10x over.

Beck's understanding of the constitution is by far the most laughable, but then again, im a liberal...so naturally, we arent coming at that living document from the same angle, now are we?

I've watched Beck, ive listened to him and he doesnt resonate with me in the least. Obviously. Nothing he says is "truth" anymore than the schmuck on the left who's his mirror image, take your pick...olberman, maddow, schultz..

I've watched the news coverage and listened to the liberal talk shows since saturday, and as a liberal I am disgusted with how they all handled it...right from the start MSNBC and CNN were asking "did the heated rhetoric from the right influence this at all?"...i mean, its a fair question to ask, at some point, once we have all the facts in...or hell, even a fair discussion to have about the rhetoric on both sides, but it was disturbing to see how quickly they all just decided this kid was a conservative because he shot a democrat.

Of course, immediately what I thought, while watching Fox News - which was doing its best to say "this is a crazed, lone gunman, who did this all on his own" - is this: if that had been a republican congressperson...they wouldnt have hesitated to make assumptions, and especially not after his "long lost high school friends" all jumped in front of the camera's to claim he was a lefty liberal.

Anywho...I listen to Thom Hartman, and despite my annoyances with him having to always take the position that he's just right, and the conservatives are always wrong...I tend to agree with much of what he says, and from my own research...he's right on target too.

Yet, I suspect, you would wholly disagree with that...and you know that Hartman and Beck literally have the opposite views on everything, its not possible for both to be "right on target", yet here we are...delussionally drinking our favorite kind of kool-aid, believing OURS is the absolute best, there's just no possible way to disprove that, is there?

Tanya, sweetheart, among much of your ramblings I saw this (mostly because it was capitalized):

Yes, the NAZI's were SOCIALISTS!

Anyone who ever watched 10 minutes of the History Channel knows this is not true. On the Night of the Long Knives Hitler consolidated his power by arresting and killing thousands of political rivals. Many were former friends that he eliminated because their power stood in his way. The first to go -

Socialists.

Hitler hated socialism and despised the Soviets. Hitler and the Nazis were not even remotely socialist.

Consequently neither are the 70 members of Congress that you suggested were acknowledged members of the Socialist Party. I guess you missed the History Channel special on Joseph McCarthy as well? Anyway, thanks for proving the point about reactionary rhetoric that dehumanizes your fellow Americans.

you dispute the 70 members of Congress that were or still are mebers of the Socialists?? What proof do you have to dispute that allegation?

More specifically, what proof do you offer to dispute this?

Home Gateway Pundit

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks

Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:16 PM

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Blood Libel is the perfect phrase for what the left is attempting, here. The Liberals want to incite hate for the patriotic conservatives and independents who dare to oppose their marxist philosophy. They never take responsibility for their offensive, and disgusting behavior, but are quick to falsely accuse those who are most innocent and who only want to retain some form of democracy in our great country.

I see that radagast is poorly educated about history. The National Socialist Party (NAZI's) were certainly socialists. The communists and nazis were fighting for dominance against differing types of socialist governments.

NAZI stands for National Socialist party. So, everything Hitler did, he did in the name of Socialism. The useful tools of Germany (the citizens as well as the rank-and-file military) followed Hitler into socialism.

Sure, Hitler may have disposed of the homosexuals during the Long Knives, but it was out of fear. The Homosexual commanders of the SA outlived their usefulness and started to become too powerful. He used them to gain control over the country... JUST LIKE THE MODERN SOCIALISTS ARE USING THE USEFUL LIBERAL TOOLS here in America. Just like Hitler, once the powerful gain complete power, they will change the rules and start implementing their own rules.

Whenever a liberal is accused that socialism has failed in history, they always respond with "Well, that was the wrong type of socialism. The type I believe in will work this time".

Well, I guess Sarah won't be running for pres anytime soon. As to the rhetoric and the blaming and using a terrible tragedy to push political agendas...so what's new? The internet for one. No sooner did the story hit the news then the left was out bashing the conservatives. Not the other way around. No facts mind you, mass speculation and conspiracies and an opportunity to trash an opposing viewpoint.

I do believe it will come out that the shooter (I hate to justify the individual by name) was a stalker who craved his 15 minutes of infamy. He obsessed on Gifford, was probably attracted to her and frustrated because she was unattainable. I doubt that he would have killed himself, dead he couldn't relish the attention and attention is what he wanted.

As to the usual ban guns, ban the dialogue, conservatives did this etc. This always happens when there is a tragedy of this magnitude. Those seeking an explanation for the shooter's motives will wait for a long time but it will be pieced together. This type of tragedy is almost always perpetrated by individuals sharing common traits and unless there is a device developed to read minds and know in advance that the person is getting ready to go 'off' there is no real way to prevent these kinds of things from happening.

As to Germany or England not having these kinds of tragedy, both countries are very small in comparison to the US and they have their share of looney tunes, go look up the cannibalizing "Crossbow" killer for a recent example.

I am not suprised that the information coming out about the killer demonstrates that he's not a 'right wingnut teabagger influenced' murderer. Nor am I surprised that those on the left end of the political spectrum choose to ignore these facts. The hatred that the left feels for Palin and right wing conservatives is palpable and has been very demonstrably exhibited, asking for that side of the aisle to not defend themselves against this level of accusation is like asking a person wrongfully accused of being an accessory to murder to just sit down and shut up.

The Sarah used the term "blood libel" on purpose and for a reason, rest assured. It's extremely doubtful that it was her own idea. She wouldn't know how. If only the Lower 48 could see The Sarah that reasonble Alaskans have come to know and be embarrassed by.

It is so disappointing to see the media and the left jump to conclusions that are now found to be completely false, and then turn their vitriol on an empty headed "author" as if she has a useful thought.

You lefties blame people without proof, are found to be liars, and then burn down the wrongly accused because of a few words used that may upset your sensibilities?

Hilarious. Pathetic, but hilarious.

Oh yeah, the fact that they were called the "National Socialist Worker's Party" is totally proof that the Nazis were indeed socialists. Kind of like how the "People's Republic of China" is totally a republic.

Hitler was NOT a socialist. He was a right-wing extremist, even for his day and age, as are most neo-Nazis. Hitler went after socialists, homosexuals, and the disabled well before he decided to scapegoat the Jews. Read a book.

Lets try some common sense here people!!! Look past your democratic political views for a moment. Try some common sense. MSNBC journalists called Sarah Palin an accomplice to murder on live TV. Then when she complains about their idiotic accusations MSNBC has the balls to say that SHE SHOULD WATCH HER LANGUAGE used to describe the wrongfull accusations against her???? If you can't see the wrong in that picture there is no hope for you!!!!!!

IMO - Palin tries to use big words/statements without fully understanding the correct meaning. Just shows the unapologetic idiot that she is.

Hopefully her more than 15 minutes of fame in the category of the guests in a Jerry Springer show should be over with this. It is time to ignore this moron.

Straight and in the majority!!!

I don't know what article you read but this one didn't say anything of the sort. When I read the article they pointed out several Jewish leaders or organizations said she shouldn't have said it.

Which article were you reading?

Hitler tried to use SOCIALISM to bring back the economy, and when it failed (like it always does) he capitalized on the popularity of blaming the Jews for Germany's economic woes. Eventually, he realized ramping up for war was the only way to keep the economy going, since he wouldn't resign from power.

When Hitler was a low level policeman spy, he infiltrated a socialist group, ended up joining it, and becoming it's leader. It goes on and on. To deny Hitler was a socialist, or at least hid behind socialism to gain power, shows that you need to turn off the History Channel. Maybe the History Channel didn't mention that the SA was run entirely by homosexuals, and was used to beat the population into compliance. Hitler created the SA, then eventually the SS to replace them.

The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organisation expousing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement.^[19] According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism".^[20]

The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, NSDAP).^[21] Members of the Nazi Party identified themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. The German term Nazi parallels the analogous political term Sozi, an abbreviation for a member of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany).^[22][23] In 1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the term Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis used it as an insult.^[23]

Tanya: please tell me you really don't believe what you posted here today. Because if you do, you need serious help. By the way, if you say the Pledge of Allegiance...it was written by a Christian Socialist.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle.” Dear Sarah, please tell that to the Germans who were required to listen to the state radio propaganda before and during WWII, and to all modern Germans who still suffer from the reputation from the war. You must now realize that the seeds you have sewn have sprouted and borne fruit. Your legacy has been written, your place in history has been made; it will not be a pleasant one to live with for your children.

So, thats the best you got? Somebody presents historical facts, as well as factual current facts, and your best response is that person 'needs help'??

I stand by my posts. Do you have something that disproves my posts?

In summary: Modern liberals identify with marxist style socialists (communist light). Whether these liberals are aware of it or not, they are working to dismantle the protections of our Federal Constitution (anti-guns, anti-property rights, anti-freespeech, anti-religion, and anti-privacy). Do you need me to list all the legislation created, sponsored, and voted on by democrat lawmakers to attack these rights?

Socialism in all previous forms has failed the people it was forced upon, including, but not limited to, the Germans after WW1 and prior to WW2. (with one exception).

So, is there something 'crazy' or wrong about that statement? How about addressing the message instead of the messenger as liberals always do.

Go back and read my post and the link to Facebook to see the good natured libs and there lovely love speech. Here I'll post it again.

go to Facebook then add this after the .com part. Or maybe just clicking on it will work.
note.php?note_id=482144170676&id=269123710083

Like I have said many times, Sarah only says what Todd tells her to say. Oh, yes and Rush and Glenn help control her mouth when needed at times like this. She was on the phone with them first thing asking "What should I say?" "What should I say?". She's in bed with the devil.

The second I heard the term "bllod libel" I cringed. It has always been an anti semitic term and most edcuated people know it. Then there's Sarah.

Tonya: You can't reason with those hell bent on demonizing someone or something. They have the lynch mob mentality going strong and will not be deterred by facts, intelligence or appeals to reason.

Tonya,

The NAZIs were a German form of Italian Fascism, they were absolutely opposed to the Communist and Socialist movements that were sweeping Europe at the time. They were an Nationalistic Oligarchy. They were against free market Capitalism because it was equal to JEWS. They believed it should be limited to whites. However that was the only restriction they wanted placed on capitalism. It is not until they bury themselves in war Debt that they become a complete Totalitarian system and begin nationalizing corporate Germany.

The Name of their Party was basically a cover for their Nationalist ideology. Yes they supported social programs for a segment of the populace(Aryans) but they were in no means a Socialist movement, they were FASCIST!

Go read Mein Kampf Hitler is very clear about his opposition to Communism and Socialism.

As for socialism working for societies. All working societies have socialist facets. They always have and always will. The problem is when a society becomes unbalanced. Whether weighted to heavily towards the rich or towards the poor, unbalance the ship and it sinks.

I think given that the wages of the wealthiest 2% of Americans have grow nearly 300% in the last decade while the wages of the middle and working classes have remained stagnant, an argument could be made that the unbalance has come from the other side. Capitalism is not a flawless system and must be checked as well.

The very idea that American Liberals "Modern liberals identify with marxist style socialists (communist light)." is absurd. American liberals are far to invested in the American capitalist system to ever buy into Marxism. Some of us are just intelligent enough to realize you can not have a functioning capitalist system when a 1/4 of the population has no homes, food or health care. A collapse at the bottom of our society will only lead to chaos.

You also made the statement "they are working to dismantle the protections of our Federal Constitution (anti-guns, anti-property rights, anti-freespeech, anti-religion, and anti-privacy). Do you need me to list all the legislation created, sponsored, and voted on by democrat lawmakers to attack these rights?" and yes I would love to see what you consider "attacks on the Constitution." My guess is that you can not support any such statement in a debate.

What is fascism, communism, or socialism? Don't be confused by lip-service given to liberal ideas in the early days of revolution. Look at the actual practice once in power:

pro-military corporatist = fascism

one-party system with state news and citizenship papers = communism.

At the root of all this is the right-wing anti-intellectualism movement. Americans have been so dumbed down they no longer use the Rule of Reason. Everyone should be required to take Research Methodology 101 and learn what a credible source is. For example, Wikipedia and Snopes are far more credible than the right-wing viral E-mails conservatives receive and distribute on a daily basis. Where did the E-mail originate from? They don’t know, yet they believe the E-mail and not their government (e.g., the CBO) or science or experts who have devoted their lives to economics, foreign policy, etc.

Every time I hear a conspiracy theory, it doesn’t take me long to Google and see it is complete chicken crap. Often it gets back to a profit motive, like the guy who sells supplements who says MSG is addictive, or the guy who sells seeds who starts a hybrid seed conspiracy. Why are conservatives so gullible? If it sounds too crazy to be true, it probably isn’t true.

Also, truth grows legs very quickly, and will be exposed by mainstream media (e.g., CNN, the NY Times, or the Associated Press). If you’re only hearing about something from E-mails or some obscure website/blog, well that’s your first clue it only has enough truth to get you to believe the lies. In addition, entertainment programs like Limbaugh or commentators like Glenn Beck are confused for real news that’s held to journalistic standards (such as facts). These programs are for entertainment, and are completely driven by ratings and profits.

So come on Americans, let’s not go backwards to the Dark Ages when the masses couldn’t read or write and were so easily manipulated by religion and rulers. Before we can take our country back from those who profit by our ignorance, we must take responsibility. Step out of the No Fact Zone and into enlightenment.

Tanya, I don't know if you are still trolling this message board, but I was wondering if you could help me with several things.

First, you state that the Socialist Party of America's October 2009 newsletter identifies 70 Democrats who are members of the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party of America has a website and on that website they have back issues of their newsletter. The October 2009 newsletter is two pages long and does not mention one Democrat. Can you tell us how the Socialist Party's own archive does not support your argument? (I realize you cite Scribd.com, but that is an open source site that allows anyone to upload anything; in other words, I could upload a email by Jesus Christ himself, but it wouldn't make it real.)

Second, I am disturbed by your comparison of liberals to Nazis; it was wrong when some Democrats compared Bush to Hitler and it's wrong here. However, you are wrong about the economic success of Hitler's Germany before the war. I'll use a wikipedia cite, since I noticed you like to cut and paste from there:

Nazi economic practice first concerned the immediate domestic economy of Germany, then international trade. To eliminate Germany’s poverty, domestic policy was narrowly concerned with four major goals: (i) elimination of unemployment, (ii) rapid and substantial re-armament, (iii) fiscal protection against resurgent hyper-inflation, and (iv) expansion of consumer-goods production, to raise middle- and lower- class living standards. The intent was correcting the Nazi-perceived short-comings of the Weimar Republic, and to solidify domestic support for the Nazi Party; between 1933 and 1936, the German (Gross National Product) annually increased 9.5 per cent, and the industrial rate increased 17.2 per cent.

The expansion propelled the German economy from depression to full employment in less than four years. Public consumption increased 18.7 per cent, and private consumption increased 3.6 per cent annually. Historian Richard Evans reports that before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the German economy "had recovered from the Depression faster than its counterparts in other countries. Germany’s foreign debt had been stabilized, interest rates had fallen to half their 1932 level, the stock exchange had recovered from the Depression, the gross national product had risen by 81 per cent over the same period . . . Inflation and unemployment had been conquered."^[170]

This is from the same article you cited from earlier. I'm no fan of Hitler, but if you're going to make false comparisons between Democrats and Hitler, be careful about that you don't look like a fool doing it. The above numbers would make any economist blush and are evidence that Hitler's supposed "socialism" was very successful economically.

1.) 2nd Amend attack:
Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban: The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, DEMOCRAT Senator Frank Lautenberg. This act effectively removes the right of persons convicted of certain MISDEMEANOR offenses from forever possesing a firearm, or even bullets. The Constitution clearly states that only FELONS will lose such rights. Even though Lautenberg got this passed in 1996, it is retroactive for EVERYONE even if the MISDEMEANOR offense was commited in 1930, 1950, 1970, or whenever! It not only applies to husband/wife disputes, but also if a brother fights his own brother, or if a mother spanks her child in public, or if two roommates get into a fistfight.. they are all effectively BANNED from possessing a firearm for the rest of their lives! Lautenberg isn't done there. Look him up to learn more about taking away our guns.

2.) 4th Amend attack:
January 1, 2011. The Department of Transportation (under DEMOCRAT OBAMA) kicked off the annual Holiday Drunk Driving Crackdown Monday. Specifically, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood wants law enforcement to get tougher on drunk drivers who refuse to take roadside breathalyzer tests with the use of on-call judges and blood tests. Thats right, FORCED BLOOD TESTING for drivers that refuse to submit. Police officers will violently hold you down and forcibly remove the blood from your body in order to obtain physical evidence.

3.) 1st Amendment attack (Free Speech):
"The Fairness Doctrine". The Democrats in government are trying to silence political talk radio. They tried Air America, but it failed miserably in the fair market system, so now they will just write new legislation to attack free speech another way. Under The Fairness Doctrine, all political speech on the airwaves must now hire and provide equal time for both sides of the argument. In short, Limbaugh will either have to sit in his studio with an opposing radio guy, or cut his show in half to let the pther guy speak with equal time. This will apply to ALL political discourse, therefore effectively silencing talk radio since the ratings will not only plummet, but they will have to hire and pay someone else. If the broadcaster refuses, then they lose their FCC license to broadcast.. effectively shutting them down.

From wikipedia: SupportSome Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[21] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,"[22] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[23] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:

" Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view' — that the American people were served well under the doctrine — 'and it's all been blown out of proportion.'[24] "

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."[25]

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

" I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I'm saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[26] "

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.

" I'll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[27] "

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:[citation needed]

" I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else — I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. "

When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:

" I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep.[28]

4.) 1st Amend attack on Religion:
a.) H.R. 1429. Prior to this bill, a religious employer was able to lawfully offer employment to those with the same belief, as well as refuse employment to those with different beliefs. in 2007 the DEMOCRATS voted along party lines to remove this protection. When the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

5.) How about OBAMA ordering the FCC to regulate our internet access. The internet has been part of the free market since it's inception. Or how about our privacy rights being tossed out the window with the new call for UNIQUE INTERNET ID's by guess who... OBAMA.

6.) Did you not notice the nationalization of our banking and health care system???
I could seriously go on and on with more PROOF of democrat attacks on our liberties.

NCINDEPENDENT:

However, you are wrong about the economic success of Hitler's Germany before the war

Am I wrong? Hitler, through his economic advisors, brought the country out of near depression by using a brand of socialism. Private factories were COMPELLED to reinvest its profits in manufacturing approved by the state. And crucial to Germany's recovery was government spending, much of it on public works, the most visible of which was a new highway system -- the autobahn -- which the army wanted for more efficient movements within Germany. There was also an electrification program, and government investment in industry. One third of Germany's income had as its source government payments and investments -- almost three times the percentage being spent by the U.S. government.

As I stated before.. Hitler ramping up for WW2 helped to bring the economy out of it's sag. Factories were building weapons of war. Simple things like building a bayonet blade in a northen factory, and the matching handle built in a southern factory. This created jobs for out of work Germans.

Re-armament (in defiance of the Paris Peace Conference) helped boost Germany's economy, and without independent trade unions, Germany could keep its wages low and it prices stable. Hitler's economy remained low in productivity, as there was little incentive, and some disincentives, to innovate -- the usual incentive for innovation being high profits, which in Germany were heavily taxed.

Does this not sound like economic socialism???

Tanya,

You miss my point about the German economy in the 1930s, but I'm not going to get in a debate about it when you are making a false equivalency between Hitler and Democrats. By engaging in a debate about such absurd notions, it only lends credibility to your perspective in some circles.

I see you have not address your earlier 70 reps claim that I asked for you to substantiate after I did my own investigating and could find no evidence that either the Socialist Party of America or the Democratic Socialists PAC (which is also mentioned on the "newsletter") ever claimed to have 70 Democratic congresspeople on their membership rolls. I did not think you would; my hope was that if you are honestly trying to understand the world in which you live, you would engage in actually verifying facts for yourself. I sought out to verify your claim because it would certainly change my opinion about those people; I hope that if you cannot verify the claim it will change your opinion about some of the sources you rely upon. Perhaps you can prove the authenticity of that claim, but if you can't and you don't acknowledge you're wrong, then you are no better than any of your political opponents you so disdain.

Finally, while selective reference to topics (such as your quotes on the fairness doctrine) may leave you feeling you are making a strong argument, by intentionally, or inadvertantly, not giving the whole picture you make yourself out to be either deceptive or simply ignorant to those who know better. Yes, some Democrats wanted to reinstate the fairness doctrine; most did not. Obama ruled it off the table and it was never brought up in Congress when Dems had overwhelming advantages in the House, Senate, and WH. Further, the fairness doctrine relates to an earlier time when there was a belief that the nation's airwaves were a public good and that the users of that good had a obligation to the public to use that good responsibly. The fairness doctrine sought to ensure that opinions from both could be heard; it is ironic that this idea is criticized by conservatives given their contempt for the "liberal bias" of the MSM. Unfortunately, the idea that individuals have a responsibility to the greater good is becoming antiquated and denigrated.

Ahh.. I had not forgotten about the 70 member list. Apparently, they removed it after some outrage by certain government officials.

So, allow me to present the next best evidence, from a government website:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164

Congressional Progressive Caucus and it's members to follow at bottom

The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), who is a self-described socialist.

As of April 2007, the Progressive Caucus included Sanders (who became a U.S. Senator in 2006), Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and 69 members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

"Until 1999, the Progressive Caucus website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations' websites."

This information is widely available from several sources on the internet. posting links here doesn't work so good. but it took me about 10 minutes to find multiple stories on this.

Caucus Member List
Wednesday January 05, 2011

Co-Chairs
Keith Ellison

Raúl Grijalva

Vice Chairs

Tammy Baldwin

Judy Chu

William "Lacy" Clay

Sheila Jackson-Lee

Chellie Pingree

Senate Members

Bernie Sanders

Tom Udall

House Members
Xavier Becerra

Earl Blumenauer

Robert Brady

Corrine Brown

Michael Capuano

Andre Carson

Donna Christensen

Yvette Clarke

Emanuel Cleaver

Steve Cohen

John Conyers

Elijah Cummings

Danny Davis

Peter DeFazio

Rosa DeLauro

Donna Edwards

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bob Filner

Barney Frank

Marcia Fudge

Luis Gutierrez

Alcee Hastings

Maurice Hinchey

Mazie Hirono

Michael Honda

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Hank Johnson

Marcy Kaptur

Dennis Kucinich

Barbara Lee

John Lewis

David Loebsack

Ben Ray Lujan

Carolyn Maloney

Ed Markey

Jim McDermott

James McGovern

George Miller

Gwen Moore

Jim Moran

Jerrold Nadler

Eleanor Holmes Norton

John Olver

Frank Pallone

Ed Pastor

Donald Payne

Jared Polis

Charles Rangel

Laura Richardson

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Bobby Rush

Linda Sanchez

Jan Schakowsky

Jose Serrano

Louise Slaughter

Pete Stark

Bennie Thompson

John Tierney

Nydia Velazquez

Maxine Waters

Mel Watt

Henry Waxman

Peter Welch

Lynn Woolsey

It's very unlikely that Palin came up with the phrase herself and she almost certainly didn't know the history of the term (does ANYONE think that Palin knows that much history?). As the OP says, it's very improbable that such an obscure term would be independently thought of by 3 or 4 different conservatives. There seems to be a "central rhetoric generator" somewhere that regularly spits out talking points for the right and I'd bet a lot of money that this line came from that. Ever notice how the right always seems to walk in rhetorical lockstep but the left doesn't?

Tonya, what's your point - that there is a secret cabal of pinkos insidiously positioning themselves within the American power structure? Oh no!! Won't somebody please think of the children!

Holy @!$%#, girl! There is no talking to you. I'm glad I don't live in the black and white world you live in where everyone is either a patriot or a commie.

Did you know that if you fold the bottom up about two inches before the final fold the tinfoil hat will have a nice brim!

I sure hope this liberal outpouring of hypocrisy is soothing to your HUGE loss in November. 'Cause the majority of Americans see libs using an unconscionable act for political purpose. Keep it up!! 'Cause all indications are your going to get thumped in 2012 too.

hq2/11acr

, the fact that her site took down the "Crosshair" targets within a very short time after the shooting indicates a "consciousness of guilt" on her part. To deny now what she so very vocally proclaimed then shows that she has no idea as to how to explain her way out of the mess she put herself in. Sarah Palin should have known that her words could possibly ignite problems in someone mentally disturbed, yet she never toned down her rhetoric, and now her rhetoric has hurt her. She advocated violence and now she has no answer for her actions.

How will Sarah's handlers spin the comparison of "bullseye" to "surveyor"? Yea, right she was surveying the WhiteHouse.

Hobie81: "'Cause the majority of Americans see libs using an unconscionable act for political purpose."

Kinda like Bush used 9/11 for political purposes, enhancing his approval rating and riding that horse straight into Iraq?

Or like the TEA Party using it to fundraise, Hobie81?

John, Indiana, don't forget Giuliani and all Republican/TP Inc. politicians using 9/11 opportunistically to this very day.

@hq2/11acr

Care to explain why Daily Kos took down their "She's Dead to Me" post? I can only assume that it indicates a "consciousness of guilt".

Hobie, how does it feel to have something in common with extremist muslims?

"How come whenever something blows up or someone gets shot everybody thinks it's the muslims/republicans?"

Maybe because that's all you talk about doing??

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

@Alan,NJ

Saying that "she's dead to me" is not a threat. Every person who speaks the English language knows it is not a threat, but is rather a statement of frustration and ambivalence. They took it down because it is in poor taste to talk about the recently and critically wounded in a manner that, even rhetorically speaking, invokes the implication of death.

That is grasping at straws. Really.

A threat is saying that "She is dead to me, now it is time for Second Amendment solutions to finish the job!"

That is a threat.

It is also a threat when countless rightwing newsviners say things like "That's a good start." in response to the killing of 6 people and the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman. Hmmm...I wonder why so many people pointed to conservatives as possibly being involved?! It's time that righties own up to the fact that deliberately twisting the facts, and slanderizing and dehumanizing people in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate for the purpose of winning elections, is like playing with fire. This was a firecracker that went off in your hand, the next one will really cost you some fingers. Bring the rhetoric back to sanity and stop vilifying your fellow Americans and they will stop blaming you every time one of their own gets assassinated.

None of these quotes are in context. Nice try though. Hopefully, the author of a response to this I read yesterday or someone with permission will post that response will post it.

Conservatives in context:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Good job Hobie, you have successfully copied and pasted a list of quote mined phrases.

These statements pale in comparison to openly calling your political rivals terrorists, claiming that the president isn't a citizen, promising second amendment solutions, bringing guns (legal or no) to political rallies, creating lie after lie about your opponents agenda in order to scare the hell out of people, and smiling in response to your supporters saying "kill him!" in reference to the president. Never mind the historic breaches of decorum that not only show unprecedented disdain for a sitting President, but shows contempt for the very office he holds. Then there are the threats of secession by certain governors all over a 3% tax hike on the richest 1% in their state! That's war talk to anyone who knows their history.

You would think they would give it a reast already!

Obama: "They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun"“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama told the audience. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.

** Obama to His Followers: "Get in Their Faces!"“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.

** Obama on ACORN Mobs: "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!".......I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry,” Mr. Obama said, his voice reaching a peak seven days after learning of the bonuses given to employees of the American International Group. “What I want to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way.”

** Obama to His Mercenary Army: "Hit Back Twice As Hard".....And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan. If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard, Messina(not Obama) said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

** Obama on the private sector: "We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick."....NBC's Matt Lauer asked Obama about the criticism that he should spend more time in the Gulf instead of with experts and "kick some butt."...Obama told NBC his deliberations have been more than academic......."I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar," Obama continued. "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean "hand to hand combat"...........A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy, President Obama warned Wednesday…"They are fired up. They are mobilized. They see an opportunity to take back the House, maybe take back the Senate," he said. "If they're successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."

Obama to lib supporters: "It's time to Fight for it." ...."When it comes to taking a punch, I don't know whether you're Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson," Axelrod wrote to Obama in a November 2006 memo reported in a new book that reprises the campaign by Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz and former Post writer Haynes Johnson. Now Obama supporters are wondering about their man. If they're to see what he's made of, Obama has to first get in the ring. Forget the niceties, it's time to fight.

Obama to Latino supporters: "Punish your enemies."..“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

** Obama to democrats: "I'm itching for a fight."As fellow Democrats accuse him of caving in to Republicans on the tax cut deal, President Obama is repeatedly promising them that he will fight the GOP aggressively when it takes over the U.S. House and adds senators next month. "I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues," Obama said last week. "I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights."

Enough with this... well you guys do it to!

We'll be waiting for you to put into context: 'Bullets over Ballots'! or 'Second Amendment remedies'!

@radagast

I am drawing a comparison between Sarah Palin removing her target map to Daily Kos removing their "She's dead to me" post. Why are you now adding Sharon Angle's statement? What I find ridiculous is that everyone agrees that this was not motivated by any political statements and that the perpetrator was mentally ill, but in the next sentence they go to decry the toxic political environment.

Here's a word of advice everyone. Get over yourself. Only political junkies care what politicians say to and about each other. The total viewership of Fox, CNN and MSNBC on a regular night is less that 15M (probably 10M). Barely 60% of citizens vote in presidential elections and it is less in every other election. Most people don't care what Rush Limbah, Hannity, Olbermann or Mathews think. Stop trying to conflate a tragedy into a political opportunity. It's like saying Mark David Chapman was insane, he was, but was also influenced by ......(enter your favorite reason here).

Do I think it will happen again and to a politician? Of course. These are people in the public eye like all celebrities and those are the ones that the lunatics fixate on. If you want to make any argument out of this tragedy its for gun control, but for that you'll have to start campaigning to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Hobie81

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

THis is straight off Hannity's radio program. He thought it might be cute, I guess, to put up these quotes. Seeing them in print, though, sitll doesn't show me where Obama likened any of these ideas to 'reload' or place cross-hairs on any of the subjects of the quotes.

Nice try, fools.

This is straight off Hannity's radio program

I wondered where it was coming from. I've seen it again and again over the last few days... thanks to Feisty for providing us with context in 2.11.

What I find ridiculous is that everyone agrees that this was not motivated by any political statements and that the perpetrator was mentally ill, but in the next sentence they go to decry the toxic political environment.

Why? Even if Mr. Loughner was a nut (and it certainly appears as if that's true), it doesn't make the toxic political environment any less toxic-- nor does it make the concerns any less reasonable.

The rhetoric may not have put the gun into his hand... but it's still uncertain as to how much or how little it influenced his choise of targets. And Radagast, I think, had a very perceptive take on the matter:

The fact that so many practically expected him to be a right wingnut with a health care gripe - in and of itself speaks volumes for the level of vitriol in the rhetoric. I do not believe from what I had seen of the blogosphere that afternoon that liberals were out to use this situation to their advantage and lay blame where they knew it did not belong (as the republicans so often do btw). This is precisely what Palin and other pundits are claiming the left is doing. No, what I saw in the blogosphere before the killer was known was people who had heard so much vitriol, so much anger, so much hate from the right that for them it was a purely emotional reaction - "This is exactly what they have been pushing for!" was a common sentiment. A reaction that was primed by the very anger, vitriol, and hate that they blamed. For them (and me) there existed a loudmouth, hate-filled, propaganda machine that simply had the biggest motive and therefore got the lion's share of the suspicion early on.

"I am drawing a comparison between Sarah Palin removing her target map to Daily Kos removing their "She's dead to me" post. Why are you now adding Sharon Angle's statement?"

Because it is all part of the same rhetoric. I'm sure that Angle and Palin are aware of each other and I'm sure they both approve of each other's words. I'm also sure that one's rhetoric bolsters the other's. They all egg each other on. To me it's all noise no matter the mouthpiece. Given the speed with which zinger talking points seem to emanate simultaneously from the many mouths of the right I don't see why I need to distinguish between any of these people. They appear to be of one mind.

"If you want to make any argument out of this tragedy its for gun control, but for that you'll have to start campaigning to repeal the 2nd amendment."

A false choice. The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit reasonable control of arms. You can still have a firearm, but what is the necessity of a 30 round clip? Do you expect to be in a firefight in your neighborhood? Do you need armor piercing rounds? What if I wanted a howitzer for my personal protection? There must be a line. We only differ on where that line needs to be. Framing it as your way vs. repeal of the 2nd amendment is frankly, the very same kind of rhetoric most of this thread is talking about. It is reactionary, over the top, presents a false choice, and presents the opposition as though they are against freedom and democracy. When you do that the debate over where to draw the line descends into school yard taunts and threats. Gun rights are something that needs to be discussed so that everyone can be satisfied, but a grown up discussion is rendered impossible when accusations fly about "repealing the 2nd amendment."

What I see here from many posters is that they really don't want to tone down the rheotoric as they claim should happen.. Instead of letting it go they ratchet up the intensity and the vitriol, continue to use the tragedy as a means of pushing their belief systems and demonize the opposition. This is hypocrisy of the most flagrant kind.

Essentially it's WE only want YOU to keep quiet, WE don't want YOU to defend yourself against unjustified accusations, WE are the only ones allowed to have an opinion and OURS are the only viewpoints and attitudes that should be heard. We're important, you're just stupid...

A grown up discussion is also impossible when your leaders lock the opposing party out of the room, but I didn't hear one of you libbies speak up then.

Sorry, you left wing nut have been inciting violence, hate and violent overthrow of the government for 50 years. Bill Ayers is one of your big success stories - he bombs the government, and is awarded with a Professor-ship, lauded, given a publishing contract and is allowed to teach at a University, and is a friend to your leader.

You people have been trying to sell hate as art with Piss Christ, evolved hate speech into free speech, and then when some loons use your tactics you scream and yell like this is a surprise.

100% of the blame for the mess our society is in lays firmly at the feet of liberals - you have destroyed our educational system, destroyed the meaning of the word respect, turned tolerance into a weapon, and have shouted down, insulted, and threatened death with complete impunity.

It is a disgusting place we find ourselves, and this latest media fabrication, with the associated hate from the left that turns out to be utter lies still doesn't shut you people up. You think the 2010 elections were bad, just wait for 2012 - if you folks don't grow up, you will be thrown out.

um, telling citizens to prepare for 'second amendment remedies' is NOT rhetoric. over and over again, she made statements about people buying guns, and made direct statements about shooting elected leaders. this is not rhetorical, this is treason.

Tinman- You say you could care less about the history of the phrase "blood libel" going back to the 11th C, but its ideas are still among us: a good old man who I dearly loved (may he rest in peace) told me how his European mother told him (& he believed it still) that Jews used the blood of Christian children for making Passover matzot.
Others have railed that this is only an issue about the guilt of the shooter and/or his mental ill-health. But there's no reason that this sad event can't be a catalyst to help American become more civil in our daily interactions & our political debates. Inciting violence, even if vaguely or subtly or unintendedly, is not beneficial to our society.
Paul F- You start out soliciting "grown up discussion" but later write "100% of the blame for the mess our society is in lays firmly at the feet of liberals". Now you are being extreme. Some have provided citations of people on both sides of the aisle, including Sarah Palin & President Obama, using inflammatory language that included violent metaphors -- I say that this is uncivil and hurts our society, regardless of the source, though there is room for analyzing the degree of severity.
Radagast is right on to say that there no irreconcilable conflict between the 2nd amendment and some arms control limitations-- we must be judicious, and some measures can be temporary contingent upon the levels of civility & violence in our population.

and Anti-Semitism to boot.

She uses the term "blood libel" ...an anti-semitic hate term...after the attempted assassination of a Jewish Congresswoman. Either she is even more hateful than she appears to be...or more stupid.

I think you two are REALLY blowing this out of proportion. I'm of direct Jewish lineage and made liberal use of the phrase 'blood libel' in many of my papers in college because the term had appropriate meaning with regards to what I was writing about.

Stop spinning everything into some kind of conspiracy. There hasn't been word one way or the other that Jared Loughner was even aware of Giffords' religious beliefs.

Exodite: you are probably correct,Loughner may not have known. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin should have known.

As an educated person, did Palin use the phrase appropriately, in your opinion?

I don't think it was appropriate, but I had never seen it used before.

I never thought I'd see the day when I would actually defend something that came out of Palin's mouth but, yes, I do believe her comments and her use of the term represent a portion (and I need to stress that - portion!) of the reality about this situation.

Neither Palin nor Beck nor Limbaugh nor anyone else indicted in the public arena or media outlets is responsible for shooting Giffords, killing six people and wounding eleven others. Jared Loughner alone is the culprit for the crime; it was his finger on the trigger. At the same time, we cannot ignore the influence that the current political climate in America (vitriolic, venomous and vile as it is) can and apparently has had on minds dissociated from reality.

All of us who get online and contribute to the very visible, very prolific and daily tongue-lashings that dehumanize both conservatives and liberals are as responsible for the present state of things and have no less culpability than any pundit or talking head.

What happened in Tucson should have made us collectively step back and really take a good, hard look at our behavior. What happened in Tuscon should've made us stop and reflect on the fact that, once again, we have a shooting spree and needless deaths that could've been prevented had warning signs in the antagonist's behavior been heeded.

Instead, we have laid claims to every possible cause under the sun and often for the purpose of furthering our own individual political agendas. Liberals were quick to paint this as the work of gun-toting, far-right maniacs while conservatives gleefully listed off Loughner's apparent socialist views. Both sides continued to politicize this event just to score points for individual agendas.

Palin was right to use blood libel, because that is literally what this whole affair became in the immediate aftermath: a witch hunt based on rumor, knee-jerk reactions and a priori bias. That does not change the fact that she shares the blame for fostering the environment we find ourselves in, but we all share that blame with her.

Exodite I agree with your statements except for the use of "blood libel". The argument that as a Jew you've used the phrase in reference to what you were writing about reminds me of African Americans who say they use the n-word because they're black and it fits the subject of the conversation. I'm African American and I have yet to use the n-word as a term of endearment or for anything other than what it was meant to be ~ a slur.

@Exodite Dragon

You are a marvel to behold, and your words ring true. Many here would do well to heed the words provided above.

@Ian, the phrase as used was used correctly in the context given. It was hardly a "term of endearment".

Blood libel, Ian, isn't a racial slur - it's a figure of speech. Don't compare apples and oranges.

More than that, though, I don't feel victimized by the term because I choose not to be. We are all as responsible for our reactions as we are our actions. They both occur with conscious approval.

Exodite Dragon

Your emotional radar is seriously in need of oiling. No one immediately blamed Sarah Palin, it was just noted that she had put a crosshairs on the Representative's district some months before, an incident the Representative herself objected to and which was controversial at the time. Rational people questioned if the heated rhetoric of the right-wing incited this assasination attempt. That's a rational assumption, given it was a Democratic Representative who was shot. After a few days of examining this train of thought , and learning more about the shooter's mental illness, people like Barbara Walters started to feel sorry for Palin and then BAM, Ms Palin demonstrates the very ratcheting up rhetoric that turns simple issues into blood battles.

I'm sorry, Amy, but I don't particularly agree with your assessment of the situation, nor do I find your assertions about my 'emotional radar' necessary or at all accurate. I simply prefer not to jump the gun, as it were.

Amy,

Are you kidding me? Seriously? So *it just so happened* that the crosshairs thing was dredged up right after the shootings? Nearly a year has gone by since that map went up, and now *suddenly* people are all up in arms over it? People we screaming and gnashing their teeth all over the internet demanding an apology from S.P. right after the shootings occurred.

"So *it just so happened* that the crosshairs thing was dredged up right after the shootings?"

Sarah Palin was criticized for putting a crosshairs symbol over this Representative's district, which the woman objected to at the time, and a year later the Democratic Representative is shot, and it's not supposed to be commented on? C'mon.

The shooting victim actually denounced the 'crosshair' flyer back when. IF it was only 'surveyor' marks, Palin's camp would have said so then. In short, Palin and her handlers are full of you-know-what. So is anyone that echos that 'surveyor' crap.

I couldn't agree more, E.D.!

I will readily admit that when some commentator remarked that Sarah Palin probably did not know the meaning of the phrase "blood libel", I commented that her speeches would lead one to assume that she (Sarah) does not know the meaning of a LOT of words. At the same time, Sarah Palin has a point: people who hate her guts anyway are just milking the situation for additional ammo. Both sides are using the tragedy for political gain.

As for the comments that Ms. Palin is removed from the act spawned in part by different comments that she made, I can see both sides of it. She didn't COMMAND that this be done, but the use of violent imagery in one's speeches and articles can be seen as CONDONING rather than CONDEMNING violence. Even Paladin Press, which has been the source of such fascinating literature as the so-called Terrorist Handbook 1 and 2 and old copies of William Powell's "Anarchist Cookbook", includes fine print that says it is provided for "informational purposes ONLY" and is not a statement of allowance or approval of using such lit as a how-to guide for...evil. All our politicians and pundits either need to include similar fine print with every message they sell or censor themselves a lot better than they...WE--all of us, collectively--have(We are, after all, participating in the whole circus by posting here).

It's a fitting term if one is making a case that people look to place blame and roll heads without rhyme or reason.

Then it wouldn't apply in this case, would it? No one is making verse, but there's an underlying logic to the position that the deliberately inflammatory language and imagery used primarily by the right to defame and demonize opponents would contribute to an atmosphere in which violent acts are more likely to occur. Clearly, much of the right agrees or it wouldn't have reacted so defensively to Sheriff Dupnik's remarks, which implicated no one specifically.

Citizen, either you don't read the bulk of the comments that get left on virtually every news blog on the web or you're blind to the tone of the commentary.

Andrew B.-2575551

By invoking "Blood Libel," Sarah Palin has shown herself to be even more deranged and insensitive than any of her critics could have portrayed her

Andrew you have to understand Sarah is ignorant. She doesn't know anything about history, geography, economics, or foreign policy just to mention a few.

It is time for all of us to simply feel sorry for Sarah Palin. McCain elevated her to a position that she did not deserve and was not suited for. McCain: it is time for you to apologize to the American people for putting this poor soul that close to the Presidency.

Andrew and beverly - What BS, Palin never had a reasonable shot at the republican nomination. Your posts do nothing more than fan the flames of hatred and bigotry from both yourselves and palin supporters.

As far as crosshairs go why did the democrats use the same tactic in 2004 and the daily kos did the same in the recent past?

The only thing Sarah knows how to do is run her mouth with GOP/Tea Party talking points

Actually, considering the the vitriol from the left, and the accusation that everyone from Palin to Beck to Thomas Jefferson was responsible formthe actions of this individual, "blood libel" is a particularly apt phrase.

Go back and read the article sans liberal blinders, and you will see that.

I blame only the shooter in Tucson for the tragedy. He bought the gun, he aimed it, he pulled the trigger.

However, a deranged mind like his is far too easily swayed by things other people say. The words of others can and do influence a sick mind. We do not always understand how this can happen because we are sane enough not to act on our words, regardless of how incendiary they may be.

I was perhaps too quick to connect the rhetoric of the right to the execution of the act. Many on the left were. I was willing to give the right the benefit of the doubt. But, as the right have responded, rather that acknowledging that their words might have been a factor, they have resorted to more of the same. Which only proves my point.

The rhetoric this morning has taken yet another sharp right turn into an even deeper hole. Rather than smothering the flames, the right is fanning them.

This is exactly what some of us have been trying to speak out against.

american-2051576: "As far as crosshairs go why did the democrats use the same tactic in 2004 and the daily kos did the same in the recent past?"

The Dem map from '04 did not use rifle-scope cross-hairs, it used bulls-eye targets. More importantly, it was targeting states and DID NOT target specific districts and LIST THE NAME OF THE INCUMBANT in that district like SaraPac's map. Yes this is a subtle, yet important distinction.

Can Sarah Palin just stop talking please? Seriously, does anyone care what she has to say? The fact that she is from Alaska makes her irrelevant. What makes her think she can process a valid opinion about anything?

If it's not about Sarah, she doesn't care. She wallows in the media and we all need to ignore her; maybe she'll finally go away.

Sarah, Jared Lee Loughner followed your directions to the letter. He showed up at the Democratic event, and after he exercised a few Second Amendment Rights, he tried to RELOAD his magazine clip but was stopped by Sensible People (it was a Democrat event so Sensible People were there) but rest assured he did not RETREAT (not ever!!!). Your instructions were so clear and concise that even a deranged homocidal sociopath could follow them. So you must take credit for giving those directions, even now when you wish you hadn't. You own them, and your map of crosshairs is forever associated with this national tragedy. Congratulations.

Nothing is accidental with the neo-conservatives. We lived through the Bush years with all the double entendre fundamentalist Christian messages imbedded in that administration's rhetoric: how can we forget his assertion we were on a Crusade in the Middle East. No one is that tone deaf, particularly with that level of administrative support and advisement. Neither is Sarah Palin, who while intellectually lazy is quite wiley and has a daunting array of highly educated (albeit egregiously cynical) advisors.

She has proven she is only capable of repeating the "talking points" pushed by the radicals at Faux Entertainment. She most likely doesn't even know the history of the term "Blood Libel", and like so many of her rants against the left, she only repeats what she was told to say, and doesn't concern herself with it's actual meaning. A Jewish woman was targeted by her and her klan, and now she uses the term known to describe the attack on Jews by Christians for centuries as a way of blaming her opponents.

Someone take her back to Alaska. We've heard enough.

Sarah Palin is "challenged" and does not know much about anything! Someone wrote her litlte missive and now she has another layer added to the "crosshairs" and "lock and reload"nonsense.

Riiiiiiiiiight. My entire family totally feels maligned by Palin's use of an appropriate descriptor.

Can you feel my pain? I sure can~

@Exodite Dragon

this statement from the governor is not a descriptor, it has a specific meaning that is commonly checkable even by idiots like myself who had to look it up. nowhere will you find it as a "descriptor" except by you

Here's what I want to see, because it is free speech it is protected by law, however, if there is the slightest chance it got somebody killed, then you are responsible for that speech. Its not political and its not a grey area, all this talk of insurrection, second ammendment solutions, crosshairs, blood libel, is all in reference to violent ousting of opposing political views. It should have been muzzled when it started but people have gotten so angry and ignorant they think this @!$%# is ok. A crazy person can't differentiate between "want" to start a rebellion, and actually starting one, excercising those so called "second ammendment solutions" he didn't like this womans politics and he tried to kill her for it. I deal with people that talk about this crap everyday, same as that "souths gonna rise again" horse@!$%#. I used to pass it off as idle talk of bigots and fools, now its actually got people killed, a little girl at that. I say if we can't charge Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, with inciting violence, accessory to murder, ect, then they should at least be sued for emotional distress or something. I'm not a liberal or a democrat, at time I agree with views on both sides of the aisle, so looking at this objectively I say that in this case the conservative right and the tea party are just as responsible for this tragedy as the crazed gunman and should be punished severely. I only care about justice, not politics.

Randy: After reading your post I would say that the reverse is true, you care about politics, your political beliefs and the only way justice would be served is if Palin, Beck, Rush etc. were tried for the crime rather than the person who actually pulled the trigger.

@litebleu:

I'm of Jewish descent. It's a figure of speech; not a slur.

You certainly got the 'idiot' part right, tho'.

Okay, Forrest, that really was funny.

now thats FUNNY!!!!

Forrest:

Funny!

Sad but true.

Our future President. OMG!

I vote she fades into obscurity. Take the money and run Sarah, please, pretty please with bullets sprinkled on top.

She needs to have someone in a uniform constantly standing in front of her saying "move along, nothing to see here, move along." The media has desperately tried to keep her legitimate.

For God's sake, please keep her from any form of social media!

I'm wondering where she got the "blood libel" from? The is just another round of her stupidity. Blood libel has nothing to do with the media, it's a religious lable and apparently used mostly about Hitler's slaughter of millions of Jews. So now she's saying she's within that circle.

She is the laughing stock of the world.

And people actually want this woman to run for Prez? Go ahead, she's good for another laugh.

From one dragon to another: Don't open your maw and make comment about things you plainly haven't bothered to read or comprehend.

Exodite: You attempt to reason with people who have no desire or else capacity for reasoning. To be reasonable would be to be able to look at situations, people and events objectively. Besides, they're having too much fun being snide, rather like cliques in high school bullying the less popular.

Amy We should all demand that she give us an apology for her militant rhetoric

I'd personally prefer a Best Buy gift card instead of an apology. Portal 2 is coming out later this year. :|

Amy, this quote is from Palin regarding Letterman's comment:

Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands - that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.' ”

So we're to believe that Letterman's words can incite pedophillia and child sexual abuse but palin's words can't incite violence.

I don't like Sarah Palin but I truly dislike mob mentality.

Amy: You must not be a parent or else you wouldn't care that someone verbally attacked your children.

Judging from the tenor of these posts I get the feeling that most would be ok if they let the murderer go and hung Palin in his place.

couldnt have said it bettr psm

No they don't, we can look it up ourselves and the media will let us know.

Lesson learned by most people: don't use crosshairs on campaign posters or gun/violence rhetoric in speeches then, even though no one has blamed you personally, make yourself a victim when a tragedy occurs using anti-semetic phrases in speeches.

Lesson learned by Palin: None

I bet it's not an "obscure" saying to a Jewish women lying in a hospital bed in Tucson!

Annnnnnnnnd the phony, vicarious self-victimization commentary just keeps coming and coming...

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL - "Pelosi says 'no regrets' on last day as speaker." Politicians never think they're wrong no matter the affiliation. It's a matter of humility; none of them have it.

Adam: hang around First Read for a while and you'll quickly discover that, insofar as Feisty's opinions are concerned, the only people capable of being wrong are those in the right...

...wing.

I'm willing to bet that she didn't even know what the phrase even meant. Just like the "refudiate" or whatever other words she thought she made up, I'm guessing this is one of those cases. Only the word she thought she made up as a politcal "buzz" word turned out was a real word that meant something really horrible. Honestly, I didn't even know what it meant, and I have a fairly decent education. Its like if an imbecile makes up the term porch monkey as a term of affection for his children or dog, completely ignorant of the fact its a derogatory term for black people. Also another term I never heard of until I watched Clerks 2, and I'm from the south, I thought I'd heard every racial slur in existence. Anyway, point is Palin makes other rednecks look bad.

Actually I think Palin's speech writer is the same person who comes up with the republican talking points du jour. Its uncanny how many republicans use the same words at the same time.

I guess most Democrat workers in D.C. are having a slow day and are spending most of the day making comments about Palin.

Babina, you are right on! I have said for a couple of days that it was the Right that blamed Palin first. I was on Fox News and all the articles tried to work up the base that the left was blaming Palin, before I read it anywhere else. Barbara Bush said it best, and Establishment Republicans can't stand Palin. They sent her into exile, and are using this horrific tragedy to banish her from politics. Let's hope it works. Also, yesterday SarahPAC ran a plea for donations saying Sarah "needs support now more than ever." Money always makes Sarah feel better.

The speech was offensive, but what twisted my guts was her delivery: the clenched jaw, barely suppressed rage, wide - eyed lunatic look - oh, yeah she telegraphed her feelings very effectively. Too bad her feelings are the least important part of this sad story.

Emma- I agree, this country has not been the same since McCain unleashed her on us. there were always alot of debate, left vs right etc but the level of hate, threats and just overall bitchiness has escalated ten fold since her arrival on the scene. and what is she, nothing! she holds no office or position, why does she get so much attention? she says she loves this country but all she has done is trash it. please just go away Ms Palin, please

Where in Hell does this "Person" come up with such terms?? What happened in Tuscon was an absolute travesty. But then again this is coming from someone that allows Protected Species to be hunted to extinction!!!!

This only proves her inability to be qualified as a Government Official, among many other terms that I WILL NOT allow myself to describe.

I don't think it would matter if she did. Giffords herself expressed concerns about the crosshairs (kinda prophetic in retrospect, don'tcha think?), yet for some reason Palin removed it only when one of her "targets" was actually shot. She is apparently tone deaf about such rhetoric, and she will probably keep on fanning the flames, stopping only to hide the bellows behind her back whenever the embers flare.

Skycaptain-

Totally agree. Her depictions with firearms on TV and her constant references to guns made most people interpret the symbols for what they were really intended - CROSSHAIRS! Her staff that compiled the map (I don't believe she actually knows how to use a computer) was probably to lazy to take a picture through a real rifle scope and just used a widely available jpg.

Do I know you from somewhere, or is that user name just an unfortunate coincidence? :p

randomly assigned by MSN.

MSN has a twisted sense of humor and must enjoy toying with my emotions, then!