Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but you're just flat wrong here. There were many cases of GOP politicians disavowing, chastising, and cutting ties with supporters that made hateful statements, or threats of violence during the Obama administration. That's the major difference here. Liberals want to hold the entire GOP to account for any comment or action made by any individual crackpot, but don't want to be blamed when one of their own acts. You don't get to have it both ways, sunshine. It is either the actions of one deranged individual, or the establishment is to blame. You don't get to pick and chose based on the political affiliation of the perpetrator.
For a recent example, see the latest NYT editorial, that is STILL trying to blame the horrible attack on Gabby Giffords on campaign materials from Palin.
I just read that article. They brought up the left wing blame game on Sarah Palin's use of the word "targeting" on that shooting, then gave very brief lip service to the fact that the "left should be held to the same standards as they expect of the right". Then it was on to using yesterday's shooting incident to push gun control. The majority of that article was preaching about gun control.
The blame game is nonsense and only takes us back not forward.
Imagine for a moment that the ideas and policy's were discussed, that are important to the American people, and the debate didn't include harmful personal accusations. The media wouldn't be interested in covering it and politicians wouldn't be able to grandstand for donations.
I just read that article. They brought up the left wing blame game on Sarah Palin's use of the word "targeting" on that shooting, then gave very brief lip service to the fact that the "left should be held to the same standards as they expect of the right". Then it was on to using yesterday's shooting incident to push gun control. The majority of that article was preaching about gun control.
They've made changes to the article since initial publication yesterday. They changed the language to indicate there was no clear link between Palin's campaign materials, and the shooter, but still left the reference to the same in the modified article.
The left needs to face it: the over the top rhetoric from them, the media, and their incompetent leaders had a big hand in all of this.
You take all of that bs that they have been belching out for 2 years, stir in a tool like the shooter, make people believe that there's actually going to be an impeachment, get them all worked up only to be disappointed, work them up again, disappoint them again, work them up again....and make sure that every time you fail, the next lie is even more preposterous and really get into it...live it, breathe it, post it non-stop, pretend you don't see any of the evidence that shows that your made up theory is horse puckey, just do whatever it takes to rile up the people who didn't vote for Trump...get them mad...make them angry...get them pissed! off!
is no different...literally no different than the hate that I see slapped down on these forum pages by many lefties on this very site.
His posts look and sound just like what lefties say on here. In this very thread you can see it. It's exactly the same.
As long as the idiots on the left throw their tantrum, fester in the churning white hot hate that is inside them because they didn't get their way, talk violent, act violent, destroy property, lie, etc, this type of thing will happen again.
The left doesn't like to talk about the past when they look bad in it, but people have very long memories.
Trump was elected for a reason. The left still hasn't learned that lesson.
Oh for goodness' sake put that high horse back in the barn, you've been riding it so long it's about to collapse.
All you have to do in America to get shot by a disgruntled person is exist. Doesn't matter whether you're in a movie theater, in first grade, in Bible study class, or in a park practicing for a baseball game. You can be doing literally anything in America, be anyone, of any profession and of any age and get shot by some jacked up dude with a firearm.
Because that's how some people here like to solve their grievances. That's the culture. That's it. Doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. If you live in America there's a target on your back, it's just a matter of luck - some are chosen or some are randomly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regardless, we all take that risk.
FWIW, an assassination targets a specific person(s). All the info is not in, but it SEEMS that this was more of a mass shooting. "Kill as many as he could". I don't think it really matters what we label it, it's a horrible thing, but since you asked, I do think there is a difference.
Another interesting fact about this one:
Q: Do you know how we know the shooter was a white guy?
A: Because the race of the shooter was not mentioned in the reports. (So if you want to look at biased media, you might look at the racially biased reporting of all sides, left and right.)
The blame game is nonsense and only takes us back not forward.
No. I'm not ready to stop pointing fingers yet. Hell, the libs are STILL blaming Palin for Gabby Giffords.
And the difference between Scalise and a political assassination is Scalise is a Republican (automatically a bad guy) and the shooter was a rabid Democrat (automatically a good guy).
If Democrats had a religious bone in their bodies they'd be nominating James Hodgkinson for sainthood.
I just read that article. They brought up the left wing blame game on Sarah Palin's use of the word "targeting" on that shooting, then gave very brief lip service to the fact that the "left should be held to the same standards as they expect of the right". Then it was on to using yesterday's shooting incident to push gun control. The majority of that article was preaching about gun control.
It was easier to endlessly parse Jared Lee Loughner’s lunatic library — did he favor “The Communist Manifesto” or Ayn Rand? — than confront the larger and harsher snapshot of our current landscape that emerged after his massacre. A week on, that denial is becoming even more entrenched. As soon as the president left the podium Wednesday night, we started shifting into our familiar spin-dry post-tragedy cycle of the modern era — speedy “closure,” followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia.
If we learn nothing from this tragedy, we are back where we started. And where we started was with two years of accelerating political violence — actual violence...
It's hardly as you claimed it. They absolutely blamed rhetoric, but now the left doesn't want to accept that their hateful rhetoric towards Trump played any part.
Quote:
In her MSNBC interview that Wednesday, Giffords said that Palin had put the “crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” adding that “when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.” Chuck Todd then asked Giffords if “in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years.” She responded that colleagues who had been in the House “20, 30 years” had never seen vitriol this bad. But Todd moved on, and so did the Beltway. What’s the big deal about a little broken glass? Few wanted to see what Giffords saw — that the vandalism and death threats were the latest consequences of a tide of ugly insurrectionism that had been rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign and that had threatened to turn violent from the start.
It was the worst they had ever seen, huh? Wait until they see what the left has cooking for 2015 - 2017.
Quote:
Obama said, correctly, on Wednesday that “a simple lack of civility” didn’t cause the Tucson tragedy. It didn’t cause these other incidents either. What did inform the earlier violence — including the vandalism at Giffords’s office — wasan antigovernment radicalism as rabid on the right now as it was on the left in the late 1960s. That Loughner was likely insane, with no coherent ideological agenda, does not mean that a climate of antigovernment hysteria has no effect on him or other crazed loners out there.
You lefties don't want to listen to anyone on the right for whatever reasons you have, then listen to your savior and King for he said the exact. same. thing. that we are saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Oh for goodness' sake put that high horse back in the barn, you've been riding it so long it's about to collapse.
All you have to do in America to get shot by a disgruntled person is exist. Doesn't matter whether you're in a movie theater, in first grade, in Bible study class, or in a park practicing for a baseball game. You can be doing literally anything in America, be anyone, of any profession and of any age and get shot by some jacked up dude with a firearm.
Because that's how some people here like to solve their grievances. That's the culture. That's it. Doesn't matter who you are or what you believe. If you live in America there's a target on your back, it's just a matter of luck - some are chosen or some are randomly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regardless, we all take that risk.
Exhibit A.
At least my horse is well taken care of.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 06-15-2017 at 11:33 AM..
(Tried to post this once, it never showed up. I'll try again.)
Q: What's the difference between Scalise's shooting and a political assassination?
A: Nothing.
Some may mince words and say it was only an attempted assassination, since he didn't die. But nonetheless, the nutcase shot him (and his aides who fired back) strictly because Scalise was a high govt official and the nutcase didn't like his political ideology. That's political assassination, any way you slice it.
We may as well call it what it is.
If someone comes up to me, points a gun at me, and says, "give me all your money", I don't give it to him, and he shoots me, that's a "shooting". Ditto if he rapes a woman and then kills he so she can't later identify him. Even if he doesn't like my face or the color of my tie, it's still just a shooting.
But this was done strictly for the fact that Scalise was a Republican, in a powerful position ("Majority Whip") where it was his job to get other to vote for the legislation he supported and get it passed. The passage of the Obamacare repeal/replacement in the House, was largely due to his efforts, as well as the Speaker and the President.
It is in fact, a classic example of a political shooting, or "assassination".
The hatred generated by the mainstream media and social media, is starting to trigger political assassinations. Most of the fault is not the media's, it is the fault of the nutcases (plural in case it happens again) who pull the trigger.
But a small amount of blame lies with those who generate Fake News (Trump colluded with Russians, the election was hacked and wasn't legitimate, Melania stayed in New York because she couldn't stand him, all the rest of that garbage) and who spread it far and wide, egging on anyone who will listen it fits of seething rage that has no factual backing at all.
In any large country there are always a few nutcases who are deranged enough to do something terrible if they are pushed hard enough. They at responsible for their own actions.
But the people who are deliberately pushing them as hard as they can, should think long and hard if they are doing the right thing. The pushers have a responsibility to at least TRY to verify what they are saying, not just grab (or invent) whatever they hope will ***** people off the most and spread it to see what kind of trouble they can stir up.
They stirred some up yesterday at that baseball practice. The result was an assassination attempt against a high government official. The shooter was unquestionably the one responsible.
But are the pushers and rumor-mongers totally blameless?
It's time for them (long past time actually, they've been doing it for decades) to start taking responsibility for what they do. Sure, it's fun to call names, craft lewd cartoons, and stir up the people among you, so much that they start replying in kind.
But when will you decide it's enough? How many officials have to die (or suffer malicious injuries) before you start backing off your infantile and hate-filled behavior, and start considering that perhaps you shouldn't show and official dumping Granny off a cliff from her wheelchair? Or accusing the President of colluding with foreign countries to destroy he U.S., when there isn't the slightest evidence that he did?
You were gleeful when you found out you could actually get some people to believe your stories, whether you invented them yourself or simply spread the nonsense you heard from others.
You have the right to free speech. But with the right, comes responsibility.
Perhaps you should be less eager and gleeful to smear an opponent, and a little more responsible to find whether there's anything to your smears before you deliver them.
If you found anything out yesterday, it's that the audience to the " discussion" is large... and includes a few nutcases. And they are nutty enough to think they should do something about the "facts" they keep hearing from people like you... and stupid enough to not bother checking or believing those who present alternatives.
Please start being smarter than the murderous nutcases for a change.
Or we will start seeing more assassinations like this. And some won't just be "attempted".
Or are you OK with that? You can always point out you didn't shoot the guy, right?
So no Charlie Hebdo then either?
Alex Jones is way more dangerous to this country than satire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
