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.
No, I made no such accusation, and I think you know that.
Why would you think I'm left? I'm neither left nor right. I'm just here observing your nutty adversarial politics...The nastiest example of smears, venom and lies I've ever seen...I had no idea that US politics were so badly broken, but I do find it entertaining...After all that is why we are all on this forum.
Perhaps it is the end of the vitriol the left is demanding...Both sides should think before they talk...From what I have seen in the short time I've been posting here is that one side is far worse than the other, and I don't even have a dog in this race.
Tsk Tsk it is the the vitriol of the left exploding again. Of course I have made no smears nor expressed any venom. It only seems that way to the left. One day a person said to Harry Truman, give 'em heII, he replied I tell the truth and they think its heII.
Speaking of nutty, what were you trying to convey with your non sequitur?
Do you think Obama is going to apologise tomorrow???
Wow the poster you referenced just admitted , by default, that Obama has no character and should not be trusted? Amazing!
I just don't think they realize it.
I don't have a huge public audience as do Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. so, yes, I could indeed present more proof that I didn't influence him than those three public figures who speak to the public frequently and are quoted in newspapers, on TV, and the Internet every day could presnet. So much for your pitiful logic.
And you know for a fact that these people did influence the shooter? That he listened to them? That he watched the news or listened to the radio? We know he was on the internet, but no evidence whatsoever that he ever clicked on anything these people talked about.
And you know for a fact that these people did influence the shooter? That he listened to them? That he watched the news or listened to the radio? We know he was on the internet, but no evidence whatsoever that he ever clicked on anything these people talked about.
She will tell you the absence of evidence is evidence. Yes I know very 1984.
Beck and Limbaugh are shameless hatemongers who profit by ratcheting up people's fears. They're despicable.
But Loughner is not their spawn.
Think, people.
In a nation of more than 300 million, there will always be a number of severely disturbed crackpots among us who will be on the edge of committing something as horrible as this Tucson tragedy. In a "free" society like ours, these crazies will come to the surface occasionally. To pretend that big brother can protect all of us all the time against these acts is a fantasy.
It's not a gun issue. It's not a right vs left issue. It's the reality of human existence. DNA is sometimes unreliable in making all of us rational.
It's funny how some targets on a map can incite violence but all the BS being said about Palin, Beck and the rest is what...TRUTH??? because...you can see it everywhere?
Who will be responsible if some one kills one of them in response to this political sham?
Asking that Palin and Beck act like adults and own their behavior is akin to urging that violence be inflicted on them? That's an irrational assertion. "The left" isn't laying the blame of the Tucson tragedy at Palin's feet. Maybe some people are, but "the left" is not. And while the political commentators on the left and the right have engaged in overblown, violent rhetoric, they aren't responsible when someone actually picks up a gun and uses it. They aren't responsible for the trigger being pulled. But they are responsible for their own words. And they are responsible for the images and ideas they put out there. Palin put Giffords in a crosshair. That doesn't make her responsible for Loughner's actions. But she's responsible for putting that image and that idea out there to the very wide audience she has. Now she's claiming "blood libel"? She put the image out there. That's the truth. Libel is about falsehoods. She's not been libeled. She's been called out.
MSNBC hit a new low last night in Chris Matthews comments about Michael Savage and Mark Levine. How can he possibly criticize them when he works for mSNBC? Is Keith Olbermann ever NOT openly hostile to anybody who doesn't follow a far left agenda? Does Rachel Maddow not have a permanent sneer on her face when she mentions anyone not liberal? The topper was that he had on Michael Smerconish on as a guest, that snivelling turncoat former conservative who changed sides when a chance at a national media audience and money was dangled in front of him by MSNBC. Ed Schultz, you have somecompetetion, watch out.
MSNBC hit a new low last night in Chris Matthews comments about Michael Savage and Mark Levine. How can he possibly criticize them when he works for mSNBC? Is Keith Olbermann ever NOT openly hostile to anybody who doesn't follow a far left agenda? Does Rachel Maddow not have a permanent sneer on her face when she mentions anyone not liberal? The topper was that he had on Michael Smerconish on as a guest, that snivelling turncoat former conservative who changed sides when a chance at a national media audience and money was dangled in front of him by MSNBC. Ed Schultz, you have somecompetetion, watch out.
Well I'm glad you have cleared that up. Oh wait more than half the country sees it the other way around.
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.