Sunday, January 09, 2011

And a Reminder: Who's Violent?

As Palin Derangement Syndrome overcomes the MSM and its more direct pole-stars, Markos, Yglesias, and Krugman, a little reminder from Byron York via Powerline:

The party of ELF, ACORN, ECO-TERRORISTS, THE BLACK PANTHERS, THE NEW BLACK PANTHERS, THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, THE WINTER SOLDIERS, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL and his supporters, CAIR, LAMONT HILL, VAN JONES, SAUL ALINSKY, CODE PINK , RASHID KHALIDI , REV WRIGHT, BERNARDINE DOHRN the cop killing wife of Obama confidant, proud domestic terrorist, cop killer accomplice BILL AYERS whose hero SIRHAN SIRHAN assassinated Robert Kennedy, must never get away with trying to blame a senseless isolated act of violence against an entire political group or advocates for a political group such as the Tea Party, Glenn Beck and/or Rush Limbaugh.

(additional HT to Legal Insurrection)

We are also reminded that a prominent (D) strategist, Mark Penn, called for 'another OKC event' to bolster Obama's ratings...

UPDATE: We also direct your attention to the "targets" map put out by the (D) Party.

34 comments:

capper said...

What's your pet phrase again? Oh yeah, "Buy more ammo."

Dad29 said...

That'll never change.

It falls under "Be Prepared." One never knows when Olberman, or Moulitsas, will push a few (D) morons over the edge.

J. Strupp said...

I don't understand. So no one in the Democratic Party can question if the attempted assassination of a Democratic Congresswoman was in any way politically motivated because of past events completely unrelated to this event?

Deekaman said...

Sure they can question....as soon as they unload all the PC BS about Nidal's shootup at Ft. Hood. As soon as the Leftists decide to call the problems in Black society what they are. As soon as the Leftists in the media begin to talk about all the PC taboos and call them what they are, they can speculate (nay, this is not speculation, it is an accusation against TEA Party activists and Sarah Palin in particular) about the reasons for this attempt. Until then, it is typical Liberal bias.

Anonymous said...

Buy more ammo!

J. Strupp said...

No one is accusing Sarah Palin of causing this trajedy.

But the imagery on her website has been in question even before this event occured. Now it should be more than ever.

That's not bias. That's news. And it should be reported right along side with the details of this tragedy.

J. Strupp said...

Spell check. "Tragedy"

neomom said...

The issue Strupp, is that they didn't "question" if it was politically motivated - they TOLD everyone it was politically motivated - and was Sarah Palin/Republican/Beck/Tea Party's fault before they even knew who the suspect was.

Aside from the fact that this kid looks like truly mentally ill...

There were several non-right-wing potential reasons for her to be targeted politically. 1) She is Jewish - so could have been some pro-Palestinian or other anti-semite. 2) She supported more border security so could have been one of the Mexican drug cartels. 3) It could have been someone unhinged from the lefty Kos-kids who took the "target" and "DEAD to me" posts about her seriously as well.

Deekaman said...

"No one is accusing Sarah Palin of causing this trajedy."

Either you aren't paying attention or you are lying. I hope it is the former.

neomom said...

Why no hand-wringing about the "Bullseye" targets on the DNC electoral map other than rank hypocrisy?

And if you think they aren't blaming Palin, you don't get out much...

Marko Moulitsas: Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin

Jane Fonda: @SarahPalinUSA holds responsiblity. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party.

Glen Beck guilty too. Shame. It must Stop!

J. Strupp said...

No "journalists" which you would classify as "MSM" have directly told you that she was responsible for the assassination attempt of a Congresswoman.

Liberal commentators are liberal commentators. They have their opinions.

All i'm saying is that these events can and should be reported right along side of Palin's imagery. It is entirely possible that our recent "charged" political rhetoric played a significant role in this goof selecting his target. I think that most people would find that a reasonable association to consider at this point.

Neo, your list of reasons are entirely possible. But not likely. I'm playing the odds here. And so is the media.

neomom said...

BS Strupp.

The most likely reason for this whack-job to go after Giffords was that she is HIS Congresswoman and happened to be in his neighborhood yesterday.

It is also complete BS that this "charged" political environment is the product of just one side of the political spectrum. Everyone got their excersize jumping to conclusions yesterday because it was what they wanted to believe. Not because it was reasonable or based on any facts.

From Matt Lewis at Politics Daily:

"First, it is sad to see folks immediately politicize such a tragedy. If your first response to such an event is to think of Sarah Palin, something is wrong.

Like it or not, the sort of rhetoric and imagery employed by Palin's PAC is not terribly unusual. Politicians constantly talk about "targeting" voters -- does anyone think they want to shoot them? Political consultants tell politicians to "hunt where the ducks are, " but they certainly don't mean to shoot voters. Ironically, Moulitsas has also previously urged his readers to "target" Giffords and put a "bulls eye" on her district because she "sold out the Constitution..."

To be sure, it is possible for a politician to use words to incite violence, but putting a target on a congressional district is clearly not an example of that.

Our culture is full of rhetoric that uses violent analogies for everyday events. Here is a headline I just pulled up: "Aaron Rodgers in the Eagles' Crosshairs...Literally." (Here's another: Lindsay Lohan in Sheriff's Crosshairs, Calif. Investigators Ask ..." (Clearly, we had better hope nothing happens to the Aaron Rodgers or Lindsay Lohan in the near future).

It's also worth noting that the majority of the most egregious comments were made on Twitter, an outlet that allows folks to Tweet before thinking. "

neomom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
neomom said...

Deleted duplicate post.

J. Strupp said...

"To be sure, it is possible for a politician to use words to incite violence, but putting a target on a congressional district is clearly not an example of that."

And that's entirely true in the case of you and I and Palin, but not for irrational goofs like this guy. Which is the problem.

And there's quite a bit of difference between violent imagery we see in the sports section and on the "E" network and the imagery put forward in an increasingly hostile political environment.

I think Clinton summed up the current situation well when he said this awhile back:

"[W]hat we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or reduce our passion from the positions we hold -- but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike. And I am not trying to muzzle anybody. But... no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have.

Look, I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think all you have to do is read the paper everyday to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled.... By all means, keep fighting. By all means, keep arguing. But remember words have consequences as much as actions do. And what we advocate commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City..."

Dad29 said...

imagery on her website

....was copied, with targets, on a (D) website, Strupp. Check Drudge or Ace of Spades.

Next?

Dad29 said...

Strupp, I quoted directly from the Fox6/MSM story. It was FULL of innuendo. It ran over and the "reporter" was STANDING in the slop.

jimspice said...

Loughner's and Dad29's 2nd Amendment remedy philosophies are similar. Their tipping points are just a wee bit different.

Deekaman said...

Wow, Spiceboy, that's quite an accusation. Just remember that when Dad hits HIS tipping point, so do many others. And your type may be "in the crosshairs". Not a threat, mind you. Just sayin'. So maybe you want to stop with the accusations, huh? Douche

jimspice said...

Deekaman, your rhetorical skills are simply head spinning. Though I think you may want to review the chapter on veiling your threats.

Deekaman said...

I made no threat. Just sayin'. Take it how you want to. The Left has been at war with me for most of my lifetime. I'm just protecting myself.

And in a battle of wits, you are like the one legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

Do you have any friends? Or just the ones you pay? How often do you turn around and find people laughing at you behind your back?
You and the rest of the Left are a waste of that gleam in your daddy's eye.

Contrary to what you believe, you are not smarter, better or more caring than the rest of us. That attitude cost Marie Antoinette. I'm trying to help y'all keep from making the same mistake.

jimspice said...

Don't get me wrong Deekaman. I find the way you jumped to Dad29's defense heart warming. It's almost like he is your actual dad! I mean you can almost smell the male/male bonding, the waft of testoster...oh, I get it.

Anyway, I'd love to continue this. But the game is starting shortly. Packers, that is. That's footbal. You might be interested. Big muscley men in tight pants, throwing themselves against one another. Just sayin'.

neomom said...

@ Strupp...

The theory falls apart further. In the indictment filed by the Feds it states that they found a letter in a safe to the killer from Rep Giffords dated 2007 along with a document saying "I planned it" with his signature.

So much for that "Gee, all this Republican political rhetoric is suddenly make me hate politicians, I simply MUST find a Democrat to kill" meme.

So, as I stated earlier, he went after her because she was his Congresswoman. And oh yeah, see Dad's latest post. He is nuts.

I can't wait to see the backtracking and apologizing from all those getting workouts jumping to some very wrong conclusions without one shred of evidence... or probably not. Since some Democrats were quoted in Politco as stating that Obama needed to act like Clinton after OK City and pin this on the Tea Partiers. That explains the coordinated response - seems JournoList is alive and well again somewhere.

John Foust said...

Because those liberals are always talking about the size of their guns, knives, and how much ammo they can own and carry.

neomom said...

Barack Obama:

"If they bring a knife.. we bring a gun"

The words of Dear Leader himself John. Own it! Embrace it!"

John Foust said...

Do you think he was speaking literally, Neomom? If he wasn't, do you encourage such talk?

Because it's not hard to find bloggers who cheer violence and weaponry, in a literal sense of what they think is worthy of their spare time as well as in figurative use against those they oppose.

Go ahead, tell me how it fits into Catholic theology and daily practice.

neomom said...

Nice deflection attempt John.

Obama was speaking as literally as the imagery on the Sarah Palin targeted district map. But he is out of the Chicago thug/political machine, so you never really know....

You are correct, it is very easy to find bloggers who cheer violence. Somehow I thought you would be a fan of Kos and Democrat Underground.

I'm not catholic, so I can't really tell you much about their theology and daily practice at all.

Dad29 said...

NeoMom,

Don't feed the troll.

John Foust said...

I'm asking how you think people should behave, Neomom. I'm not deflecting from anything.

Dad29 can't stand the heat, so he'll run from the kitchen.

neomom said...

I know dad, I know...

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Paul Ryan has to say on the matter.


"There’s fringe rhetoric on both sides,” said Ryan, a conservative. “I think everybody needs to assess the appropriateness of their language and the kind of discourse they advance. We need passionate debate about ideas, but every time you decide to say something you should think through the consequences.”

Words of wisdom to live by, eh?


“We should always be talking about how we can have a more civilized discourse in society; language in society has grown coarser (but) I don't think it would be appropriate to read some sort of political or philosophical agenda into this," he said.

Maybe people here ought to LISTEN, not hear him, correct?

John Foust said...

OK, Neomom, leave Catholicism out of it. (I'll leave it to Dad29 to tell you why you're misguided about that.)

Tell me how you think people should behave in this situation.

TerryN said...

Not like you, John.

John Foust said...

TerryN, as I say often: Don't tell me what you don't want. Tell me what you do want.

Tell me how you think people should behave in this situation.

Do all your moral compasses support the unending worship of violence and weaponry as a solution to problems?