Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The False Narrative Of Tea Party Violence Attempts Suicide

The False Narrative Of Tea Party Violence Attempts Suicide

Obama’s speech at the Tucson memorial was an opportunity thrust upon him, not one of choice.

But the tone of the speech was consistent in many ways with the Obama 2.0 we saw during the lame duck session when Obama struck a tax deal with Republicans.  Coming together to get things done was the theme.

Obama had no real choice, considering the results of the November elections.  But there is nothing to suggest that the tone is anything more than a convenience to consolidate Democratic legislative gains of the past two years, particularly Obamacare.

Obama may be speaking in a more muted tone, but those in the Democratic Party and the base are not.  The disgusting feeding frenzy of accusations which erupted immediately after the Tucson shooting simply was the culmination of years of training, in which the first reaction of the left-blogosphere and punditry is to blame Tea Parties for high-profile acts of violence regardless of the facts.

The narrative that Tea Parties and conservatives and Sarah Palin are messengers of hate and violence has been exposed for what it always was, a lie concocted by a cabal of media elites, Democratic Party operatives and left-wing bloggers in order to stifle legitimate opposition to Obama’s policies.

While this false narrative had been exposed numerous times in the past two years, this time it was different because the horror of the shooting had captivated the nation. The narrative was not debunked months later, as in the case of Bill Sparkman, when everyone had moved on, but front and center for all to see.

The nation received an education on how the Democratic message machine works, and that lesson will not be forgotten soon.

Nobel Prize winning columnist Paul Krugman was revealed to be what he has in fact become, a completely politicized advocate who ignores facts in favor of messaging. Krugman was almost first out of the gate in blaming right-wing rhetoric for inciting the shooting, used misleading quotations to support his narrative, and refusing to budge when the facts moved against him.  The Board of Editors of The Times was no better.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a hero of the left since he announced he would refuse to enforce the new Arizona immigration law, was revealed to be someone who ignored the facts in front of this face and known to his department in favor of hackneyed taunts of “right wing vitriol.” That Dupnik held fast to this narrative as everyone around him jumped ship on the slur, turned Dupnik into a caricature of a politicized savant who kept repeating “right wing vitriol” over and over again because he knew nothing else.

The purveyors of Palin Derangement Syndrome had their Waterloo. The accusations that Palin “had blood on her hands,” and the death wishes spewing from keyboards, were so over the top that the accusers were left looking like that of which they accuse Palin.

Since the shooting Saturday morning in Arizona, we have witnessed truly remarkable damage to the false narrative of Tea Party and conservative violence, and the damage was entirely self-inflicted.

But we have not witnessed the death of this false narrative.  What we witnessed was not a suicide, but an attempted suicide.

So the vigilance must continue.

——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

"a completely politicized advocate who ignores facts in favor of messaging" That perfectly describes YOU Mr. Jacobson.

The idea that you are teaching our young people is appalling and scary. You are so clearly partisan and see the world through Palin tinted glasses that any and everything you say is pure and utter garbage.

The clamoring to defend the stochastic terrorist dog whistles of the right wing hate machine are unbelievable and unbearable. Shame on all of you!

@Timothy – back up your accusation with facts.

How have I been wrong about the Tucson shooting? Did I falsely accuse the left or Democrats of causing the crime? Was I wrong in criticising the people who blamed the Palin electoral target for inciting violence when there is no evidence to back up that accusation.

I have noticed a dramatic uptick in hostility from people like you who cannot stand that your team has been exposed for what it is.

Tim: What exactly is a "stochastic terrorist dog whistle" anyway? STOCHASTIC?

That is a metaphor desperately in search of an explanation. It borders on, or plummets over the edge into a vast yawning chasm of incoherence. (How's that for an overblown metaphor eh?)

What exactly is being said with that barely recognizable metaphor? Are you trying to say that right wing radio/blogs or whatever your favorite bogeyman is, that these sources of info/opinion go off in a random and indeterminate fashion? And then, the terrorists come running? Huh? Schrödinger’s cats of the political world? Huh?

It's safe to say I ain't catching the drift. Just looks bat guano incoherent.

A great article reinforcing why we must be ever vigilant:

http://www.creators.com/conservative/michelle-malkin.html

The column is called "Blame Righty: A Condensed History" and is accurate in its exposure of the media lies and attacks over the last 2 years. @Timothy and the other useful idiots on the left continue the memes, lies, and slanderous slurs – and indeed, I have noticed an uptick in their viciousness, as well.

Ever vigilant.

Post NOV-2 Butt-Kicked Syndrome, eh? Timmy boy?
You could always go with Nancy Pelosi's new meme…

Pelosi Spins Tucson Assassinations into an “Accident” on House Floor

Professor, I am sure those like Timothy think that the "memorial" held in Arizona to "honor" those who died and were injured last Saturday feels that although the crowd seemed little more than a bunch of unruly toddlers who should never be left to go out in public without their parents, the POTUS was not responsible for the reprehensible actions of those university students with their handing out of t-shirts, complete with campaign slogans.

But I would beg to differ with Timothy.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/johnberry_iv/C94H

Please note the date and the headline to John Berry's entry.

Timothy is symbolic of the left who continues to practice the art of knee-jerk reaction before putting his brain into gear. A better explaination of why we have the current president is not needed.

Why are we talking about "incendiary rhetoric" when it has been definitively proven not to have been a factor in the shooting? Is it because the real culprit is mental illness and the media don't want to offend the Democrat base?

"…accusations which erupted immediately after the Tucson shooting simply was the culmination of years of training, in which the first reaction of the left-blogosphere and punditry is to blame Tea Parties for high-profile acts of violence regardless of the facts."

I must disagree with this statement on its face. You can't have a 'culmination of years' against a target that has only been in existence for 14-15 months. I am no Loughner grammarian but I think you need a period in there. I do agree with the observation however.

@Tucanae – I believe the "years of training" comment refers to the training of journalists both in school and in the newsrooms and studios across the country since at least the 1990's, although the actual beginning of such liberal training of journalists to bias toward the left is debatable.

They have been trained, like Pavlov's dog, to react immediately when shown the "red meat" of a hot story involving a shooter. Thus, the media reactions chronicled in Michelle Malkin's column today (see my last comment for the link).

I personally am with Mark Levin. These hacks are in need of a court room where they have to very publicly defend their libelous accusations (see this Newsbusters story: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/14/mark-levin-threatens-sue-matthews-olbermann-schultz-and-anyone-trying). I can understand why a political hopeful like Sarah Palin will not sue, but someone MUST hold these propaganda merchants of hate accountable.

I am hoping someone in the newsrooms and/or studios of the MSM will "leak" some documents showing this Sarah Palin slander was known to be a lie but pushed by the editorial staff/producers of the media, leaving no doubt as to their guilt. Yes, I dare to dream.

Is it just me or is just about every conservative blog suddenly being inundated by liberal whackos like Timothy whose only contribution is to post scurrilous slurs against the host blogger and his readers? How are mindless threats supposed to help their cause?

Everywhere you go these days, the Timothys are slinging their vulgar and puerile slime.

If those on the left truly believe that Sarah Palin's map had causative effect in this tragedy, shouldn't they now be expressing extreme concern for the other Democrats targeted on the map?

As I recall, Luke, most of them are no longer in office. Which is the real reason these voodoo worshipers are upset in the first place.

cassandra lite | January 14, 2011 at 11:30 am

You're giving the president too much. His meeting (or call) with Sheriff Dupnik implicitly ratified the man's ravings. And those three little words the president uttered were the absolute minimum he could've done–and he did it. Moreover, he should've refused to participate in that setting, what with the t-shirt-wearing crowd, and silenced the crowd's cheers.

You won't hear back from Timothy. He has nothing to answer you with.

I signed my older son, (who is at loose ends for a few weeks until he starts his job in China), up for the mises.org online course,

"How to think: An introduction to logic"

Imagine my thrill when their first lesson last night included deconstructing Krugman's facetious editorials!!

Ever vigilant, indeed. Teach your children!

"If those on the left truly believe that Sarah Palin's map had causative effect in this tragedy, shouldn't they now be expressing extreme concern for the other Democrats targeted on the map? "

If you'll recall, one congresswoman named Gabrielle Giffords went on the air some time back to decry exactly that, Palin's map with Giffords name and a crosshair.

What ever came of that, BTW?

I know Palin has been violently attacked the last few days, but whatever happened to that Giffords lady?

Robot Pirate Ninja, I don't remember that, probably because it never happened. If it had, it would have been broadcast high and low throughout the land by the mainstream media.

In other words, Robot, you lie.

@Robot Pirate Ninja

I'm a complete news junkie … a voracious reader of politics … yet this is the first time I've ever seen that map. Do you really, truly believe this crazy pot-smoking, obssesively video-game playing (hey, whatever happened to video-games/inciteful rock music as catalysts?) kid living in his own world, who friends say never watched the news nor listened to talk radio nor was interested in politics ever saw that map, let alone that he was inspired by it? Or that he saw the DNC's map? Or saw that Daily Kos had a bullseye on her? Or that maybe the term "battleground state" set him off?

Stop the killing! Ban all metaphors!

It's not surprising at all that Giffords or anyone else targeted by Palin for defeat (that's right … defeat … not death) would use an angle like that to complain. Democrats find fault in everything Palin does. Nothing is too absurd. In the midst of all this madness, they're actually bickering about her using the term "blood libel." That is just insane.

You ask whatever happened to that Giffords lady? She was shot by an insane kid who held a grudge against her since she didn't answer a question he posed to her to his liking back in 2007, long before anyone had ever heard of Palin. That's what happened. End of story.

I'll tell you what I see in these "hit and run" attacks on conservative blogs…..These lefty trash-talkers are trying their best to incite someone into violence. Sorry y'all, it won't work, we are much too grounded in common sense and decency for that to happen. You are going to have to resort to "false flag" operations in phase two of your attack on conservatives but we have that one figured out, too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

So, Stogie, you are saying the above link never happened. Interesting theory. What does watching the video do to your theory that the video never happened?

"In other words, Robot, you lie. "

Curious choice of words there, Stogie. Do you have it inscribed on your AR-15?

http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act;=post&pid;=11861101110850039

Oh yeah, that's right they stopped selling those after someone took the rhetoric about "second amendment solutions" seriously.

LukeHandCool,

"I'm a complete news junkie … a voracious reader of politics … yet this is the first time I've ever seen that map"

Watiching Fox all day doesn't make you a news junkie, just a junkie for self-affirmation. Of course Fox didn't cover it. That way they can, like you, deny it had any effect because it doesn't even exist!

"You ask whatever happened to that Giffords lady? She was shot by an insane kid who held a grudge against her since she didn't answer a question he posed to her to his liking back in 2007, long before anyone had ever heard of Palin."

I see, so in 2007 he had a grugde, nobody ever heard of Palin or her map. In 2011, after Palin has been inflicted on everyone, and the Tea Party lost a very close race to the Death Panel supporter, he finally gets the nerve to do what the voices are telling him.

It's certainly not because he got affirmation from anyone about his delusions on how the Government is trying to control everyone. No, certainly not. That kind of rhetoric never happens.

@Robot is a perfect example (along with @Timothy) of your observation of an uptick in leftist spewing commentators, Professor. I am sure the left (e.g. Media Matters) has called on the zealots to troll all the most effective, informative blogs.

Congratulations, sir. You must be scaring the left to death (metaphorically speaking, of course; not that I will EVER follow their "rule" to tone down my rhetoric – just a clarification). 😉

Heh. Amazing how much they hate truth and facts.

Ninja:
You conveniently left out of your hit-and-run smear that Giffords admits in the interview that there is extreme rhetoric on the Democratic side as well.
"extremes on both sides …."

she speaks out the extremism on the Democratic side of the political spectrum:
"polarized parts of OUR party"

and Sheriff Dupenik should have heeded her call for calm, moderate leadership to NOT whip up or further incite extreme rhetoric. Giffords clearly stated at the end of her MSNBC interview:

.."community leaders … not just political leaders … all of us .. have to come together.."

I would characterize what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Safeway shooting as a colossal FAIL on the part of the Democratic leadership, as well as their friends in the Media.

So, they want to use Giffords as an icon, they want to exploit the tragedy and her suffering, but don't want to heed her call for moderation?

Shameful.

DINORightMarie,

Thank you for offering such blinding insight into the motivations of those you oppose (and good job not caving into the crazies who want the violent rhetoric to stop).

Unfortnately you seem to have missed the point where you offer anything other than invective to make your point.

Another poser complains how he never saw the map, or saw Giffords complain about, so I link to that.

Are you saying that the video is a lie? I'm just not sure, exactly, what about watching the video makes you think it doesn't exist. Care to elaborate?

"Watiching Fox all day doesn't make you a news junkie, just a junkie for self-affirmation. Of course Fox didn't cover it. That way they can, like you, deny it had any effect because it doesn't even exist!"

–Sorry Robot, I don't watch TV, except for nature/science/documentaries with my kids. A total of a few hours a week on the weekend. I don't watch any TV news. I said I was a voracious reader of politics. Reader. So, you're wrong there.

Don't feel bad. Obviously Palin twitched her nose ala "Bewitched," and caused you to think that.

"I see, so in 2007 he had a grugde, nobody ever heard of Palin or her map. In 2011, after Palin has been inflicted on everyone, and the Tea Party lost a very close race to the Death Panel supporter, he finally gets the nerve to do what the voices are telling him."

"It's certainly not because he got affirmation from anyone about his delusions on how the Government is trying to control everyone. No, certainly not. That kind of rhetoric never happens."

–Don't tell me … the movie "JFK" had a profound effect on your thinking. Get that resume in. You should really consider writing the screenplay for Oliver Stone's upcoming mockumentary on this tragedy.

The other point that is striking in all of the post-event analysis by the lefty Commentariat is the absolute refusal to acknowledge WHY the rhetoric surrounding Obamacare became so heated, so quickly.

It was because the representatives designated by "We, the People" to represent the interests of "the People" openly and contemptuously ignored the will of their constituents, and in many instances, began excoriating and demonizing their own constituents! The interests of Big Pharma and other Big Money interests outweighed the desires of the electorate.

The Tea Party is not "anti-government". However, the majority of Tea Party members are keenly aware that "We, The People" ARE the government. And when our Representatives fail to honestly and conscientiously represent those interests, the voters have a right to speak up, protest, and vote them out of office.

The level of "heated rhetoric" was a direct correlation to the degree of contempt hurled towards "The People" by the Democratic establishment. The voters had every right to be upset. Letters, phone calls, etc were met with silence and derision.

Pelosi, Clyburn, Hoyer, Obama et al own that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

So, Stogie, you are saying the above link never happened. Interesting theory. What does watching the video do to your theory that the video never happened?

Well I will have to concede the point; Giffords did indeed help to propagate the false meme that that Palin's "cross hairs" map were "gun sights."

Perhaps Giffords herself contributed to her own fate by voicing this lie and thereby inserting the thought into Loughner's subconscious. I notice that she made the comment on the far-left propaganda network, MSNBC. All this proves is that Giffords herself isn't blameless in this propaganda war.

@Robot

Keep it up! It's working! The numbers are at 36-32!

That's 36% of those polled blame liberals for the heated rhetoric and 32% blame conservatives.

D'OH !! Epic backfire !!

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1548

What @Timothy (self identified by link as an "artist" from Chicago), above, has succeeded in doing is hijacking this whole thread.

You could even think of it as a "copycat" version of the entire response of the left to the shootings in Arizona, as was quite aptly described by Professor Jacobson earlier on this post, on Tuesday, "Hijacking A Massacre."

Notice that commenter @Timothy very quickly posted the "first" response here. His nasty little screed was posted at 9:30 am in response to this 9:20 am post by the Professor. @Timothy was obviously lurking, and he succeeded in grabbing that "front row" seat.

Actually, it was really quite easy for him to do so, as it did not involve any thinking at all . . . it merely required him to very quickly "sketch" a broad brush ad hominem attack, first on the Professor and then, for good measure, on everyone else who posts here. "Sketches" it seems are an @Timothy specialty.

Virtually every comment thereafter on this thread has been in response to him, and I suspect that precisely sums up his motivation.

So, I'd say that @Timothy is somewhere out there in Chicagoland smiling and thinking to himself, "mission accomplished."

He had no intention of being correct with his "sketch" he just wanted to disrupt. He saw it as "performance art," only using words.

After all, this is a guy who once proudly posted the following on his site:

. . .
"I am super pleased to be included in Issue #16: "Retard Hard" of Scum Bag Fag Mag.

-Tim

May 24, 2008"

* * * * *

Gee . . . best of luck with all your worthy future endeavors, Tim!

(And, just in case you don't get that last sentence of mine, Timbo, I'll add this: "/sarc", as there quite obviously will be none.

Wow…Robot Chicken discovered that the Palmetto State Armory sells the "You Lie" engraved plate for the AR-15. Here is the problem….we "bitter clingers" know the difference between a joke and an unhinged act. I would rather trust a right wing conservative with a loaded AR-15 than one of these unhinged progressive/liberal/socialist/marxist/whateverist losers that are hell-bent on getting their message out "by any means necessary" types. Now, please run along to Austin and beat the drum in the drum circle while the rest of your smelly hippie friends chant "NOT FOR SALE"!

Boy, oh boy . . . I took a few minutes to write a comment responding to one troll, and in the mean time, suddenly a whole slew of them show up, like so many feverishly frantic moths to this little light bulb of reason on the intertubes!

Looks like the success belongs to you, Professor. You are obviously really getting to them!

As for the silly folks, above, who are so worked up about the suggestion that Palin's electoral map was seriously "of concern" to the left, including the congresswoman, I'd have to elaborate on a very good catch posted here on Le•gal In•sur•rec•tion by commenter, Mo.

Check that following post by Markos Moulitsas posted at the Daily Kos, way back on June 25, 2008:

Here is the link for those of you who may not know how to copy and paste:

It was one entitled as follows . . .

"2010 will be primary season

by kos
Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM PST"

Now, please just go to that post and scroll down to the list of Democrat Members of Congress who Markos was obviously very, very angry at, and about whom he was quite seriously attempting to seriously stir up his little band of angry and rhetorically violent followers.

Here is precisely what Markos said about those Democrat Members of Congress:

"Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis."

"Target list" huh? Sounds nasty. But stay with me. It gets better! You'll see the complete list, along with several of them whose names Markos put in bold. . . . ones he specifically claimed had "sold out the constitution" when they voted for final passage of H R 6304 on 20-Jun-2008, which was the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Just check that list of names of Democrats, especially those printed in bold by Markos. You will see among the names, this one:

"Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)".

Then, notice what Palin "Accuser-in-Chief" Markos Moulistas, had to say back then in the summer of 2008 about those folks, specifically including the ones, like Rep. Gabby Gifford, who he had just uber-accused of "selling out the Constitution."

"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."

A "bulls eye . . . Whoa, isnt that PRECISELY what he has now accused Sarah Palin of doing . . . and he quite obviously did it first?

So Markos himself put a "bulls eye" on Representative Gabby Giffords back in 2008, not just on a map depicting her district, mind you, but right on her name!

How do you lefties explain that he gets to say such things, AND to outrageously accuse others of complicity in murder if they do . . . claiming that for those others to say it somehow that makes them responsible for the tragic death of several people at the hands of an obviously insane person?

Please explain that, oh ye larboard-leaning frantic moth-like commenters, above?

"Here is the link for those of you who may not know how to copy and paste:

It was one entitled as follows . . ."

Strange, I don't see the gunsights in that post.

They are clear as day on the Palin map. Why can't I see them on the Kos post?

Oh yeah, because violent political rhetoric never leads to violent, unless they are lefties (or Muslims, obviously), then it always does.

"I would rather trust a right wing conservative with a loaded AR-15 than one of these unhinged progressive/liberal/socialist/marxist/whateverist losers that are hell-bent on getting their message out "by any means necessary" types."

Sigh. How about if it's a 9MM with a 33-bullet clip? Then do you trust that person's rants about the progressive/liberal/socialist/marxist/whateverist controlling his mind and destroying his country?

Sorry, it should also be noted that Palin's invective wasn't just limited to the map. This was also right around the same time "Don't Retreat; Reload." became a Tea Party catch-phrase.

Bonus points! What was Jared Loughner doing when he was finally stopped?
a) Reloading.
b) Retreating.
c) Posting nasty things to Facebook.

Rawbutt pirate, sorry bub but internet arguing is so…well, fourteenish. we shall agree to disagree as you cannot seem to get it. sigh.
how did the November midterms go for ya?

@robot: (What an appropriate moniker, BTW). Oh gosh, somebody says "reload", the shooter is stopped when he was reloading, and you make a connection???!!!!! It really takes a special kind of stupidity to do that. But I suspect you probably got it from some wacked out left-wing sight which specializes in stupidity, so we will give you the benefit of the….oh the hell we will. There is no cure for stupid.

"Oh gosh, somebody says "reload", the shooter is stopped when he was reloading, and you make a connection???!!!!! It really takes a special kind of stupidity to do that."

There is another special kind of stupidity, it's the part that completely ignored any kind of context.

Oh gosh, somebody says "reload", the shooter is stopped when he was reloading, after shooting the person targeted by the "somebody" who said "reload", and you make a connection???!!!!!

I know, completely preposterous to see any connection there.

Most of the actions from the contemporary Left can be attributed to a "bully" mentality. So many of the characteristics of bullies and their outlook remind me very much of wide swaths of the current Democratic establishment, including the swamps of Daily Kos and DU, as I read through information on how to "bully-proof" your child. Timely, indeed.

"All bullies have certain attitudes and behaviors in common. Bullies dominate, blame and use others. They have contempt for the weak and view them as their prey. They lack empathy and foresight, and do not accept responsibility for their actions. They are concerned only about themselves and crave attention."

"Bullies have immature social skills and believe other children are more aggressive than they actually are. If you brush up against a bully, he may take it as a physical attack and assault you because "you deserve it, you started it," etc. Drs. Kenneth Dodge and John Coie's research indicates that bullies see threats where there are none, and view other children as more hostile than they are. The hyperactive bully will explode over little things because he lacks social skills and the ability to think in depth about a conflict."

Hmmmm…..

Now, put all the criticism of Sarah Palin, who we are continually reminded by the Left, is "not Ivy League" in your thoughts when you read this last paragraph:

"A bully has not learned empathy and compassion. The parents of bullies often have prejudices based on race, sex, wealth and achievement. Other people are just competitors who stand in the way. Their child must always be the best in sports or academics, and others must be kept in an inferior position. A University of Chicago study led suggested that bullies watch more aggression on television and in family interactions. Aggression is rewarded and respected, and humiliating others is tolerated. Compassion and empathy seem like weaknesses."

http://www.byparents-forparents.com/causesbullies.html

How dare Sarah Palin and the Tea Party activists stand up for themselves!

Where was Ninja's outrage when the T-shirts depicting Palin as a c*nt came out, or when Palin was lynched in effigy?

Oh, I forgot. That was all just good fun.
Can't you take a joke?

@robot: Yeah, I know the context. You are trying to connect the tea party and SP expression to the Tucscon shooter when there is no, none, zero, zilch, evidence that the shooter could even spell "tea party", let alone was influenced by it. I showed that it was an epic fail. Then, with you back against the wall, you bring up the "context" argument. Pretty pathetic.

@robot: Hey, I once heard Obama say bring a gun to a fight. Seems that the shooter did that. Guess that makes Obama guilty, doesn't it Enstein?

You right-wing wackoes. Robot Pirate Ninja is right. This isn't the first time Palin has caused a shooting:

"Man shoots TV over Bristol Palin Dancing."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/man-shoots-tv-over-bristol-palin-dancing

No need to thank me, Mr. Robot. Doomo arigatoo.

So, @Robot Pirate Ninja, you're sayin' that "violent rhetoric", even that aimed at a specific person, never leads to violence; but somehow "violent maps" do?

Ha ha! I thought you were being sarcastic for a moment, and then I looked at your past comments. You're serious! Ha ha!

Don't you even know enough to crawl away when you've lost an argument?

Your last comment reminds me quite a bit of the consequential "None shall pass" positions taken by the "Black Knight" in the famous sketch from Monty Python & the Holy Grail!

"Just a flesh wound," he insisted at one point.

And them finally, without arms or legs, he defiantly shouted after Arthur's Knights, "Come back here and take what's comin' to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

I'd say that's a pretty good metaphor for your comment . . . just as the long-practiced metaphorical casting of political campaign fights in military terms, has been standard practice for both sides of the aisle in this country, and elsewhere, for as long as anyone can remember.

The problem with those of you on the left is that you've concluded, following the huge drubbing you all took in this past election, that you cannot win a campaign given current circumstances.

But by (as the Professor has correctly noted) hijacking a tragic incident for partisan political purposes, you apparently all figure you can "change the rules,", a process which you all initiated by first recklessly flinging blood libels at leading Republicans.

Sorry . . . no one is buying!

@LukeHandCool: Thanks for that. Made me laugh. Imagine, causing a left-wing wacko to shoot his own TV?? Is there no depth to the evil of Sarah Palin??

"So, @Robot Pirate Ninja, you're sayin' that "violent rhetoric", even that aimed at a specific person, never leads to violence; but somehow "violent maps" do?"

No, that's not really anthing close to my point. Palin's map will the target list and the crosshais *is* the core of the rhetoric, particularly when it is matched, as it was in reality, with the direct quote "Don't Retreat: Reload".

"Ha ha! I thought you were being sarcastic for a moment, and then I looked at your past comments. You're serious! Ha ha!"

Hope things are clearer for you now, although when you try as hard as you have to stay confused, it usually works.

"The problem with those of you on the left is that you've concluded, following the huge drubbing you all took in this past election, that you cannot win a campaign given current circumstances."

Hrrm, what happened in 1994? (Republican landslide after 2 years of nasty rhetoric)

And then in 1995? (anti-government rhetoric finds a crazy to give it life, witness OKC).

And then in 1996? (centrist Democratic president wins 2nd term, continues longest, strongest economic streak in history, leaving office with a balanced budget).

@robot: Now you're blaming nasty rhetoric for the Republican victory in 1994 and the OKC bombing in 1995? It's apparent that you cannot be helped. But feel free to continue to look foolish. It's great entertainment, and your kind of lunacy actually helps our side.

Not sure what the reference to 1996 has to do with anything…probably some connection in your drug addled mind that only you can explain.

"@robot: Hey, I once heard Obama say bring a gun to a fight. Seems that the shooter did that. Guess that makes Obama guilty, doesn't it Enstein?"

Yes, absolutely, if Giffords event had been billed as a "Knife Fight with Congress" and not as "Congress on your Corner".

BTW, this is *the* silliest talking point that Krauthammer/Malin/etc have been putting out.

You all seem to think Giffords is at fault because she pulled a knife on the guy, and he brought a gun (like Obama told him to through the mind control device).

Is that really your point in bringing this up? That it was Giffords fault for attacking Loughner with a knife?

"Not sure what the reference to 1996 has to do with anything."

Sorry, I didn't mean to hide it. Here let me take away the parenthesis so can see it..

In 1996 a centrist Democratic president won a 2nd term, and continued the longest, strongest economic streak in U.S. history, leaving office with a balanced budget.

@Swibbie

Maps, dogwhistles, dancing … what else is in that evil magician's voodoo arsenal that causes lefties to act so looney on her command? Evil gypsey snake woman!

"…ignored the facts in front of [his] face…"

@robot: So by your "logic", there is only a connection to Obama's comment if the word "knife" appears in the name of the event, yet somehow there is a connection to "crosshairs", even though "crosshairs" doesn't appear in the name of the event?

There's nothing I can say that can add to that kind of "logic". Please feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.

@LukeHandCool: LOL. There MUST be something else. I'm sure that robot person will find it. Just wait for it…:)

"@robot: So by your "logic", there is only a connection to Obama's comment if the word "knife" appears in the name of the event, yet somehow there is a connection to "crosshairs", even though "crosshairs" doesn't appear in the name of the event?"

Again, if you keep trying to stay confused, you can't be surprised when you stay that way.

You all missed the bonus question earlier. Let me re-iterate here, so maybe you can get to the core of your confusion…

Bonus points! What was Jared Loughner doing when he was finally stopped?
a) Reloading.
b) Retreating.
c) Posting nasty things to Facebook.

Double Bonus Points! What was Palin's tweet that she sent out with the map?

@Robot Pirate Ninja now sez, in resonding to me:

"Palin's map will the target list and the crosshais *is* the core of the rhetoric . . ."

Whew! Sure glad you cleared that one up!

Heh!

Tell me, do you actually talk like that as well?

Is there some sort of grammatical disconnect somewhere?

Hey, here's a thought . . . is it possible "someone" is using grammar to control your fingers while you're typing?

Nahhhhh . . . that's completely crazy!

Anyway, in response to your disingenuously expressed wish that you "[h]ope things are clearer for" me now with respect to understanding your viewpoint . . . the answer is obviously no!

But keep plugging away, sport!

No, that's not really anthing close to my point. Palin's map [with] the target list and the crosshairs *is* the core of the rhetoric, particularly when it is matched, as it was in reality, with the direct quote "Don't Retreat: Reload".

Are things clearer now? Or did I make another typo that you can fixate on?

Or are you still so terribly confused?

@robot: I believe I addressed your "reload" logic in a previous post. Do you still not undertand? Maybe it contained too many big words.

Un-be-liev-a-ble. You probably should add "brainwashed" to you "robot" moniker.

But, like other posters have said. carry on!!!! You don't need my help anymore. Making a fool of youself seems to be what you do best.

"I believe I addressed your "reload" logic in a previous post."

Yes, indeed. You wrote…

"Oh gosh, somebody says "reload", the shooter is stopped when he was reloading, and you make a connection???!!!!! "

You did this assuming (wrongly) that it was the entirety of the context of the situaiton and my argument that, given who is was that was actually shot, and who it was that was actually directing people to not retreat, but to reload. Perhaps that person should bear some responsibility for actions that, for all intents and purposes, match up exactly to the rhetoric.

Obviously you all feel that no one should be responsible for their public comments except for dirty, commie, liberals.

I disagree, and think that when someone is targeted with vicious political rhetoric and then gunned down viciously in public, it's worth taking a look at the correlation.

Now a stupid old fool named Fuller who was slightly injured is out there trying to out-stupid Sheriff Dope-nik. As long as the lamestream media gets any ammunition against Palin, they won't stop shooting.

All the while, calling Palin the culprit as their lies and slanders keep on rolling on.

@Robot Pirate Ninja . . . if it was not your point, then whose was it? You typed it! I just copied and posted what you submitted.

As for your "correction" once again, many thoughtful commentators have pointed out repeatedly that casting political campaign rhetoric in metaphorical "military" terms is something virtually all politicians, consultants and newspaper reporters writing about politics have done for as long as anyone can remember. It is now, and has been common practice for as far back as the memory doth go as they say.

Bob Beckel, the former manager of Walter Mondale's 1984 Presidential run, has even recently boasted that he invented such political targeting maps, way back in the 1970s! He has also conceded that he convinced the DNC to take up his idea.

And, as I noted above, bogus Accuser-in-Chief, Markos Moulitsas, actually posted a comment in 2008 talking about putting a "bulls eye" on Congresswoman Giffords herself.

The attempt here to somehow distinguish that because Markos only used "rhetoric" and Palin used a "map" is not just pathetic . . . it is risible.

The point is, @Robot Pirate Ninja, you've lost the argument, first by pretending dishonestly that the "targeting" map was somehow something unique to Sarah Palin, and then by failing (as has everyone else who has tried) to connect Sarah Palin, or her map, in any way whatsoever to the actions and lunacy of Jared Loughner.

Your folks lost in November — for reasons that are very obvious to me, and to most Americans.

I believe it's high time for you to get over it and for all of us to get on with the job of debating real issues and helping the country to move forward. That will not happen as long as people like you keep viciously insisting that Sarah Palin, or anyone else, now has blood on their hands, because they somehow "mysteriously" influenced Jared Loughner in any way to commit the unspeakable violent crime that he did.

His dispute with Gabby Giffords (which was obviously one spinning in his own mind) reportedly goes all the way back to 2007, before any of us gave any consideration to Sarah Palin as a national political figure.

Your argument is nothing but a classic attempt at scapegoating — which I would remind you is a style of argument that has been associated with some of the ugliest and vilest chapters in all of human history.

Reprising such an ugly argument in this context is both shameful and inexcusable.

@Robot Pirate Ninja
Using your logic, if ANY businessman, Wall Street executive, or rich person ANYWHERE in the country is a murder victim, it will be directly attributable to President Obama. No one has vilified the business community and rich persons like your beloved President. We won't hold that in our back pocket waiting for a tragedy to happen, unlike liberals. Unfounded allegations to further our political agenda is just not in our reality-based make-up.

You know point the Left completely misses?

If we were half as violent as jugheads like Robot Pirate Ninja believe, he'd be dead already.

Yet, here he is. Posting his spew without a worry in the world. Imagine that.

Isn't it amazing how the left went from poo-pooing the idea that,

"Guns don't kill people … people kill people,"

to not only embracing it, but going further with,

"Guns don't kill people … people thousands of miles away who have nothing to do with a shooting kill people."

Robot Pirate Ninja, let's stop playing word games. Do you believe that Jared Loughner's shooting spree was caused by Sarah Palin's innocuous map or not? Yes or no. Or are you just making a false correlation for the purposes of propaganda?

State your real position.

@ William A. Jacobson You have been wrong about the Tuscon shooting by ignoring the facts that the rhetoric on the right, since the Democratic election of Barack Obama has risen to new heights of vitriol and wild conspiracy theories.

Did Ann Coulter's constant violent hate speech or Glenn Beck's insane ramblings or Sarah Palin's dog whistle calls to "RELOAD" directly cause an already mentally unstable man to shoot a group of innocent people engaging in a civil discussion about AZ policies and law? No. Obviously.

Did they and do they contribute to the gradual acceptance of violence as a reasonable means to an end?

Do code words like:

-Insurrection
-2nd Amendment Remedies
-Blood of Tyrants
-Don't retreat, instead RELOAD
-Usurper
-Communist, Marxist, etc., etc., -ist

Plant seeds in the minds of the mentally disturbed? YES.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Google. Here is an explanation of Stochastic Terrorism. Common with agitators like Osama Bin Laden, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters.

Timothy, the vitriol isn't new….shall you come to Columbia, SC and let me take you down to the corner of Main and Senate street where the "Kill Bush" posters and the "Wanted: for War Crimes" posters are still visible? They have been there since 2003 which was when you were in what, seventh grade? Scurry along, son….we real men have real work to do, repairing this once great nation.

Scooter, How many elected officials were shot in the head when Little Bush was the President (remember – the years when we suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history, our economy tanked, and we invaded a country and killed thousands of our own and countless Iraqis)? You can carry on with with your faux Patriot games and mutual tebagging. I will try to work with our system as I did during the dark years of the Little Bush admin.

Oh, and by the way, Bush, Cheney, and Rummy should have to answer for their war crimes. I was disappointed when the Obama Admin said it was "off the table" now we have the car "alleged" thief/arsonist Issa wanting to investigate road signs. Unbelievable but so very Teapublican Idiocracy.

"His dispute with Gabby Giffords (which was obviously one spinning in his own mind) reportedly goes all the way back to 2007, before any of us gave any consideration to Sarah Palin as a national political figure."

Yup, and he didn't shoot her untla *after* Palin became a national figure, accused the President of being a terrorist, and the government setting up Death Panels.

Obviously these are all absurd ranting of a nutjbo. Right? Cetrtainly not mainstream conservative thought coming from the VP nominee and not some ranting crazy man.

"Your argument is nothing but a classic attempt at scapegoating — which I would remind you is a style of argument that has been associated with some of the ugliest and vilest chapters in all of human history. "

Indeed. I watche dit happen in 2003, when we invaded a country that hadn't attacked us and wasn't a threat, largely because of fear that vilolent political rhetoric directed against the U.S. would lead to violent action.

"Robot Pirate Ninja, let's stop playing word games. Do you believe that Jared Loughner's shooting spree was caused by Sarah Palin's innocuous map or not?"

I never said caused. You people have. It's been your constant strawman. Do I think Loughner (and the other violent nuts who have targeted the government in the last two years) are influenced by the political rhetoric? Hell yes. I've spent time with people like that. They hear the voices and read between the lines, but they still see the news, and the advertisements. There is no way Loughner wasn't touched by the rhetoric in close, nasty, compaign that Giffords won against hardcore Teabagger.

Palin, et al, *know* they have to tone it down now, too, hence the gun-washing that her, Beck and Limbaugh are all doing (all three have removed gun-themed rhetoric from their websites in the last week).

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend