Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:15 PM ET, 01/12/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Obama's speech tonight in Arizona, as expected, will mostly focus on the victims and the need for healing, and will sidestep making larger points about our discourse or political culture.

* Snark of the day, from Stephen Stromberg, on "blood libel": "Sarah Palin didn't retreat. She reloaded."

* James Clyburn goes there, claiming Palin's response to the shooting shows that "intellectually, she seems not to understand what is going on."

* But I'm more inclined to agree with Chris Cillizza, who says she's just playing her familiar role of "provocateur," though "demagogue" might be a better word for it.

* Sheer genius: Texas Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert is drafting legislation to allow members of the House to carry guns in the Capitol. Wonder what the Capitol Police think of that idea...

* Responding to Gohmert, a House GOP aide emails some priceless snark:

"If you combine it with Dan Burton's proposal to enclose the public areas of the House floor in plexiglass, at least Members can only hurt themselves and not the public."

* Investigators are trying to determine where Jared Loughner got the money to pay for the weapons used in the massacre, and they think he couldn't have afforded it himself.

* Obama, the GOP and Congressional Dems all got a bit of a poll bump, suggesting that the end-of-year compromises may have persuaded the public that government isn't entirely dysfunctional.

* Relatedly, Pew finds an uptick in economic optimism, suggesting (with the above poll) a shift in public attitudes that has been entirely blotted out by the attention to Arizona.

* This is interesting: With Dem Rep. Carolyn McCarthy set to introduce legislation restricting the sale of high-capacity magazines, a leading gun rights attorney acknowledges there's no Constitutional barrier to such restrictions.

* A Washington State man has been arrested for threatening the life of Dem Rep. Jim McDermott, apparently because he wanted to end tax cuts for the rich.

* Whether or not you agree with it, this is a great line from an anonymous House aide, crystallizing the progressive critique that voters punished Dems in 2010 because they were insufficiently populist:

"In 2006 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. In 2008 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. And in 2010 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts."

* By the way, today is the first anniversary of the Haiti earthquake, and you can still chip in to help out.

* And Howard Dean writes a letter to George Will and the Post, citing yours truly:

For too long the dangerous propagandist tactic of mixing of truth, half-truths and lies has been used to inflame popular sentiments and fear. It was therefore disappointing to see The Post contribute to this cycle of vitriol in our public discourse with a column by George F. Will that erroneously claimed I called the Tea Party racist ["Charlatans' blame game," op-ed, Jan. 11]. In fact, as Post blogger Greg Sargent pointed out by fully citing my comments, I specifically said that I did not consider the Tea Party to be racist.

It's time we each do our part to stop this cycle of vitriol.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 12, 2011; 6:15 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can "paranoid" political culture trigger violence in the unhinged?
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments


After failing to speak out against his people attacking the Tea Party all weekend - Obama can not be the "uniter" tonight.


The roles are too different. Obama failed to handle this situation properly, just like he failed to handle all the terrorists incidents properly.

Obama's people have been engaging in INTIMIDATION POLITICS for 3 years -


ALL the nation hears is FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.


Colbert King and Eugene Robinson have NOT BEEN FIRED for their outrageous and INFLAMMATORY comments.


Anyway - the left, after getting CAUGHT in a smear campaign, is STILL attacking Sarah Palin today.


They just didn't get the message to knock it off - somehow or another they just don't get it.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse


WHO ON THE LEFT IS APOLOGIZING FOR THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN ???


WHO IS APOLOGIZING TO SARAH PALIN???


WHO IS APOLOGIZING TO THE TEA PARTY???


Before we get to these side issues which Greg Sargent is desperate to speak about, we need to DISCUSS THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN.


The left needs to address that.


Obama needs to speak OUT against the smear campaign.


All these side issues are are distraction.


The liberals lost the election, and they have been off the deep end ever since.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,

You posted THAT ON THE OTHER thread, it didn't sink it.

BUT NOW THAT you placed on this, IT DOES.


You provide US REPUBLICANS a GREAT Service!!!!

.

Posted by: savetherest | January 12, 2011 6:22 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,

You forgot one:


WHO IS APOLOGIZING TO THE FATHER CHRISTMAS???

Posted by: savetherest | January 12, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Louie Gohmert made all kinds of news today.
--------

"Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said an FBI official who spoke today at a closed-door security briefing for lawmakers "stonewalled" attempts to learn about the personality and political beliefs of shooting suspect Jared Loughner, saying that could jeopardize the investigation and prospective prosecution.

Gohmert suggested the evasiveness was designed to insulate President Barack Obama's political base.

Gohmert declared on the House floor, "It may be that if the things that we're reading -- that he's a liberal, hates the flag, supports Marx, that type of thing, turn out to be true, then it may be embarrassing to some of the current administration's constituents, and, heaven help us, we wouldn't want to embarrass any of the president's constituents."

"Earlier today, in apparent reference to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said, "I hope the sheriff tones his rhetoric down."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027506.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 12, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Thank you RainForrestGriping for pointing out that Congresswoman Giffords has yet to apologize to Sarah Palin, for having let herself get shot, and thereby causing some people to question the infallible past utterances of The Immaculate Palin.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama can not look good tonight


He goes to Tucson as the SMEARER IN CHIEF

Unable to unite the nation, Obama sends his people out there to constantly attack the Tea Party - and level False Charges of Racism at every turn.


The Journo-list reports continue to hide the truth about Obama - conspiring with each other to trump up bogus stories making Obama look good - and refusing to write the truth about Obama's negatives.


These People are NOT neutral observers of the news, instead they are acting to slant the news according to their own political views.


And then, of course, they complain about Fox News.

Obama is a disaster - no one is listening anymore.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The fact that any of you would even *snicker* at Orly Taitz wanting to produce a musical about the Army doctor who refused to be deployed because Obama is a Kenyan... well, it's the most uncivil, despicable smear, ever.

Taitz beats everyone else in the victimhood game.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Whenever a Muslim is in the middle of a terrorist incident, Obama rushes to the microphone to tell people not to jump to conclusions.


This time, Obama's people rushed to their computers to engage in a Smear Campaign - and to make FALSE CHARGES against the Tea Party and a former Governor.


What is wrong with this picture?


The liberals in this nation are INSANE.


Obama never spoke out against this smear campaign. Obama is worthless to this nation.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

More from that "anonymous House aide":

If you want to get some traffic on this one," a former senior House aide told The Observer, "make your angle 'Obama's Fixers to End the New Deal.' They are going to dismantle Social Security. I guarantee it. And he won't suffer any push-back. But Obama is the extremist here; he is the wing nut. There's been a total collapse of political power on the left. The left is not even at the table, and they don't even realize it. You can't blame the voters. In 2006 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. In 2008 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts. And in 2010 they voted out the party of endless war and corporate bailouts."

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

(repost from the "Paranoid" thread, heh)

Hi savetherest!

Coupla things:

Alot of people either skim or ignore RainForest. One of the things that he does that causes us to skip his posts is his formating.

If you get into a private war w/ Rain esp. via miming him you're merely adding to the bolloxing up of the thread.

Here's the other thing: people block Rain via TrollHunter...so all alot of folks are seeing are your minah/byrd posts hanging out there alone with zero context.

Makes ya look dopey.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam

You personally are one of the people who engaged in the smear campaign on this blog last Saturday.

You have zero credibility left.

And now, when everyone in the country knows that people like you are extremely wrong - you refuse to admit it.

Instead, your side is continuing to attack Sarah Palin.


Your side is showing no remorse for your own actions which are clearly out-of-bounds in American Politics. A smear campaign makes you unAmerican -


and if you think your intimidation tactics will work, they wont.


At this point, the liberals HAVE TO GO.

The American People are sick of the INTIMIDATION AND SMEAR TACTICS.

Get it?

You learned nothing from losing the election in November.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Liam

You personally are one of the people who engaged in the smear campaign on this blog last Saturday.

You have zero credibility left.

And now, when everyone in the country knows that people like you are extremely wrong - you refuse to admit it.

Instead, your side is continuing to attack Sarah Palin.


Your side is showing no remorse for your own actions which are clearly out-of-bounds in American Politics. A smear campaign makes you unAmerican -


and if you think your intimidation tactics will work, they wont.


At this point, the liberals HAVE TO GO.

The American People are sick of the INTIMIDATION AND SMEAR TACTICS.

Get it?

You learned nothing from losing the election in November.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Having her intellect attaacked by Clyburn. Surely she will lose sleep over that.

Dean has been calling theTP racist for months. I would like someone to ask him if Emanuel Cleaver and John Lewis are liars.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

"You personally are one of the people who engaged in the smear campaign on this blog last Saturday."

That's Wrong-as-Rain.

Liam was calling for waiting until all the facts came out.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Tao

You are doing your best to improve the political climate in this nation, aren't you.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually I think the nation would be improved if you could just type single-space.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Tao

I am not going to go back and read it -

However Liam started cut-and-pasting passages which mentioned Sarah Palin and her map.


So Liam was clearly trying to smear her - and SPREAD the false charges against the Tea Party


Anything else is a complete lie.


The ambulances weren't even at the hospital yet and Liam was spreading these smears.

.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"But I'm more inclined to agree with Chris Cillizza, who says she's just playing her familiar role of "provocateur," though "demagogue" might be a better word for it."

Palin cannot win a general under any conceivable scenario. She cannot do a radio or tv talk show because she doesn't have the necessary verbal abilities nor knowledge. So her uses to the party going forward will be as symbol and propagandist of the provocateur/demagoge sort.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 12, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Btw Greg congrats on being cited by Dean for proof he is innocent. Do you receive a check for that?

And what is your party's position today -- Tea Party, racist or no?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Tao

Rain is pure.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile

Howard Dean moved from the racially-diverse New York City to live in the whitest State in the country.

Oh - yea - Dean didn't have a racist motive there.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

There's a part of me that thinks RainForestRising is nothing more than a marketing tool for Kevin_Willis in an attempt to boost downloads of his troll blocker program thingy.

Clever!

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | January 12, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

BBQChicken

You are fried again.

Didn't you say yesterday you were leaving the blog forever?

then you come back to complain???


Let's straighten this out: CAN we trust your word or not?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Also, Palin as the provocateur -- irony defined. Are you really this deaf to your own words?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

My own pet as a one time prosecutor, is universal registration of the arms with ballistic match, as a data base, *for crime solving, not crime prevention.* It would take thirty years, I think, for the database to build to a real investigative tool, but it would be worth starting sometime, IMHO.

I hope someone responds, because I love this topic and its nuances, when it is discussed without panic or hyperbole. I'll ck in later.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 12, 2011
--------

Universal registration of firearms might defeat the purpose of a well-armed militia. What if some tyrant like George W. Bush decided to disarm the country?

For crime solving---not crime prevention---how about a universal database of fingerprints and DNA samples from every single person in the USofA? Such are now required of only people who are arrested.
Certainly, that would help law enforcement.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, sure Howard. Sure you didn't call the Tea Partiers racist. You claimed they were motivated by bigotry. But evidently we are supposed to believe that is different than calling them bigots. Whatever Howard, whatever.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 12, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

ao,

I posted this comment at the end of the previous thread, but since you have move to this one, I will repost it here.

I refuse to use the Troll Blocker, and I think it is just the equivalent of babies putting their hands over their eyes, and then persuading their-selves that the other person has disappeared.

I notice that Greg was blocking STRF and all his Sybil like personilities, right up until the Troll Blocker tool was presented, and from then on Greg allowed STRF to deluge every thread with his psychotic rants. Casual readers and newcomers should not have to be exposed to such behavior, and noone should have to download some script that merely covers their eyes, and allows them to buy into a peekaboo delusion.

The guy was banned. The Post then should enforce their ban, instead of looking completely impotent and foolish.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers writes...

"I think it is clear that we Jews owe Sarah Palin an apology. For centuries, we have had the temerity to compare our suffering to Hers."

Posted by: bernielatham | January 12, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"Universal registration of firearms might defeat the purpose of a well-armed militia."

I thought you guys were the Constitutional scholars/fetishists.

It's not "well-armed" -- it's "well-regulated."
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

A well |hi:regulated| Militia, being necessary...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Both Palin and Angle directly incited violence with their hatred-filled rhetoric and now that seven people have paid the ultimate price and one lies fighting for her life, they both seek to disown their words and actions. Reprehensible? You bet, Palin and Angle. You bet.

Posted by: Byrd3 | January 12, 2011
-------

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, stop blaming me, it's the liberal Media's fault.
Sarah, grow up and take responsibility for your action, the blood is in your hand, you, Glen Beck, Rush and all the other right wing liars.

Posted by: tqmek1 | January 12, 2011

=======================================

A sad commentary on liberals in America, but when you boil it down, the above two comments, absent of any nuance whatsoever, pretty much sum up the left's take on the tragedy in Arizona. There are a few of the regulars here who have shown admirable restraint, Liam and shrink2 among them, but too few.

There must have been a link to this blog today from some other leftwing hate site. Nothing like a piece about Sarah Palin to bring the moonbats out in force. Reading over some of the comments, one can only conclude that the sewers were relatively quiet today. All the rats were here at Plum Line.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

I thought you guys were the Constitutional scholars/fetishists.

It's not "well-armed" -- it's "well-regulated."

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:11 PM
-------

Right you are. But I don't think the founding fathers were too concerned that King George hadn't kept a register of all firearms in the country.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"In 2007, conservative activist Mark DeMoss launched something called The Civility Project, seeking to get governors and members of Congress to sign on to a short pledge vowing to conduct themselves civilly:
I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.
I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.
I will stand against incivility when I see it.
Four years and thousands of dollars later, DeMoss is shutting down the project after securing such pledges from only three members of Congress while enduring countless insults from his fellow conservatives:

A conservative Republican who helped introduce former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to leading evangelicals when the Romney, a Mormon, ran for president in 2008, DeMoss singled out political conservatives for criticism in his letter.

“Perhaps one of the most surprising results of this project has been the tone and language used by many of those posting comments on our website and following articles on various media websites about the project,” his letter said.

“Many of them could not be printed or spoken in public media due to vulgar language and vicious personal attacks,” the letter continued. “Sadly, a majority of these came from fellow conservatives.”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/gopers-feeling-heat-from-right-too.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 12, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Any competent psychiatrist can recognize signs of Narcissistic personality disorder in Sarah Palin.

It is "a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism." (See Mayo Clinic website)

Posted by: trace1 | January 12, 2011
----

trace1 had better stick to rocket science or brain surgery.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I love how this Brigade guy, can contort his view of freedoms by calling for government to compile a complete DNA, Fingerprints, etc file on every person in the country, but how dare they restrict anyone's right to be able to purchase a handgun, without any waiting period.

Let us keep it simple. If someone has to have a gun, right now, that alone should be enough reason to not let them have a gun. Clearly they want to shoot someone without delay.

People wait, some times as long as month, for their new TV purchase to be delivered, but we must not ask anyone, including this Laughner Nutjob, to even wait one day to take delivery of a lethal handgun.

The gunshop owner said that he knew the guy wasn't right, but he was forced to sell him the gun.

America; you are looking like a nation of crackpots, when your laws require gun dealers to sell guns to people they feel are unstable.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Brigade, I still think the real political issues are important nowadays, but they are boring because they are intractable; both parties can't stop spending more than we have, war, structural unemployment being treated as a temporary nuisance...oh well. Everyone wants to fight about freedom versus tyranny, our problems are quite a bit more a product of our own design than they were back then.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Although there is no evidence of a causal link between "inflamed rhetoric" and the Arizona shooter,

"t)hreats against members of Congress have increased 300 percent in the first few months of 2010, and 400 percent against the White House since January 2009. The U.S. Marshals Service reports that “inappropriate communications” directed at the judiciary, U.S. attorneys and other court officers have risen from 1,111 in 2006 to 1390 in 2009.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/mcdermott-death-threats/

Can we all agree that this increase in threats is alarming and bad? Can we all agree that we should explore ways to reduce this number?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"Right you are. But I don't think the founding fathers were too concerned that King George hadn't kept a register of all firearms in the country."

So, this is clearly a case where original intent isn't something to get too worked up about, right? I mean, unless you really want to parse what the word "regulated" means.

Why not? "Victim" seems to have gotten a thorough wormholing these last few days...
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

It seems a growing number of Jewish groups and individuals are victimizing Sarah Palin and trying to eradicate her speech rights...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/gopers-feeling-heat-from-right-too.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 12, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I watched Ms. Palin's speech and read the transcript (Hell, I posted them both here first, where's my h/t Greg?).

How can one be a provocateur, if you respond, when you are a public figure that has been, in no uncertain terms, accused of being the motive force responsible for mass-murder?

I thought the speech was measured, cogent and hopeful. What happens? The media goes crazy over "blood libel."

People don't care a fig about that phrase, most people know she was smeared, that the Media/Left was lying, and that she was falsely and calculatedly accused.

They also know the Left was talking about, by extension, half of the American people.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I still think that it is highly unlikely that What Sarah Palin posted on her webpage, or said, had anything to do with triggering Jared Loughner's murderous rampage.

But I could be wrong, because Sarah Palin was clearly able to show that as a very young schoolboy, Barack Obama, incited Domestic Terrorists to set of bombs, back in the 1960s.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Well armed, well regulated, what's the difference? That was then this is now. The founders chose well regulated, they meant well armed, you just have to take that for granted.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Tao,

Tim Pawlenty said that Palin should not have posted those cross-hairs icons. Last time I checked, he was not party of the MSM, which actually is almost all owned by Right Wing Oligarchs.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Liam

You should be banned for participating in the smear campaign against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

That is clearly against the rules.

And are you calling for Cao to be banished too? He has been banned.

And he claims to have 50 IP addresses per day.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I watched all of Sarah Palin's video, and I found her to be coming across as someone who was just feeding raw meat to the extreme right wing base.

She said that only individuals should be held accountable for their actions, and not anyone else, because of their words or casual associations.

Sounds great, until you stop and recall that this is the very same Sarah Palin who kept claiming that Barack Obama was a bad person, and that he was "palling around with terrorists".


Sorry Sarah;

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if our standing army keeps track of what weapons are issued to what soldier, an' whatnot.

Nawwww... probably not.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Look at how absurd Plumline has become.

It now has a person that they have banned, posting calls for people to be banned.

Plumline, he is making you look impotent and ridiculous.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

In other news, this guy needs to stop imitating Glen Beck. Does he use VapoRub too? At least this time he isn't crying about himself.

(AP) House Speaker John Boehner has opened a session of the House by honoring victims of Saturday's shooting in Arizona, speaking in a halting voice, his eyes welled up with tears...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011

--------

Remember Ed Muskie---the 1972 primary. Hillary Clinton---the 2008 primary.

But you didn't support either of those two did you? You said you or your father campaigned for McCarthy. Was it the McCarthy who made the following comments and suggested relocation of urban blacks before he endorsed Reagan in 1980 and proclaimed Carter the worst president ever as well as a disgrace to the country? Or was it the "other" McCarthy?

“The two-party system has given this country the war of Lyndon Johnson, the Watergate of Nixon, and the incompetence of Carter. Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life-rafts"

“The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is the inefficiency”

“Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.”

“Nixon is the kind of guy who, if you were drowning twenty feet from shore, would throw you a fifteen-foot rope.”

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"Plumline, he is making you look impotent and ridiculous."

On the contrary -- I think they're performing an important public service.

Although the case could be made that this is an unflappable performance artist, looking to discredit the notion that sane conservatives represent a respectable portion of the set.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the main issue of the week: the SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TEA PARTY.

What did Obama know and when did he know it???

Why was Obama's FBI Director standing right next to Sheriff Dupnik while he was making the most INFLAMMATORY remarks???

How deep in the smear campaign was Obama?


What other Federal officials were involved in the Smear Campaign - and FAILED TO ACT OR SPEAK OUT???

Officials who are engaged in criminal investigations should NOT make false accusations against innocent parties during the course of an investigation.

That is an abuse of power.


We definitely need CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS into this smear campaign.

Add this episode to the Articles of Impeachment against Obama.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Liam

You participated, on this blog, in a SMEAR campaign against innocent parties.


You didn't even wait for the Congresswoman to get out of surgery before YOU started to seek political gain from the crime.

How is that not hideous?

How is that not against the rules?

You should be banned. You should be banished.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

America knows a thing or two about a well armed militia...

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67043/c-j-chivers/small-arms-big-problems

We skipped the well regulated part.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

It still does not alter the fact that Greg laid out posting rules for the guy to follow, including not using all the double and triple spacing, and told him, if he did not follow those rules; he would be banned.

The guy kept on posting in the same manner, and Greg posted on here to tell us all that the guy was now banned, and was going to be blocked from posting any more comments.

Of course; the guy is psychotic, because sane people do not keep on changing names and spoofing IPs, just to keep breaking into a site that they were told they were barred from.

He is no different that all those violent creeps who keep ignoring restraining orders.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Sounds great, until you stop and recall that this is the very same Sarah Palin who kept claiming that Barack Obama was a bad person, and that he was "palling around with terrorists".

A commentary on his character and that of his party, sort of a different claim, ya know? I know you are smarter than that.

And BO really was pals with an actual unrepentant terrorist. If you have some info that Sarah is pals with Jared Loughner, don't hold out on us an longer.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Liam:
"I love how this Brigade guy, can contort his view of freedoms by calling for government to compile a complete DNA, Fingerprints, etc file on every person in the country, but how dare they restrict anyone's right to be able to purchase a handgun, without any waiting period."
-----

I love how this Liam guy cannot recognize obvious sarcasm and lacks even the most rudimentary reading skills. The issue was not waiting periods, dingbat; it was a national registry of firearms. I was suggesting it would be of no more value in crime solving than a national registry of DNA and fingerprints. And we don't need any of them in a free society, if the individual or gun owner in question is not a criminal. You would be right at home in a totalitarian or repressive communist country. Dork.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Liam

So your position is that Smear Campaigns against Innocent People are OK, and double-spacing is the real issue facing America?

And attempting to score cheap political points off the blood of six people, including a 9 year old girl - that is OK too, but the triple spacing is really outrageous?

You engaged in a smear campaign on this blog.

I wish people like you could be jailed for actions like you have taken.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"He is no different that all those violent creeps who keep ignoring restraining orders."

Oh, please. This is like Malkin trying to equate a pie-throwing to the shooting up of a Tennessee church.

I haven't been here long, but I understand there are easily-obtained and easily-configured tools that can hide the comments you don't care to see. I've used such tools at other sites; here, I want to see what Real America has to say. Get the lay of the land, y'know... consider Second Amendment remedies, et al.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"The gunshop owner said that he knew the guy wasn't right, but he was forced to sell him the gun."

There is that odd liberal notion of force again. Is there a law compelling sale of a gone (or any other good)?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

No it wasn't me. But I remember McCarthy around the house and I remember those kinds of jokes being made. He was really tall, and nobody talked over him, he was always cracking sarcastic jokes with two or three levels of meaning. He wasn't into kids.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 7:56 PM | Report abuse

jprestonian:
"So, this is clearly a case where original intent isn't something to get too worked up about, right? I mean, unless you really want to parse what the word "regulated" means."
----------

You should probably read the second amendment again, bozo. Regardless of your opinion of what "regulated" means, the people have a constitutional right to own firearms. Most people both left and right realize this; they're just trying to determine how much is too much when it comes to regulation. Only the few in the peanut gallery still believe the right is connected to actual membership in a militia. Perhaps the Democrats would like to put that in their 2012 platform.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

""You personally are one of the people who engaged in the smear campaign on this blog last Saturday."

That's Wrong-as-Rain.

Liam was calling for waiting until all the facts came out.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse "

True. Must stand up for Liam on this one. He was a nearly lone voice of reason on the left.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Liam

You fail to realize that Cao was banned dozens of times

Also, perhaps Brigade and some other were banned as well - all to come back under different names.

Cao now claims that he has 50 IP addresses per day.

Sorry, but when people like you aren't banned. And when the liberals are far worse than ANYTHING I have done, such things have no credibility or legitimacy.

I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.

(Please sing along to the tune of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA)


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.


First Cillizza, now Greg


It's ALLL the double-spacing......


triple tooo.........


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.


I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.

I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.

I'VE BEEN BANNED IN THE U S A.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if our standing army keeps track of what weapons are issued to what soldier, an' whatnot.

Nawwww... probably not.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 7:37 PM
-------

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment. You've already established that you're an idiot. It can only get worse from here.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

All, apologies for the error, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's name has been fixed.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 12, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Very early in the day Saturday Liam posted some quote from some liberal which referenced Sarah Palin's map - as a cause for the shooting.


Just bringing up the topic is a part of the SMEAR campaign.

At that moment, I don't think all the ambulances were even at the hospital.

The Congresswoman wasn't even out of surgery.

But Liam - and liberals all over - were trying to talk about Sarah Palin - and DIRECT BLAME HER WAY.


There is no defense to this.


Check the time stamp. and remember, the Arizona time is two hours behind the time stamp here.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

@tao

"Actually I think the nation would be improved if you could just type single-space."

You my cryptic friend win the award to night for the statement with the best chance of gaining absolute support from the lefties, righties and indies on this blog.

@jpreston "I wonder if our standing army keeps track of what weapons are issued to what soldier, an' whatnot.

Nawwww... probably not."

Not sure if you're tossing out a little snark there but if you are serious..if civilians treated firearms with the same respect as the military we would be having this argument.

I'm an old dude and perhaps things have changed and certainly in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq or any war zone for that matter obviously rules relax significantly for the obvious reasons.

Back 1967 at least when I was in basic you can bet your sweet bippy (a popular saying of the day...bonus points for anyone old enough to name which TV show that comes from) they kept very close tracks. We had to sign on the dotted line for our weapons...not guns...call it a gun in front of a D.I. and you get the whole this is my weapon this is my gun routine..bring back any memories for military guys..anyway sign on the dotted line with the weapon serial number right next to your name. And then it wasn't like you simply got to carry it around like some fruity TPer waving it and threatening to water the tree of liberty...they're such frightening badas3ses aren't they...they're freaking jokes..middle age fat men pretending their tough...the weapons were locked up in the Armory when we weren't out on the range, or marching or training with them.

The Armed Forces and our domestic police and security are PROFESSIONALS. Dorks running around in tri corner hats with locked and loaded weapons are not even good amateurs...they do not respect weapons and they'd be the last person I'd ever go hunting with. Ask the poor man who went hunting with that idiot Cheney what happens when you go hunting with a poorly trained individual.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment."

Well, only if you ignore original intent, wrt standing armies.

I know how the courts have ruled, but you can't say with a straight face that the rulings square up with original intent.

Well, YOU probably can, but you can see surveyor's symbols where none existed before, as well, I note.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Please the democrats are cheering Obama at a Memorial service

Extremely inappropriate to turn a Memorial service into a political rally.

I can tell you one thing - it wasn't the Tea Party people cheering Obama.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"Ask the poor man who went hunting with that idiot Cheney what happens when you go hunting with a poorly trained individual."

You have to apologize to Cheney for putting your face down-range of his Italian ladies' shotgun -- THAT's what happens...!
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

ruk (brought forward from this morning):

“I also agree with you Scott that there have been plenty of opportunists in this tragedy, sadly is this not always the case?”

Yes, it appears so.

“But we are angry that half of this country did NOT accept what happened at the ballot box.”

I don’t know why you think this is true. Winning at the ballot box does not provide one with carte blanche to do whatever one likes, and accepting a loss at the ballot box does not require one to refrain from opposing policies with which one disagrees. A genuine refusal to accept what happened at the ballot box is manifested by armed rebellion, not filibusters.

“They instead responded with lies and distortions about policy..."death panels" "killing granny" "socialism" "Gov't takeover" but worst of all they came armed with signs about watering the tree of liberty with blood...yadda yadda...basically they NEVER accepted elections have consequences and yes those of us on the left are angry about that.”

I wonder if you also think that those who responded to the 2000 and 2004 elections with lies and distortions about policy (“lied us into war”, etc.) and came armed with signs about killing the President of the United States...yadda, yadda...basically never accepted that elections have consequences.

“Imagine Scott if Palin got elected in 2012 and my side marched enmasse,in protests organized and promoted heavily and covered heavily on MSNBC and we carried signs that said...Sarah...we came unarmed...this time.”

I don’t really have to imagine it. I remember it, or at least the contemporary equivalent. See below for plenty of pictures of signs like “I’m here to kill Bush” (which has rather more immediacy to it than slogans about what might happen “next time”, don't you think?).

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

“And you know I respect your intellect even though we are probably 180 degrees apart politically...so from YOUR side Scott...do you see any way out of this or do you believe waving guns at rallies is appropriate?”

I don’t particularly like waving guns anyplace. But intemperate rhetoric, particularly at political protests, is pretty standard fare and I certainly see no reason to think it has suddenly gotten especially over the top relative to times past. And, truly, within the full scope of our national history all this handwringing over a few protestors evoking revolutionary images of the nation’s founding seems a bit much to me. In the context of a nation that has witnessed actual violence like the Whiskey Rebellion, the draft riots in NYC during the Civil War, labor movement violence in the early part of the 20th century, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago ’68, the hulabaloo over a protest sign about “watering the tree of liberty” strikes me as just a tad bit overwrought.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

jprestonian at 8:09 PM


Ask America what happened when the liberal elect a poorly-qualified person.


A deficit of 1.3 Trillion dollars -

- and it will get worse if health care is not repealed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

lms (brought forward from this morning):

“Sarah Palin made herself part of Gabby Giffords story last March.”

There was no Gabby Giffords story last March.

“Myself and many other liberals have stated numerous times we don't believe SP is directly responsible for the actions of a lone, apparently mentally ill gunman.”

I know. It’s that “directly” and the inevitable “however” that are problematic.

However, the intended target was a Congresswoman so there is a political context to the story and political speech is part of the overall context.“

Only because you and others on the left wish it to be so. In the absence of your attempts to introduce politics and political speech, there would be no reason to discuss it. There is no evidence whatsoever that "political speech" had any impact on the killer at all.

“I am not responsible for other libera'ls words or headlines…”

True enough, but you are responsible for pretending that Palin is playing the victim when she responds to those other liberals and headlines.

“As for SP painting herself as the victim of a "blood libel" here I found her choice of words remarkable….”

I thought it was a poor choice of words, but not particularly outrageous.

“Likewise, it's my right to find her victimhood ludicrous under the circumstances.”

Of course. It was your judgment, not your right to make one, that I was questioning.

“…while at the same time wanting her critics to feel sorry for her for exercising it”

I can’t read Palin’s thoughts, but I’m pretty sure she wasn’t expressing a desire for her critics to feel sorry for her for any reason.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

@jpreston...btw welcome if you're new.

You will get to see he lay of the land as soon as you learn the players...hard to tell them without a scorecard...RTF..and his many sock pockets post gibberish..waste your time reading his drivel but he doesn't represent much more than an aggravating troll..kaddaffi falls into the same category...but most of the rest will span the spectrum from the rough and ready like Brigade and Skipper who will feel free to call out anybody at anytime..once he offered to come to St. Pete and settle this like "men". LMAO

This week has obviously been completely over the top with the hostile rhetoric.
IMHO I've come to the conclusion that we are witnessing some guilt complexes in action, some embarrassment...obviously they can't..it's not in their DNA actually confront this within themselves.

Erick Ericson is the prime example of convoluted thinking on this entire subject of whether violent hate speech could POSSIBLY have an effect on wack jobs or actually more specifically people on the edge. After spouting about how ridiculous it is to wonder whether violent hate speech and waving guns in people's faces has any effect and literally in the next breath this obnoxious loser claims that this awful verbal attack on Palin has necessitated her increasing her own personal security team.

WTF is it Erick? Is it possible hate talk leads to political violence or not? If not then why would Sister Sarah feel the need to suddenly increase her security guard? She may have been slandered in the eyes of the right...but I haven't heard a single violent threat...metaphorical or otherwise aimed at her from any leading or respected person on the left.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

This is supposed to be a Memorial Service


The democrats are turning this into a partisan rally - extremely inappropriate.

If the democrats think they are going to engage in a Smear Campaign against Innocent people - and then Obama is going to fly in for a Memorial and be the hero in all of this.....

..... they are sadly mistaken.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"...obviously rules relax significantly for the obvious reasons..."

If Afghanistan, I don't see any reason at all for the relaxed attitude toward small arms distribution.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

he hulabaloo over a protest sign about “watering the tree of liberty” strikes me as just a tad bit overwrought.

you forgot the part about how it is watered with blood. well, you got your blood... lots of it, brought to you by someone who thought 'the government' was taking his rights away.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 12, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

" but you can see surveyor's symbols where none existed before, as well, I note."

@jprestonion (no relation to orthogonian, I'm sure)
Welcome to this merry crew.

As it happens, the road outside my store here in Portland was recently torn up, old rail lines removed and pipes replaced, then resurfaced. As a consequence, there are surveyor's marks all over the place. They are inscrutable, of course, and somewhat varied depending on need. What they do not look like, even remotely, is a telescope sight with crosshairs symbol.

It was such an obvious lie. Not much integrity in this true-grit american girl who really ought to have dressed in that flag rather than have it merely placed in-camera (the big one, not the little one on her lapel).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 12, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"A fabricated specter of impending governmental totalitarianism haunts the right's dreams"

The immediate response to this was a call from Rep. Clyburn for a clamp down on speech and from Rep. King for a restrictions on gun rights. In both cases their first instinct was to restrict civil liberties. But Palin, who has no power whatsoever, is the dangerous one.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | January 12, 2011
-------

One of the most insightful posts of the day. The left doesn't recognize civil liberties.

Six killed and 13 wounded, and I still can't figure out how many of them we're supposed to chalk up to Palin. Judge Roll was appointed by Bush41. Should Ed Schultz or the former jock-sniffer Keith-O get credit for that one? What about the little girl? Did Palin have a picture of her in cross-hairs on her web site?

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Now that her political career is over, she is going to need to sell chachkas, no bad idea, I mean bric-a-brac, knick knacks, momentoes, costume jewelry, stuff to remember her by.
---------------------------------------------------------
That's amazing that you suggest that idea. That's exactly what Dr. Laura does. She sells jewelry that she makes herself. Now, let me think, did she start doing that about the time her political rhetoric caused her ratings to plummet and her television show to be cancelled? Nah, that would be just *too* big a coincidence.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 12, 2011
-------

Any truth to the rumor that Nancy Pelosi is going to resign her House seat and start selling butt plugs on HSN?

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Good evening guys. Just got signed on and scrolled through the comments so far. Scrolled and scrolled and scrolled and...

Ding Ding Ding! Threadwinner!
Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 6:52 PM
"Actually I think the nation would be improved if you could just type single-space."

RFR: C'mon man. I was only kidding last night when I said it made things six times more clear when you 3x spaced it and 2x posted it. Thanks.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Below is what Liam posted on Saturday at 2:01 pm

Seriously folks - already there can be NO OTHER reason to start bringing up Sarah Palin's name other than to DIRECTLY BLAME HER.


________________


http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/01/arizona_congresswoman_shot_npr.html

"TUCSON, Arizona -- U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, along with members of her staff and others at a public event in Tucson shortly after 10 a.m. local time.

The Associated Press reported that congressional officials have confirmed the news, first reported by an affiliate of National Public Radio.

Giffords, a Democrat, was talking to a couple when a gunman ran up and began firing. The man ran off but was tackled by witnesses and taken into custody, according to NPR. The local sheriff's department confirmed that a shooting took place and that the congresswoman was injured, but could not say whether she had been shot. The department said as many as 12 people may have been injured.

Other media outlets are now also reporting that Giffords was shot and say medical helicopters are landing at the Safeway grocery where the event was held.

Giffords was one of several Democratic candidates listed as "targets" -- with crosshairs icons -- on a website connected to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the runup to the 2010 elections.

Giffords barely won re-election and is already being pinpointed by Republican advertising campaigns as someone vulnerable to a challenge in 2012."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 8, 2011 2:01 PM

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I've been thinking about something the past few days and I'm going to throw it out here and see if it makes sense to anyone. I agree with the conservatives here who have pointed out that some liberals over linked and made too much of a direct line connection between the guns, targets, 2nd Amendment remedies etc. etc. and the Arizona killings. There were quite a few liberals who didn't go there as well, but nobody's really talking about them. So be it.

For over two years some of us on the left have been worried and also warning that the eliminationist rhetoric could have dire consequences. So many people, we've seen the polls, don't believe our President is a US citizen, believe he's Muslim not Christian, that he's a socialist or worse and is trying to tear down the United States. Then you throw in all the anti-government, revolutionary, over-throwing tyranny with guns, and liberals are our enemy and need to be exterminated rhetoric and some people tend to get a little nervous.

Then the news breaks that a Democratic Representative, one who has been targeted with death threats and vandalism, in a state at the center of a heated immigration debate, has been shot and I think people thought their worst fears had been realized. I don't think it excuses over-reacting but I believe it makes it a little more understandable.

Once everyone began to realize the instability of the shooter I think they tried to dial it back, at least most of them, but by then commenters from both the right and left were trying to outdo each other in excuses and both sides do it comparisons. Most of the bloggers I respect didn't actually make that direct line connection but found value in discussing the idea that this stuff doesn't just happen in a vacuum and maybe it was a wake-up call for all of us. I don't see why that isn't a valuable discussion to have.

As far as Sarah Palin goes, she made herself part of the story last March, unwittingly perhaps, but nevertheless there's that video of Gabby Giffords out there that cannot be ignored. I agree the shooter was responsible for this but you can't just ignore the other stuff, the world doesn't work that way.

I wasn't impressed at all with her speech this morning, she's trying too hard to deflect blame and her choice of words in some cases made no sense to me. She's entitled to say whatever she wants and the people will judge whether she's worthy of further attention or not, it's as simple as that.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 12, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Do you think the framers had Glock hand guns with 31 bullet clips in mind when they spoke of the right to keep and bear arms? Did they envision assault rifles and grenade launchers?

What would Justice Scalia have to say about this in light of his recent comments relative to the 14th Amendment?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

This is looking like a campaign rally. I hope Obama does not stop to smile for applause.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:25 PM | Report abuse

"I still can't figure out how many of them we're supposed to chalk up to Palin."

I'd say "zero," but I'd say you're sounding terribly defensive to go where you just went, given what was found in the nutbag's safe.

There's only one person that any conservative can apologize to in the country without being vilified by his own. That person is Rush Limbaugh.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"How often did we hear that Bush stole the election? And from MAINSTREAM Democrats?"

The Supreme Court not allowing the FL recount to continue seemed a little odd though imho. They should have stood down and let the recount play out.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 12, 2011
--------

They can't let this one die. You need a little history refresher. The Supreme Court DID let the FL recount continue---once. Unfortunately, the renegade Florida Supreme Court would not let the recount "play out". Even after they were slapped down once by the SCOTUS, they still insisted on a blatant effort to rig the recount in favor of Ozone Man.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The shooting took place a little after 10am local time, which would be a little after 12 Eastern time.

Liam posted that posting at 2:01 pm.


Seriously folks, democrats all over the country were IMMEDIATELY attacking the Tea Party and Sarah Palin that afternoon.


It was a disgrace and shameful.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I know how the courts have ruled, but you can't say with a straight face that the rulings square up with original intent.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:06 PM
-------

Hahahahahahahaha. Are you sure you aren't posting from Vietnam?

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"It was such an obvious lie. Not much integrity in this true-grit american girl who really ought to have dressed in that flag rather than have it merely placed in-camera (the big one, not the little one on her lapel). "

All that is obvious is that you remain strident, partisan, ignorant, yet self assured in your ignorance. I posted a link days ago proving that it's a surveyor's mark for a point on a map. Look it up for yourself -- or just continue to spout your lame anecdotal and meaningless "evidence."

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Jan Brewer, everyone cringe

"...minority leader Pelosi..."

she shouldn't have started with a joke.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"I posted a link days ago proving that it's a surveyor's mark for a point on a map."

But on Twitter, they're called "bullseye."

Yep -- nothin' to see here.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

you forgot the part about how it is watered with blood. well, you got your blood... lots of it, brought to you by someone who thought 'the government' was taking his rights away.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 12, 2011 8:20 PM
------

Actually, I think he was more worried about "the rich"; he was also a 9/11 truther. Puts me more in mind of you and cao than anyone on the right.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Insinca

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim.

What bothers me is that he is hiding things in his past. Clearly there are files and documents which have not been released. And he promised transparency.

The main problem I have with Obama is his approach to terrorism. Makes one wonder if he is ordering a terrorist to be read his rights - WHEN we don't know if there are other bombs on other planes.

Also, on the terrorist recruiting center/mosque/community center at Ground Zero. Why is Obama announcing his position during a Ramadan dinner at the White House. (Obama has cancelled the National Prayer Day at the White House.)

Too many questions. Not enough confidence. Sorry. And all this stuff will come out -

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Jan Brewer delivered a good speech.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Way too much cheering at this Memorial Service.

Horrible how they are turning this into a political rally.

It really is shameful - to have this much cheering.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:37 PM | Report abuse

So, since Saturday all the other Congressmen Targeted on Palin's Map(TM) are all in bunkers guarded by a company of National Guardsmen in defense of the certain attacks by Deathbots Hypnotized by Palin. Right?

Yeah Right.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I posted a link days ago proving that it's a surveyor's mark for a point on a map. Look it up for yourself -- or just continue to spout your lame anecdotal and meaningless "evidence."

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:30 PM

Why continue with this argument? Why the need to defend everything she has said or done? We all agree she has no direct blame for the shooting but -- Why did she scrub the surveyor's map from her web site?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

@Scott

Thanks for your as always thoughtful answer. As Gomer used to say..surprise...surprise..surprise..again we disagree...and quite frankly it's a tired disgreement..me believing you are guilty of false equivalency here...both in number, size and degree of protest.

You also omit one other CRITICAL fact...
NONE of your protesters...while I readily concede carried signs that were in equal bad taste..were ARMED. The other difference is that NONE of these people were lauded or pandered to by the elected Dem leaders in charge and any leader would have quickly disavowed their signs and their sentiments...there were not 2nd Amendment remedies being applauded by Dem leaders as a possible solution to the R Congress and W.H.

Really Scott IMHO to find the equivalent...actually it was far greater..amount of violence and threats from the left you have to go back to the 60's.

As far as condoning today's vitriol by blithely commenting..
"In the context of a nation that has witnessed actual violence like the Whiskey Rebellion, the draft riots in NYC during the Civil War, labor movement violence in the early part of the 20th century, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago ’68,"

Yes and as Sister Sarah explained to us today that we used to have dueling politicans...wonder if she could identify Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton and explain the disagreement that led to their most famous duel.

All of this sounds silly. It is exactly the context you point out that should keep us on guard to avoid repeating such mistakes. Presuming you believe the Civil War, whisky rebellion..et al were mistakes.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"Why did she scrub the surveyor's map from her web site?"

No reason at all. Just time to make some changes on the ol' web site-a-roonie. Nothin' to see, here, folx. Move along, move along.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Enough with trying to tie Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to this crime.

The map had nothing to do with the crime.

________________


The suspect said this:


"What's government if words have no meaning"


Clearly he is talking about Obama's 2008 campaign promises and Obama's failure to do ANYTHING remotely like he promises.

Bipartisanship

Post-racial

Compromise

Transparency

Post-partisan


What IS GOVERNMENT if these words have no meaning?


INFLAME the situation with a lame duck session jamming through more of the liberal agenda after the nation CLEARLY REJECTED THAT AGENDA IN NOVEMBER.

Clearly Obama and the LIBERALS have caused these words to have no meaning.


And a 22 year old man went over the edge.


Good luck - liberals your deceptions and lies have no limit.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"This is looking like a campaign rally. I hope Obama does not stop to smile for applause. "

I thought the same thing. I thought maybe I was the only one who thought the tenor of the thing is bizzare. What's with all the cheering and whooping etc. from the very start? Also, the opening guy was just weird.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

What's up with this?

Some conservatives are upset over t-shirts bearing the logo "Together We Thrive: Tucson & America" that were handed out to attendees at tonight's memorial service in the McKale Center on the campus of the University Of Arizona here.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/conservatives-criticize-free-tshirts-at-tucson-service.php?ref=fpblg

Have any of the commenters from the right gotten the talking points on this one yet?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Presidents get grey hair so fast.

I don't think Mitt Romney could handle that.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

This is a Memorial Service

There should be no clapping

There should be no cheering

It is a pro-Obama rally (give us a break)


Again, the liberals are attempting to hijack the sorrow of the nation for their own political gain.


Cheap

Disgraceful

Shameful.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama should ask the crowd to stop cheering and stop applauding.

This is a Memorial service, not a political rally.

It is horrible - I almost feel bad for Obama that this service is so embarassing.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Have any of the commenters from the right gotten the talking points on this one yet?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 8:45 PM
-------

Have they handed out the OBAMA-2012 T-shirts and buttons yet?

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

I am so glad Obama brought this to what it was, a mass murder by a crazy man. People were murdered and people survived and people acted courageously all around.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad you're all here arguing rather than watching Obama's speech. Palin probably got more coverage.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"Hahahahahahahaha. Are you sure you aren't posting from Vietnam?"

I sort of wondered that myself.

TominCO:

I did respond to your question last night, but I think you had gone to bed. If you are interested, you can find it on yesterday's happy hour at roughly midnight.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The other congressmen Targeted on Palins Map will be guarded and living in fear for the rest of thier lives.
The threat of those crosshairs is truly that dire.
Probably never see them in public again except in Popemobiles or behind bulletproof glass screened podiums.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"I'm glad you're all here arguing rather than watching Obama's speech."

Some of us don't have cable. Many of us could have given you the general outline of what's being said days and days ago.

I personally don't hang on Obama's every word.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Is it only Democrats at this memorial service? Isn't Jan Brewer a Tea Partier? Wasn't the crowd cheering her comments?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"Why continue with this argument? Why the need to defend everything she has said or done? We all agree she has no direct blame for the shooting but -- Why did she scrub the surveyor's map from her web site?"

Why is the left continuing it? Don't know. I just answered bernie's false statement, because he decided to pile on one more slander, one more time. I've said the attack on the map is preposterous from the start. And it is -- just part of what has been the most grotestque, malicious, disgusting display of partisanship I've witnessed in my entire life. I'm appalled that I'm a fellow citizen with those who've participated in this vicious smear.

Why scrub it? I imagine because the media decided to make it the story and accuse her of murder by map.

Since you say you she isn't to blame, what are you implying about her withdrawing it? That it's admission of guilt? That it's defensive?

Face it, nothing she could ever do and no response she gave could ever be treated by your side as other than dishonest, narcissistic, immoral, blah blah blah. It's all become very boring. We don't care what you people say or think any more. At least I don't. This appalling display of moral corruption and depraved behavior is the end for me. I take nothing seriously from the left after this. I grant no presumption of good faith or good will. Your crowd is sick, and I assume that every word, every argument, every position is in bad faith and freighted with malice.

Greg's inability to let go of this insane slander campaign is alone enough for me. It's incredible to me that he and many others are still trying to hang on to some remnant of their deranged attacks.

The entire left who participated owes an apology to the rest of the country. Of course, nothing of the kind will ever happen. But it is blowing up in your faces.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Tom in Colorado

Both parties use the word "targeting" to specific which districts they are seeking to put election resources into.

Any person could pick up memos from either party and find that kind of language.

To single out Sarah Palin is ridiculous- and to be honest - the democrats who are calling attention to that map may, in fact, be the ones who are calling attention to that map.

The election is over.

Clearly - the democrats are the ones who keep bringing up violence.

The democrats are the ones who are so provocative.


The democrats need to stop provocative talk.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't have cable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201240.html

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, why didn't Obama apologize for his part in the heated, gun-related rhetoric? Is this turning into another Wellstone memorial fiasco? Why can't he speak as quickly as Palin did? Why didn't Michelle put her hand over her heart for the National Anthem?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Scott!
Darnit Ethan no frequent-flyer points for the RaceCard again.
Keep trying though, Republicans hardly ever get called "Racists!" and it really hurts when we do.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

accuse her of murder by map


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Sure qb ... now let's see how your side responds to President Obama's remarks tonight.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

RFR: Sarcasm at 8:40 and 8:55, and highly likely in all my comments.

Guys: Do I need to mark sarcasm here, are some kinda thick and won't get it?

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

This is a good speech.
I wonder if anyone ever thought Jan Brewer and Barak Obama could deliver good speeches together. It wasn't worth it, but I am glad and grateful.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

So ... claw launches the first ridiculous air-ball from center court:

Why can't he speak as quickly as Palin did? Why didn't Michelle put her hand over her heart for the National Anthem?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 9:01 PM

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The democrats must have been right


6 people get killed so they attack the Tea Party and Sarah Palin all week,

Then they fly in Obama - and he becomes the hero of the whole bloody killing scene.


The democrats gain - might as well, right, those people aren't coming back whether the democrats run over their bodies on the way to smear innocent people, right?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Whatever, prag. Nothing O says is ever going to hide the ugly malignancy revealed in this episode. Nothing he says is going to expunge or regenerate the corrupt soul of the leftwing mob we've seen this past week.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Tom in Colorado

Sorry about that. I am so used to seeing the liberals post nonsense on these blogs.

Yea, sarcasm is sometimes difficult in the written blog-world.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:11 PM | Report abuse

One cool thang that I bet many here did not know: Rep. Giffords is co-chair of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus, and owns a BMW motorcycle and several vintage Vespa scooters, including a schweet 1963 Vespa GS, with sidecar, that she parks in her living room.

I'm sending her a model Vespa that I have (not a GS, unfortunately), in hopes that it is some small inspiration to recover quickly and fully, and to ride again, soon.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Have ANY of these people EVER been to a Memorial Service before???

Do ANY know how to act at a Memorial Service.

I blame Obama - he could have made a statement asking for a more respectful tone and conduct.

Clapping is inappropriate, as is cheering.

The atmosphere at this service is shameful - it is a political rally - not a Memorial Service.

This is horrible.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing O says is ever going to hide the ugly malignancy revealed in this episode."

Sarah has cancer?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Odd how concerned these freedom-lovers are about what people say or how they react voluntarily in a free, free country. Well, on certain occasions, anyway.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Finally!!! Obama's done with The Wellstone II Memorial, 2012 Campaign Kickoff! That was definitely longer than 7 minutes, 34 seconds. Will he now answer Chris Matthews why he doesn't demand Hawaii release his full vital records?

On to the Duke- Florida State game!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

C'mon qb ... I'm not new here. Who do you think you're kidding with your "We don't care what you people say or think any more. At least I don't. This appalling display of moral corruption and depraved behavior is the end for me. I take nothing seriously from the left after this. I grant no presumption of good faith or good will. Your crowd is sick, and I assume that every word, every argument, every position is in bad faith and freighted with malice..." schtick?

Are you saying that there was a time in the past several months at least that I've been following your comments that you granted some left winger the presumption of good faith? Are you saying that in all of your condescention and arrogance, there was a time that you took some disagreement seriously?

Give me a break with your righteous indignation. And give me a break with your "there's nothing O can say BS." There was never anything O could say as far as you are concerned.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"Face it, nothing she could ever do and no response she gave could ever be treated by your side as other than dishonest, narcissistic, immoral, blah blah blah."

I do believe this is exactly correct. Much like other obsessions of the left (climate change, eg), the evidence must be interpreted to fit the pre-determined theory, because the theory is in fact, to them, a certainty. Palin is dumb, dishonest, a coward, etc...of that they have absolute certainty. Therefore, whatever she does must be explainable in the context of this certainty.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary -

Here she is again - trying to equate the Tea Party with violent Islamic Extremists.

Good to know that this is the official position of the United States Department of State.


Hillary Clinton's remarks:

Jared Loughner is an extremist because he carried out the Arizona shootings while acting on his “political views,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.

“Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN. “And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from Al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism.”

Clinton added, “So, yes, I think that when you’re a criminal who is in some way pursuing criminal activity connected to – however bizarre and poorly thought through – your political views, that’s a form of extremism.”

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Must say that that was a pretty great speech by Obama. He has great writers, that is for sure.

I think it will be remembered.

Posted by: michiganmaine | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I think this rally represents another failure of leadership on the part of Obama.

A leader would have asked the crowd to be quiet - and respectful - during the Memorial Service.

A leader would have politely asked the crowd not to applaud - and PLEASE do not cheer.


A Memorial Service is not the time for a political rally -


Another failure of leadership on the part of Obama - shameful and a sad display from people who clearly are motivated by politics more than a desire to show respect for the dead.


I am personally HORRIFIED.


The tone that Obama should have set should have been RESPECT FOR THE DEAD.


And hope for the recovery of the Congresswoman.

Not cheering and applause.


This rally was HORRIFYING.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

By the way, where are all the breathless media reports of the other Crosshair Targeted Congressmen guarded in fear of their lives ?

What? They're not?
All out speechfying and acting as if there's no special threat?

It's almost as if they know the whole meme is...
...bullsh*t or something... Say it ain't so!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing O says is ever going to hide the ugly malignancy revealed in this episode. "

that is for sure, and your part in it is duly noted. A question.. do you do anything besides post on this blog 24/7... just wondering. Because by your time stamps, it doesn't look it. Just venting, is that it? do you have any friends, family, work? you know it's dangerous for your health to get this isolated.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 12, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Brigade: I do not think the 2000 election *for POTUS* was settled by the Court other than in the way it would have been properly settled by the Congress. Let us review:

By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the Florida presidential election and on that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount. On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay the Florida recount, because according to Justice Scalia:


It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

The dissenters opined: "Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election."[10] The four dissenting justices argued that stopping the recount was an "unwise" violation of "three venerable rules of judicial restraint", namely respecting the opinions of state supreme courts, cautiously exercising jurisdiction when "another branch of the Federal Government" has a large measure of responsibility to resolve the issue, and avoiding making peremptory conclusions on federal constitutional law prior to a full presentation on the issue.

This opinion set the course for the subsequent one. However, Gore's failure to immediately demand a recount statewide doomed his bid to failure, even if the Supremes had ruled correctly. That is because the late order of recount by the FL Supremes meant that a recount could not have been completed timely, and if there was a dispute regarding the FL electors alive at the Constitutional deadline the Prez would have been elected by Congress, voting state by state, and GWB would surely have won in Congress. The correct Supremes decision would have denied jurisdiction in the case and left the dispute to Congress, ultimately.

One result might have been different: the Senate might have elected the VP in those circumstances. The Ds had the Senate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 12, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Was there clapping at Ronald Reagan memorial service?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Perfect three-sentence summary of 5 days of rage and enough ink/electrons to fill the oceans:

MEDIA: Sarah Palin directly and knowingly caused the murders of six innocent human beings.

PALIN: No, I didn't.

MEDIA: Stop making it all about you!!! This is all about the people who were shot!!!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Brit Hume, formerly of the liberal ABC News, now at Fox, called it a "pep rally."


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

This rally was a failure of leadership on the part of Obama.

Obama could have made a comment - asking the crowd to not applaud, and to not cheer.


Daniel Hernandez gave a good speech. He was good.


The Indian was pretty good too -

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:42 PM | Report abuse

fiona,

Do you suppose that your risible "turn the tables" taunt will make people forget that you were one of the first of the first moral and mental invalids to accuse conservatives of the killings, while the bodies were still warm?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"Perfect three-sentence summary..."

... in delusional la-la land.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"Perfect three-sentence summary..."

... in delusional la-la land.

The wicked flee where no man pursueth.

a/k/a

Out! Out, danged surveyor's symbol!
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

jprestonian:

"... in delusional la-la land."

Yes, you are correct. What Tom described did happen here in Plum Line comments.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

TominColorado,

Great points. I posted a similar script the other day. It's quite amazing how intellectually dishonest and downright obsessive the attacks on Palin are.

Then they add still another level of convoluted spin: no, we'd never unfairly attack Palin! How could you accuse us of that? We WANT her to be the GOP candidate. We're helping you out here!

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Sybil is sure trying hard to make something out of nothing. I posted a link and the report from the AP that was posted on the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, as one of the earliest news reports on the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords. All the words that I posted were quoted from that Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper online article. None the words were mine.

Sybil can not even handle an AP and well known newspapers factual report, with factual background details on Sarah Palin's prior involvement in trying to defeat Congresswoman Cliffords.

The Psychotic Sybil is going berserk, because the AP and The Cleveland Plain Dealer dared to report Palin's actual campaign words and website posting, against Congresswoman Giffords.

Even Palin does not deny that she did what the AP and The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. Congresswoman Giffords spoke out against Palin's actions back then.

It is now very clear that even Sybil is ashamed of what Palin did and said, because Palin is still defending her actions, but Sybil is claiming that reporting on her actions is unfair.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"What Tom described did happen here in Plum Line comments."

The media were here, blaming Palin for "directly and knowingly caus[ing] the murders of six innocent human beings?"

I want the number of your dealer, mang.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 9:30 PM


The Florida Supreme Court should have been allowed to complete its proceedings - because the Constitution states clearly that the State Courts have jurisdiction over their own elections.


Next in line there is a Federal law which was put in place after the Election of 1876.

All those proceedures should have been followed precisely.

I disagree that the Supreme Court should have stepped in at that point.

_______________________


Unfortunately, the US Senate had a chance to object - I believe they just needed ONE SENATOR to sign off with a representative who did vote objections for this matter to go for a review.

That did not happen.

If you remember, the Senate was split 50-50 at that point, and there was some agreement in place that the democrats would NOT object to the Electoral College votes.


WHAT bothers me most is that ALL these other procedures - which were clearly in place - were circumvented.

Even if those procedures were followed, Bush just may have won - however he should have won through the application of those procedures and Federal law - not a Court case.


A potentially embarassing point is that the Governor of the State would have had to take an official action under the Federal law passed after the Election of 1876. That was Bush's brother. Perhaps they could have found a way to have another official take that act.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Prag,

Prag,

You know, I really don't care whether it makes sense to you, nor expect it would. If this week proves anything, it's that even the most basic common sense and reason are incomprehensible to most on the left. Your people broke new ground in depravity that I won't ever be able to forget.

As for BO, the point is, he could give the most statesmanlike speech in history (and I thought it was good for the most part), but tomorrow Krugman and Sargent and Ethan and dKos and fiona and all the rest will remain the same people they've revealed themselves to be -- incapable of decency or integrity. They will just be on to the next smear, the next ironically eliminationist attack on Palin and the right.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

@TominCo "The other congressmen Targeted on Palins Map will be guarded and living in fear for the rest of thier lives.
The threat of those crosshairs is truly that dire.Probably never see them in public again except in Popemobiles or behind bulletproof glass screened podiums."

Failed attempt at snark because reality right now is making you look foolish tonight.
Erick Erickson made a startling revelation tonight on CNN...the pride of the right claims that words and harsh hate speech do not have an effect on creating a more dangerous comment before stating in the very next breath that poor Sarah has had to raise her security level for her family because...wait for it.....baddaboom...all of this hateful rhetoric against Sister Sarah. Wow talk about whiplash...and so Erick and righties...does hateful talk and false charges actually pose a danger or doesn't it? Nothing like consistency in your positions that last less than literally three seconds.

The next thing you know we meanies on the left will challenge Palin's patriotism...ask her if she is a "real" American and accuse of "not being one of us."

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

QB1:

Was Fiona the first?

I thought Linda Lopez (D-Az) was the first when she said that the shooter was a US Army Afganistan veteran in that Saturday interview with Shemp Smiff on Fox.

Got the guys over at Blackfive.net a little riled up it did:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/01/veterans-demand-an-apology-congresswoman.html


Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"Whatever, prag. Nothing O says is ever going to hide the ugly malignancy revealed in this episode. Nothing he says is going to expunge or regenerate the corrupt soul of the leftwing mob we've seen this past week."

In YOUR very very humble opinion. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

jp:

"The media were here, blaming Palin for "directly and knowingly caus[ing] the murders of six innocent human beings?""

OK, you got me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

QB -

You listed 5 or 6 people from the left... is it your contention that there is no one from your side that will "just be on to the next smear, the next ironically eliminationist attack" tomorrow?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Keith Ellison (D-MN) Agrees with Sharron Angle -- All Americans Should Consider "Second Amendment Remedies"
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Poor Sarah,

She is outraged that anyone would think that her violent imagery might have any connection with the actions of the Psychotic Tucson Assassin,

She said that each individual alone is responsible for their evil deeds,

And Yet.

This same Sarah Palin spent two months in the fall of 2008 tying Barack Obama to a guy who committed terrorist acts in the 1960s, when Barack Obama was a young school boy.

Strange how Sarah Palin felt free to smear Barack Obama, and accuse him of "palling around with terrorists", but how dare anyone now question her possible incitement, with her recent words and actions, of Jared Loughner.

As usual; Sarah seeks to have it both ways.

Let her start by apologizing to President Obama for her vile claims that he was a fellow traveler with a 1960s domestic terrorist, before she climbs up on her Sobby Horse, and plays the victim card.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, there was no applause at the Ronald Reagan memorial service:

http://youtube.com/watch?v%3DkATVCgpBo4I

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 10:09 PM | Report abuse

To all this evening. Aren't we missing the real issue here.

TELEPROMPTERS.

Boy that B.O. can sure read teleprompter well can't he? Oops. What? He didn't use a teleprompter tonight while Sister Sarah wasn't articulate enough to spend less than 8 minutes without reading from the prompter.

OMG where does that leave us in the important issue of the day...TELEPROMPTERS.

And there are some other important questions to be answered as pointed out by one of our brighter posters...

"Why can't he speak as quickly as Palin did? Why didn't Michelle put her hand over her heart for the National Anthem?"

I fear for our country...we must solve the great teleprompter controversy and answer the other important burning questions of our time...

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

"I do believe this is exactly correct. Much like other obsessions of the right (tax cuts don't add to the defcit, eg), the evidence must be interpreted to fit the pre-determined theory, because the theory is in fact, to them, a certainty."

Scott, there I fixed it for ya. :)

I think it's called partisan (tribal) politics. I know you guys think you're always correct, but guess what none of us are "always" correct. You're entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean they're facts.

qb

I've listened for over a year now to all the hateful things you've had to say about Obama, which to you is okay because some people on the left were mean to Bush and Obama "really" is as bad as you say, and yet we're supposed to apologize to you for our opinions re SP. That's pretty rich when you think about it. If you think she's worthy of your respect then help her get elected or watch her reality show but as long as she's not in office I don't feel obligated to give her a pass. Nobody gets a pass on hateful speech this week and there's always people who go there, it's who they are, and it's on both sides. They're either called opportunists or entertainers, take your pick.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 12, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

I meant on this blog. Fiona was one of the first commenters (I think right behind the execrable Ethan) to start accusing conservatives, when the shooter hadn't even been identified and reports were sketchy.

No doubt she's one of Greg's new favorites -- vitriolic, unprincipled, hateful.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:15 PM
.................
And yet, even with the teleprompter, and a chance to edit the video, before posting it, Sarah still has not learned how to pronounce Pundits.

She was calling them Pundints, back in 2008, and she said something very similar on the tape she posted on Facebook, in the past day.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Oops forgot the other important issue of the day...those rowdy college students had the audacity to clap tonight while nobody clapped at St. Ronnie's memorial. WTF is this country coming too?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Erick Erickson made a startling revelation tonight on CNN..."

Got a link?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Oops forgot the other important issue of the day...those rowdy college students had the audacity to clap tonight while nobody clapped at St. Ronnie's memorial. WTF is this country coming too?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:19 PM |

........................
Clawrence The Birther; AKA JakeD The Birther, does not understand the difference between a funeral event, and a non funeral event.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

ruk, do you remember what happened after the Wellstone campaign event?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 10:23 PM | Report abuse

"...obsessions of the right (tax cuts don't add to the defcit, eg)"

I'm not sure that would qualify as an obsession. For one, not all folks on the right think this. For two, there's a balance sheet obverse side to it re: spending.

How about policy disagreement...much more civil. ;>)

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

@Scott Sorry no link. It was on John King's show at 7PM...Erickson of course is one of the guest commentators along with Begala for the left.

I'd like to help but wimp that I am I'm getting ready for bed...CNN probably keeps something.

However if your interest is in the story about the need for increased security for Sarah P.

Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say

Photo Courtesy - Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor's team has been talking to security professionals.

Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her "crosshairs" map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 midterm election, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday's attack.

http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=112&itemid=29620518

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still, I am not JakeD. Are you Chris Fox?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that the more taxes are cut, the more revenues increase.

That is why I am pushing to have all federal taxes cut to one percent, and the federal gov. immediatly create hundreds of thousands of jobs, building warehouses all over the country, to store all the massive surplus revenues that will flow in next year.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Claw. You are JakeD. You just do not know it. Split personality disorder works that way.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Translation of Liam's plea:


"I just REPEATED the SMEAR which the Cleveland dealer put out there."


______________________

Of all the quotes, you had to make sure you kept on quoting, so that Sarah Palin was clearly accused of an action which would make people believe that she was somehow responsible.

Sorry, Liam THAT IS WHAT A SMEAR CAMPAIGN IS.


And it wasn't just you - DEMOCRATS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WERE DOING THE SAME THING - IN A COORDINATED ATTACK ON THE TEA PARTY.


Gross, shameful


And then you deny, deny deny.

Are you trying to say that you innocently smeared Sarah Palin at the SAME HOUR that hundreds of people in your democratic party were doing the SAME THING ON PURPOSE??


Yea, that's the ticket. You didn't know. All the other democrats were the ones who knew they were smearing the Tea Party.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence "ruk, do you remember what happened after the Wellstone campaign event?"

Did you not follow early link to TPM. It showed all the righty blogs talking about ONE thing...THE WELLSTONE FUNERAL..

Clawrence if you want some respect dump the right wing talking points and exhibit some original creative thinking....just a suggestion from my perspective...others may prefer your penchant from simply checking your right wing sources and running with the talking point of the day.

Whatever floats your boat Claw...hope you don't mind the familiar usage of your name I mean no disrespect..I realize you may not consider me a friend. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"You're entitled to your opinions but it doesn't mean they're facts."

Indeed. And equally relevant to what I said, you should be reminded that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

The AP is owned by Conservatives. The Cleveland Plain Dealer just picked up the AP report. Deal with it Sybil. Even Palin is not backing down from what she posted, so you clearly must feel ashamed of what she did, since you are exerting more effort in trying to bury the truth, than a cat trying to bury it's feces on a tin roof.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

lms,

No, you haven't seen me say hateful things about O. I don't hate him. I'm highly critical of him.

I'd love to see you produce some examples of my attacking him in any way compare to this week's torrent of vitriol by the left. You show me where I've accused BO of being responsible for a mass murder committed by a psychotic, and then doubling down over and over as the preposterousness of that claim became clear.

You show me where I've been so intellectually dishonest as to accuse him of murder by proxy, and demand he respond, and then ludicrously attack him for "making it all about him."

You show me one time when I've said hateful things about Obama and then, as you claim, said it's okay because of what your side did to Bush. I've pointed out the attacks on Bush to prove to haters like Tena that what was done to Bush far exceeds what has been done to Obama.

You seem to labor under the illusion that I am a Palinite of some kind. I like her. I think she's underestimated and would be vastly superior to any Democrat. But she's not my candidate. It's not me or other conservatives here who are obsessed with her. It's you and the rest of the left. And it's an obsessive hatred.

You do more than "not give her a pass." You've never identified a single piece of "hate speech" by the woman. You just hate her and attack everything she does. I couldn't care less whether you respect her, and I'll decide who I support for myself. Sorry it seems to annoy you so much that conservatives defend her from the ridiculous, daily, even hourly attacks of the Paliphobes. If you all were so obsessed with trying to destroy her, she probably wouldn't come up as often.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

tao

I was following Scott's lead, I don't think climate change is a policy, and not all conservatives view it as false. I didn't know I wasn't being civil. ♪♫♪♪♫

The thing is we put up with a lot of less than honest or civil conservatives here and nobody on the right really calls them out except occasionally, why should you guys expect us to chase off or call out the Ethan's and Fiona's. A lot of people here aren't civil and they're also opinionated and wrong sometimes. It's a blog and the doors are wide open. I don't lump all conservatives together or think you all believe the exact same thing why should I put up with that from qb or even scott.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 12, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

@BBQ: “There's a part of me that thinks RainForestRising is nothing more than a marketing tool for Kevin_Willis in an attempt to boost downloads of his troll blocker program thingy. Clever!“

Indeed! The one flaw in my plan? I forgot to charge money for it.

I knew I had forgotten something . . .

@Liam-still: “I refuse to use the Troll Blocker, and I think it is just the equivalent of babies putting their hands over their eyes, and then persuading their-selves that the other person has disappeared.“

Well, perhaps. I consider it an organizational tool. You can hide and show at will, and sometimes, when it's a dense thread, I hide certain commenters just to unclutter stuff. I don't block everybody, and not forever, but just to make a particular thread that may have been a little bit threadbombed or spam easier to follow. As for this:

“I notice that Greg was blocking STRF and all his Sybil like personilities, right up until the Troll Blocker tool was presented, and from then on Greg allowed STRF to deluge every thread with his psychotic rants.“

Well, I feel that I'm somewhat to blame for that. Sorry, if so, but I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. And irrespective of what the WaPo can or should do--the Troll Hunter really does work. And you can also "Favorite" certain posters and easily pick their work out of the crowd. Which is kinda nice. Also, you can use blockquotes. Turning certain things to bold or ––strike through–– or whatnot. It's cool. You don't have to block anybody (nobody is blocked be default) and you can easily clear the Troll list at any time.

It's a solution. It's free.

Also, if the WaPo implements a The Fix style solution, I wouldn't be able to read comments or write them during my breaks at work, so . . . there was a selfish interest in finding a solution that didn't involve moving to a The Fix sort of solution.

And anyone who has the ability to generate their own email addresses can generate as many WaPo accounts as they want. Anyone who has access to a block of IP addresses can get around IP blockers. Not much can be done if you personally decide to block a little bit of spam for yourself.

Yes, I'm defensive, but it really was just intended to help. Sorry!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 10:37 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

The IRONY is that if the democrats had not dredged up the old Palin map, those Congressmen would not feel threatened.


It's the democrats who called attention to it.


Morons.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 10:38 PM | Report abuse

For those ready to go OT...

There is trouble in paradise....

"Scott's tax cut plans collide with state budget shortfall."

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott's plan to deeply cut taxes hit its first snag Wednesday from an unlikely source: Senate President Mike Haridopolos.

The Merritt Island Republican, who once helped assemble a cadre of anti-tax lawmakers to fight spending increases, said budget writers in the Senate were "struggling" to account for a shortfall in tax collections now approaching $4 billion.

"Tax cuts are not part of our equation at this point," said Haridopolos.

His comments came just a day after Scott told his fellow Republicans in the Senate there was no difference between their agendas.

"I imagine everyone worries whether I'm really going to do what I believe in," Scott said. "And I always worry the same way about y'all. But no one has said anything to me that anyone has a different agenda."

Less than 24 hours later, Scott heard differently on his own tax cut plan. But Scott, in his tenth day as governor, would not be drawn into a political debate.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1145171.ece

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

sorry if this double posts....

I haven't posted here much but used to be a regular. Some of you remember me as an Obama supporter. I've been upset with him about many things but overall I'm still glad he's our president.

Anyway, I was literally yelling at my TV for the applauders and cheerers to shut up. I too agree, it was inappropriate. It felt like the state of the union. I think Obama should've asked for calm, out of respect for the victims.

However, as I grew to accept that these obnoxious college kids just weren't gonna stop, I began focusing on the president's words, and this was one of his greatest speeches. I was almost moved to tears. Some of you debate and complain who's gonna benefit politically, and ignore the real issue here. 6 people are dead.

RainForestRising, it seems to me that there is something missing in your life. I don't know why you have so much hatred, but it's unhealthy. Look within yourself. Become a better person. Griping all day on the Plumline is not helping you.

Posted by: SDJeff | January 12, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"However if your interest is in the story about the need for increased security...."

No. My interest was in what Erickson actually said, re that words and "hate speech" do not create a potentially violent atmosphere. It seems unlikely that he said quite that. I'd imagine that he was arguing that it was not a factor in the instance at hand. But I didn't see it, hence my question.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

You can lead a horse to water, and you can make him drink.

My uncle once took a camel trek through the desert. Where he rented his camel, the owner said, did you make sure that he is filled up with water. My uncle said; I let him drink his fill.

The camel owner said, you must make him drink more, after he stops drinking. Here let me show you how. Hold the camel's lips in the water trough. He then too two bricks, and clapped them hard, against each side of the camel's testicles. The camel made a huge gasp and sucked in several more gallons of water.

My uncle said to the Camel owner: Jeez, that must hurt like hell.

Said the Camel owner; not really; as long as you make sure to keep your thumbs out of the way.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

lms,

btw, I forgot the main point about SP. When have I ever expected you to apologize for opinions about SP? The accusation that she was responsible for Tucson wasn't an opinion. Your opinions are whatever they are. Lies and defamation are entirely different.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 10:44 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Didn't intend to say you weren't civil. Smiley! @ the end.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Obama spoke for 33 minutes (vs Clinton 9min - OKC, Reagan 4min - Challenger)

The crowd got T-Shirts coming in - no wonder they thought it was a campaign rally.
No word on whether we can get online merchandise yet.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 12, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Enough with trying to tie Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to this crime.

The map had nothing to do with the crime.

________________


The suspect said this:


"What's government if words have no meaning"


Clearly he is talking about Obama's 2008 campaign promises and Obama's failure to do ANYTHING remotely like he promises.

Bipartisanship

Post-racial

Compromise

Transparency

Post-partisan


What IS GOVERNMENT if these words have no meaning?


INFLAME the situation with a lame duck session jamming through more of the liberal agenda after the nation CLEARLY REJECTED THAT AGENDA IN NOVEMBER.

Clearly Obama and the LIBERALS have caused these words to have no meaning.


And a 22 year old man went over the edge.


Good luck - liberals your deceptions and lies have no limit.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 10:47 PM | Report abuse

That Global Cooling sure works in mysterious ways. It is rapidly melting all the glaciers.

We live in strange times, where people claim the cooler it gets, the faster ice melts.

Must be something to do with government grammar police jumbling up the meaning of all words.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca....may I second your 10:36 post

Excellent. I would never take you on in a debate lmsinca because you keep your cool and don't lower yourself to the name calling and hyperbole. You go girl.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

SDJeff,

I basically agree with you. My comment about the cheering etc wasn't that it was partisan. I just thought it was totally inappropriate to the occasion. I thought this was going to be a solemn event with probably some uplifting moments and maybe restrained applause. It just seemed creepy and wrong to me, and I cringed for the victims' families.

I thought it was a good speech, despite the fact that I don't like Obama and find even his "great" oratory to have an inauthenticity. I thought he should have steered a little clearer of the "civility" and "discourse" issue, but it wasn't too bad.

Ultimately, though, as with all his "common ground" speeches, the reality is that there is an unbridgable divide over the future and direction of the country, so nothing will really change.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeff: "Anyway, I was literally yelling at my TV for the applauders and cheerers to shut up. I too agree, it was inappropriate."

Both sides have generated a flood of inappropriate in the wake of what happened in Tuscon.

I think you made the right decision--focus on what the adults in the situation were saying.

And, yes, I voted for McLame, but Obama is my president, and, frankly, since he's done so much to irritate the left, turns out I kinda like him. Missed the speech, but it sounds to me like he struck the right tone.

Liam-still: I'm very sorry to hear about that poor camel. I hope that wasn't a threat of some kind. ;)

I keed, I keed. But really. I hope it wasn't. In any case, you're never coming within 1000 feet of me while holding two bricks. I just want you to know that.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Folks

How in the world could the democrats hold a political rally tonight - in the place of what was supposed to be a Memorial Service???


Was this meant to show support for the SMEAR CAMPAIGN which Obama's people conducted against innocent people this week???


WHERE have our Civil liberties gone?


AND why was Holder speaking? OK Napolitano she used to be Governor.


But why no US Senator - McCain or Kyl?


I don't know what to tell anyone.


This event was Horribly MISHANDLED by the Obama people - and Obama never showed the leadership to stand up and ask the crowd to act in a manner respectful of the dead.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"I don't lump all conservatives together or think you all believe the exact same thing why should I put up with that from qb or even scott."

Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I do think we can use the terms right/left to refer to general and broad groups with certain beliefs or tendencies without necessarily meaning that it applies to literally every single person on the left/right.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

ruk, you can call me claw. I didn't see TPM though. Watching this service reminded me of Wellstone's all by myself.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

President Obama made a wonderful speech tonight, It was right up there with Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

I never expected to hear such a magnificent American speech, appealing to the better angels of our nature, from a Kenyan.

I expect that more people will view President Obama as a great American, after this speech.


Good night to all, no matter what your politics are, and when you leave, do not turn out the lights, because Sybil is afraid of the dark, when she is home alone.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 12, 2011 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Sure claw ... and I bet you'll claim that you weren't watching Fox either ... except you quoted Brit Hume earlier on this thread.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 12, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse

EXCEPT

the UN IPCC Global Warming Agency admitted that the glaciers were NOT melting, particularly those in India.


Sort of like spreading a falsehood during a smear campaign, right, Liam?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse

@Scott "It seems unlikely that he said quite that. I'd imagine that he was arguing that it was not a factor in the instance at hand. But I didn't see it, hence my question."

In all honesty Scott I'll concede your characterization. I was watching on the fly and I certainly wouldn't claim to be an infallible on the subject. I also confess to a very real and proud prejudice against Erickson. I may well be off in my characterization or even my hearing...I'm and old dude and wear hearing aids. LOL

Regardless...I'm still confused. I understand the fact that some of you on the right are livid because some on the left have pointed the finger at Palin. The major disagreement I probably have with you and Q.B. on this issue is not that she is at fault..or even that SOME people jumped prematurely...it's the amount of "some" where we probably part ways.

I guess what I don't understand is do you feel words have consequences or not? Not specific to this case but in general? If you do not believe they do, then Palin is obviously completely overreacting...I do believe they have consequences and I'm truly sorry the Palin family feels more threatened. I honestly would feel just as badly if harm came to the Palin family as I would the Obamas.

Imagine though Scott if heaven forbid...and I hestitate to write this because I do take all those heinous death threats against Sarah seriously...if Palin were shot this coming Saturday morning would you be surprised if those on the right behaved precisely as those on the left. SOME would jump the gun...they would immediately blame the left for this weeks heated vitriol against Palin. And again honestly Scott, if Palin were shot this Saturday a violent leftist would be MY first suspicion.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:03 PM | Report abuse

@qb: "Ultimately, though, as with all his 'common ground' speeches, the reality is that there is an unbridgable divide over the future and direction of the country, so nothing will really change."

Always has been, always will be, if you ask me. We may be more or less civil, or seem so, over given stretches of time, but we'll always be diametrically opposed on the critical issues of the day in some way, shape, or form.

Perhaps it's an evolutionary advantage. If we were all agreed and all conformed and all marched in unison, we might be lemmings. There would be no check on good ideas that might go bad, and no obstacle course for bad ideas that seem good at the outset.

Although, when your in the middle of it, it seems mostly to be people yelling at each other and calling each other names.

@lmsinca: "nobody on the right really calls them out except occasionally, why should you guys expect us to chase off or call out the Ethan's and Fiona's"

A more than fair statement, although I would argue that that is often because people with strong ideological identities tend interpret incivility differently, depending on the ideological identity of the incivil person. Especially if it's us! If I call someone an idiot, it's because they are an idiot. This isn't incivlity, I think, it's merely an accurate representation of the facts. On the other hand, if you call me an idiot, you're rude! Rude and unrefined!

Perspective has a lot to do with this debate, yet it's often left out, and it makes what I consider a false presumption. It presumes that we can tell other people whether or not we are being rude to them. When, in fact, only they can tell us, and vice-versa. But we talk about things that are mostly opinions weighted heavily be skewed perspectives as if we were debating objective facts . . . and, little progress is made, and we end up yelling at each other.

And more than a few liberals stood up for me, here, when certain other liberals really went out of their way to attack me. And they certainly didn't do it because they agreed with me. It happens, just, perhaps, you need to at least make a good faith effort to be really, really civil first. At least, that's been my experience.

But don't always expect that to pay off. Because believe me, it doesn't always. ;)

Ah, well. It's getting near bed time. Night, y'all!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

"The accusation that she was responsible for Tucson wasn't an opinion. Your opinions are whatever they are. Lies and defamation are entirely different."

Well I didn't say she was responsible for Tucson, and a lot of other "lefties" didn't say it either. My point is there are people on both sides with strong opinions who interpret facts and evidence differently. You told me for months and months that Obama was a neo-marxist etc. etc and then yesterday you had a lot to say about Obama's forthcoming speech in Arizona tonight that was less than flattering. That is an opinion of yours, I don't consider it an obsession, I figure you just don't like or respect the guy. That's the way I feel about SP, she's an opportunist and a liar who enjoys victimhood, in my not very civil but honest opinion, and I fervently hope she doesn't run for President. I'm not part of the "we hope she runs crowd" so Obama wins. If he can't win against a credible candidate, if you guys can find one, he doesn't deserve to win.

Anyway, I was feeling hopeful after his speech again, he'd like to be a uniter if you guys would give him a chance but I don't think that will ever happen. So we'll all just be back at each other's throats tomorrow. Yippee.

Sorry everyone, I'm not my usual cheerful self tonight, night y'all.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 12, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"Ultimately, though, as with all his "common ground" speeches, the reality is that there is an unbridgable divide over the future and direction of the country, so nothing will really change."

Exactly right, QB. After 9/11, I actually was naive enough to believe things might be different. It took about a year, but things got as bad as ever, and have pretty much stayed that way. Impossible to believe anything will change after this.

Posted by: SDJeff | January 12, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "I never expected to hear such a magnificent American speech, appealing to the better angels of our nature, from a Kenyan."

A Kenyan anti-colonialist, if you please. Don't stop short like that.

Tonight, I've got Liam-Still and lmsinca favorited in my WaPo Troll Hunter. Just FYI. Depending on how you like to organize things, it sure can be handy. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

"Wow. Obama spoke for 33 minutes (vs Clinton 9min - OKC, Reagan 4min - Challenger)

The crowd got T-Shirts coming in - no wonder they thought it was a campaign rally.
No word on whether we can get online merchandise yet."


Oh great another "serious" poster who never wastes our time on trivialities.
Dammit BO...we finally got you to give up the prompter, get with it and cut down the time for your memorial speeches. Again I ask WTF is this country coming to?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:07 PM | Report abuse

It would have been half the length without the applause and his long -- pauses -- between -- every -- word. Challenge old assumptions, huh? There's less cheering for the Duke-Florida State game. I'm amazed there was no cheering during the "Moment of Silence."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Kevin you haven't changed a bit, you're still the most reasonable conservative I know. I truly appreciate it.

Posted by: SDJeff | January 12, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Also, you can use blockquotes. Turning certain things to bold or ––strike through–– or whatnot."

If that is the case then Trollhunter may actually be a valuable tool. But if it does so much more than simply hide posts from sensitive eyes, maybe you should change the name to something a little less narrow, like, say, "CrappyBlogSoftwareFixer".

What do I have to do?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

SDjeff

I don't hate anyone


I am happy.


I enjoy exposing hypocrisy. I think that is it. I don't like the hypocrisy.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain, I didn't quote Hume. You are confusing me with someone else.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 11:14 PM | Report abuse

SDJeff

And if you want to look at the hate scale, check out how the democrats have been talking about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party this week.


Seriously - a smear campaign for the ages - that is real hate.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 11:15 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeff Enjoyed your 10:41 post. Welcome back. Hope you stick around we can always use thoughtful posts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

ruk

My next post made a liar out of you, I was less than civil. I'm glad you're back though, and not for the compliments. Good luck with Scott, I don't see how any state will be able to cut taxes this year.

Goodnight again.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 12, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: What browser are you using? The instructions are reasonably well covered (although, perhaps imperfectly), here:

userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

Won't work in Internet Explorer. Opera is probably the stickiest bit, but it can work in it, too.

With Google Chrome, just go here:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

And hit the "Install" button. The "Are you sure?" dialog appears, kind of small, in the lower left corner of your browser window.

With Firefox, go here

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748/

and Install Greasemonkey (basically, just press the button and say "yes").

Then go here:

userscripts.org/scripts/show/89140

And hit the Install button.

Safari takes a little longer. You have to install SIMBL and Greasekit and restart Safari. Then you can go to the userscripts.org link and install.

Full instructions are here:

www.simplehelp.net/2007/11/14/how-to-run-greasemonkey-scripts-in-safari/

For getting userscripts working in Safari.

In Opera, you have to download the script and save it somewhere, and then set the folder where you saved it as a Javascript folder in the Advanced preferences. As I said, that's the stickiest:

my.opera.com/Contrid/blog/2007/02/11/how-to-greasemonkey-in-opera

Covers the basics.

WaPo Troll Hunter also makes links like some of those entered above, with the http and a return at the end, clickable so that they open in a new tab or window. Which is, for me, worth it right there.

I had to get rid of some of the h-t-t-ps because of the WaPo "too many URLs" filter.

Anyway, if you download it, let me know what you think.

Thanks!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeff Enjoyed your 10:41 post. Welcome back. Hope you stick around we can always use thoughtful posts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"I guess what I don't understand is do you feel words have consequences or not?"

Of course they do, or at least they can.

"...would you be surprised if those on the right behaved precisely as those on the left."

Not particularly.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

In case you missed this in between the cheering and applause

Unbelievable partisan display tonight which the SUSPECT probably would have laughed at because he phrase was:

"What's government when words have no meaning"


When do the words "Memorial Service" have no meaning - when the service is being run by the llberal democrats


These are the names of the dead:


Christina-Taylor Green, 9, of Tucson. Green was accompanied to the meeting by a neighbor. Green died at University Medical Center. Born on September 11, 2001, she had appeared in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11 (page 41). She was the daughter of Los Angeles Dodgers scout John Green and Roxanna Green, the granddaughter of former Major League Baseball player and manager Dallas Green and second cousin to actress Sophia Bush. She was in third grade and had recently been elected to the student council at Mesa Verde Elementary School.

Dorothy "Dot" Morris, 76. A retired secretary from Oro Valley. Her husband George survived two gunshot wounds while attempting to shield her.


John Roll, 63. Roll was the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Roll was a native of Pennsylvania and a 1969 graduate of the University of Arizona. He began his legal career as a bailiff in Pima County Superior Court and in 1980 joined the office of the U.S. Attorney. He was appointed to the Arizona Appeals Court in 1987 until he was named to the federal bench by President George H. W. Bush in 1991. He had served as presiding judge since 2006.

Phyllis Schneck, 79. Homemaker from Tucson.

Dorwin Stoddard, 76. Stoddard was a retired construction worker.[104] He was shot in the head while shielding his wife Mavy from the gunman. She spoke with him for 10 minutes before he died of his injuries.

Gabriel "Gabe" Zimmerman, 30. Zimmerman worked on Giffords's staff as a community outreach director. Zimmerman had been a member of Giffords’ staff since 2006. He was a native of Tucson and had completed a master's of social work at Arizona State University and a bachelor's of sociology at UC Santa Cruz. He was engaged to be married.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm going back to the Sarah Palin "blood libel" threads now.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

|img:http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/moralssquad.jpg|

Now, this time, seriously, I gotta go to bed. Let me know if you run into any problems, Scott, and I'll try to help you suss 'em out.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Just watched the speech (OldFahtHockey 8:00pm ice-time, so we can get home early):

Very well said, Mr. President. Well done and thank you, sir.

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeff

"Kevin you haven't changed a bit, you're still the most reasonable conservative I know. I truly appreciate it."

Agreed Jeff but Scott and Tao can also be very reasonable...kinda depends if you approach them reasonably. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

Thanks. I am using firefox.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

"You told me for months and months that Obama was a neo-marxist etc. etc and then yesterday you had a lot to say about Obama's forthcoming speech in Arizona tonight that was less than flattering. That is an opinion of yours, I don't consider it an obsession, I figure you just don't like or respect the guy."

Indeed, I think he clearly is a neo-Marxist. That's not hatred, it's just an assessment of what seem to be his ideology, background, and policy goals. Some of my best friends have been neo-Marxists.

I did expect his speech to be worse than it was. Frankly, I think the ugliness of the left's behavior became so . . . ugly . . . in the past couple of days, and the idea that Loughner was influenced by conservative "hate speech" so absurd, that he had no other choice but to steer in the other direction. I can't recall another speech he's given that was not sharply partisan, and in most of them he attacks his opponents in a way no recent presidents have done. These circumstances just did not allow that.

And if you are suggesting that I talk about Obama a lot, he is the POTUS, and I'm quite sure I don't talke about him more than anyone else. It's true I don't like him. I suppose I have some respect for him in certain areas. But I don't think much of him, that's for sure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeff

"Kevin you haven't changed a bit, you're still the most reasonable conservative I know. I truly appreciate it."

Agreed Jeff but Scott and Tao can also be very reasonable...kinda depends if you approach them reasonably. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 12, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

SDJeff, et al:


I have come to the conclusion that liberals are attracted to liberalism NOT because they actually have thought out the policies.


Liberals like liberalism because someone they have convinced themselves that they are superior to other people BECAUSE they hold these views.


So, it really is not the views themselves that attract the liberals - it is the idea that they are better than other people by holding these views is "what makes them do it."


Ironically, a blog like this challenges all that.


When a blog is a bunch of liberals altogether - telling each other how wonderful and smart they all are - because of their views, the liberals love it. Because the whole thing is self-reinforcing.


However, ONE PERSON comes in and challenges those views - and the whole thing come CRASHING DOWN.


If the views are not the best, that means that the liberals are NOT superior to other people.


THAT is what really gets the liberals angry. They could care less about the actual policies, or views.


It is the CHALLENGE to their own idea that they are superior because they hold those views - that is what really gets them angry.


It is that arrogance which makes them so nasty - they MUST feel superior to other people - if they don't the whole thing come crashing down.


That is WHY the liberals don't care about HOW MUCH health care costs - because the PRIMARY goal is for them to feel superior, not make sure the Federal government is on sound financial footing.


Same with ALL the liberal agenda - they MUST put it in because it makes them feel superior.


No matter that this is a democracy and most of the country does NOT agree - JAM it through - the liberals believe they are superior so the constraints of democracy do NOT apply to the liberals.

Some with the Constitution - it doesn't apply - something can be said like it is over 100 years old so it is no good -


Case closed.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 11:30 PM | Report abuse

tao: "Very well said, Mr. President. Well done and thank you, sir."

Yeah. This. :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 12, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

ruk I agree, tao and Scott are cool too.

Posted by: SDJeff | January 13, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

What a typical example of the liberal noise machine this has been. From twitter and blog posts to national anti-palin firestorm in hours.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 12:32 AM | Report abuse

What a typical example of the liberal noise machine this has been. From twitter and blog posts to national anti-palin firestorm in hours.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I hate to split hairs but a Glock 9mm doesn't actually have cross hairs. Just FYI. It has dots as a sight.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 13, 2011 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Ruk,

The answer to you question from my perspective is this:

Words can have consequences of various kinds. Otherwise we wouldn't use them. Paul Krugman 's words usually make me think he is nasty and dishonest. A warning shouted can stop someone from walking in front of traffic. In a restaurant, the right words can result in my being served the dinner I want.

But the way the phrase is being used here, to suggest that criticism of Democrats, or even harmless martial metaphors or campaign maps, can cause other people to kill is wrong. It ignores volition and interpretation and everything else that is in between. The law recognizes concepts of "fighting words" and incitement but in much different contexts that the amorphous "climate of hate" slander that has been propogated this week (and that liberals tried to smear Rush Limbaugh with in 1995). They depend on highly specific context as on content.

Your hypothetical overlooks some important differences even beyond this. First, Palin has just now actually been subjected to days of intense personal attacks across the national media, which Gabby Giffords clearly was not. Second, having suspicions is far different from publicly declaring guilt. Third, the fact that Loughner had shot 20 random people including a little girl and a Republican judge was enough to tell reasonable people that this probably had nothing to do with the political acts of a rational person. And finally what was even worse was that your side refused to give up the smear even after it was confirmed to be preposterous. The Greg Sargent's of the world are STILL trying to spin some way to lay the killings at the feet of "conservative hate speech."

And all this was built in the first place on accusations of "hate speech" the were almost entirely specious, like the "armed and dangerous" comment that was patently ripped out of context and misrepresented by liberals including Krugman this week again. No one in the country would ever have thought she called for violent revolution except that liberlas concocted and propagated that lie.

So your hypothetical comparison rally doesn't work at all to show that there was anything reasonable about this week's smear campaign or that conservatives would do the same thing. And I absolutely don't believe they would have. I know I wouldn't have.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Odd how concerned these freedom-lovers are about what people say or how they react voluntarily in a free, free country. Well, on certain occasions, anyway.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 9:19 PM
-----

All of a sudden you're a Palin supporter?

Posted by: Brigade | January 13, 2011 6:32 AM | Report abuse

that is for sure, and your part in it is duly noted. A question.. do you do anything besides post on this blog 24/7... just wondering. Because by your time stamps, it doesn't look it. Just venting, is that it? do you have any friends, family, work? you know it's dangerous for your health to get this isolated.

Posted by: fiona5 | January 12, 2011 9:25 PM
-------

Spoken by the most heavily invested troll on the site. Isn't about time you spewed some drivel at the Fix or HuffPo?

Posted by: Brigade | January 13, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING: Keith Ellison (D-MN) Agrees with Sharron Angle -- All Americans Should Consider "Second Amendment Remedies"

Posted by: jprestonian | January 12, 2011 10:06 PM
-------

What's his Muslim name? Cao says all Muslim converts must start using a Muslim name, like Muhammed Ali or Farrahkan or something.

Posted by: Brigade | January 13, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

We all know where Howard Dean is coming from so quit trying to run cover for him.

The attacks on Sarah Palin are borne of partisan hatred for her from the Obama media. This is obvious to everyone including the fake, Democrat, media blabbermouths. Palin is an excellent cheerleader for the right and a useful distraction to the Obama, media lickspittles.

Obama got his nose burned by jumping into the partisan, blame game in a knee-jerk way a few times before. He's wisely playing it cool this time. He can be taught!!

Also, the Clintonesque triangulation Obama is easing into probably accounts for his uptick in the polls. Good ol' Bubba! He da man, again!

We will probably never see the REAL Obama again. Whether B.O. is clever enough to pull a Clinton and ride into a second term remains to be seen.

My prediction: Obama gets a second term but the Senate and House will be solidly Republican. It seemed to work very well in the 1990s and maybe it will work again.

But, Obama will probably not have a Ross Perot to spoil the election for Republicans, in 2012. Obama will have to do it on his own. He will have to turn very "Blue Dog" to do it. The leftists will be howling at the moon, again.

True bi-partisanship, at last!

Posted by: battleground51 | January 13, 2011 6:58 AM | Report abuse

The bottom line is Obama stood by silently this week while his people launched an outrageous smear campaign against the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

That is not leadership, that is cowardice.


Obama knows how to rush to the microphone - he does it everytime he wants to tell us not to rush to judgement when a Muslim commits a terrorist act.

Obama did not do anything like that this week.

The nation can interpret Obama's PERSONAL actions this week as nothing other than encouraging and supporting his people to engage in this smear campaign.


Such a SHARP CONTRAST to hear Obama talk of the heroic acts on Saturday at the Safeway - how people shielded each other, and took down the gunman.


The only thing appropriate here is a quote from Wayne's World: "We're not worthy."

But there Obama was - seeking to be the actual hero, the one who would get the political gain from this crime. His people were already talking up Clinton after the bombing that killed 168 people, and Reagan.

OUCH - even yesterday, the democratic spin machine was trying to make Obama the hero, and Sarah Palin the villian. What a laugh.

The country could see CLEARLY that the real villians in the room last night was Obama who sought POLITICAL GAIN FOR FIVE STRAGHT DAYS.


The American People know perfectly well what the democrats have been doing for 5 days.


Then Obama starts to talk about "our children's expectations" - HA, take a look at his conduct over the past 2 years.


AND by the way, the people who tackled the gunmen were in the BACK.

Who was in the front??? Obama, Obama's cabinet, a democratic Senator from NY (?), Nancy Pelosi, the Attorney General Holder -

WHY so many democrats?

WHY wasn't McCain invited to speak.


The "political rally" aspect of last night was a shameful disaster for Obama.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 13, 2011 7:12 AM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "So your hypothetical comparison rally doesn't work at all to show that there was anything reasonable about this week's smear campaign or that conservatives would do the same thing. And I absolutely don't believe they would have. I know I wouldn't have."

I shall gladly take you at your word, which is why is didn't name any names in my hypothetical comparions...no mention of Beck, Limbaugh or any specific conservative on this site. Most Conservatives here are reasonable human beings...I do not count RTR or Kaddeffi as conservative or progressive I think they are members of the "wack" party.

I do not view this as you do because of degree. I certainly concede again that SOME people jumped the gun and pointed a finger at Palin, Scott's NY Daily News example is absolutely indefensible and disgusting opportunism, I think that writer was in the minority however and it was the "News" not the Times. Isn't the "News" a Murdoch rag like the Post..perhaps I'm mistaken and it's just the Post...point is that it wasn't the respected journalistic source of NYC the Times or WSJ.

Your post implies there is something congenitally wrong with liberals/dems/progressives. I gotta go Kevin on you now Q.B...OK we're all wacks and the conservatives have been above reproach.

Q.B. you deal far too much in absolutes and extremes. This has been passionate for you and so I get some of the hyperbole, but you're tooooo smart for this Q.B. We all can see you're a very bright fellow and can argue with the best of us...but if you give a rat's arse about ONE poster's humble opinion...I think you would be better served in '11 to work on your nuance. I'm not insulting you here I well know you are more than bright enough to not only understand but also practice nuance. I also get that not everyone from "my side" practices nuance...including at times ME. I'm just suggesting that your posts would be more interesting if you started incorporating more nuance and you would actually be revealing even more of your considerable intellect.

Cause is not synonymous with "contributes"
Asking whether something "could" have happened is not the same as saying "She did it"...realizing that a % did "assume" and a few despicable people made direct charges is not all. The charge that actually played the largest part in demonizing Palin came from Rep Giffords herself...and you cheapen yourself dramatically when you suggest Giffords wasn't attacked like Palin. Had Palin had her office violently numerous times. Has a loaded pistol ever fallen from some man at her appearances?

Kevin is conservative yet a fair arbiter we'll let Kevin answer my hypothetical...if heaven forbid Palin were shot does Kevin believe that just like some on the left jumped the gun here... SOME R's would understandably jump the gun and believe it was some wacked out lefty responding to all the vitriol directed this week at Palin. Again that would be the FIRST QUESTION not assumption to jump into my mind.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 13, 2011 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Obama said last night

"We can not use this occasion for another opportunity to turn on each other"


Well, Obams SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT STATEMENT ON SATURDAY AFTERNOON.


Obama has REMAINED SILENT on this point for 5 days, WHILE he knew perfectly well his people were on constant attack agains the Tea Party.


The country can see clearly the HYPOCRISY.


ON this, Obama is allied with no other other person than the shooter who said:


"What's government when words have no meaning."

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 13, 2011 7:19 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Kevin is conservative yet a fair arbiter we'll let Kevin answer my hypothetical..."

Uh-huh. •Now• you want me. When I ask you if you've installed my Troll Hunter, you're nowhere to be found. ;)

"if heaven forbid Palin were shot does Kevin believe that just like some on the left jumped the gun here... SOME R's would understandably jump the gun and believe it was some wacked out lefty responding to all the vitriol directed this week at Palin."

Without a doubt. But, as I have noted before, they would feel the circumstances would somehow legitimize their reaction just as the circumstances around the Tucson tragedy delegitimizes the liberal reaction. As I've noted in conversations here when the "false equivalency" shibboleth is raised: they would give themselves a "get out of jail free" card.

Of course, there are differences, too. Palin is a very prominent conservative, and extremely polarizing. The reality is, Gifford was a moderate and not remotely the kind of public figure Palin is; those sorts of differences would be "why" equating similar reactions to such tragic events would be "false equivalencies".

And, in your hypothetical, one event happens after the other, which will inform peoples reactions, and their justifications. And, frankly, if it turned out that the person who targeted Palin was a complete whackjob and apolitical and had fallen in love with Bristol when she was on Dancing With the Stars and believed that, once Sarah was out of the way, they could finally be together . . . many on the conservative side would not accept that reality, and I don't think that would be particularly surprising or outrageous.

But, as I've noted before, I believe things generally should be judged in and of themselves, not based on what bad people do "because" of those things. I know it's impossible to abstract them completely, but if someone who was dying of cancer is cured, and then goes on to commit some heinous act, do we blame the cure to cancer? We can certainly say it contributed . . . Yet, by itself, it's a net good.

People don't have to respond to heated political rhetoric, and if you cheat on your wife, Ruk, you don't get to blame that hot chick that really made it seem like a good idea. ;)

At the same time, is the heated rhetoric necessary? No. Does the use of phraseology like "blood libel" in Palin's response weird me out? Yes.

And there ya go.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 13, 2011 7:55 AM | Report abuse

kevin

Can you tell me how to do a blockquote, I think bold is "" "" right? BTW, I'm not using a mac. I like the highlight a poster, at first I thought we were going to see other commenters highlights and it was going to be a popularity contest :(. But now I see we only see the ones we highlight. Good idea for a busy thread.

Thanks

Posted by: lmsinca | January 13, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

I think we can all agree that throwing a pie is as bad as killing two people in a church, right?
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 13, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

When will you realize that most of the liberals are using your own program to ignore you?


You are creating a "liberal echo-chamber" - why don't you just call it that???


Allowing people to keep their minds closed is not a lofty objective, no matter what your ego tells you.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 13, 2011 8:19 AM | Report abuse

The shooter was schooled at a neo-Weatherman indoctrination camp.

The gunman attended a high school that is part of a network in which teachers are trained and provided resources by a Leftist group founded by Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and funded by President Obama.

The group, Small Schools Workshop, has been led by a former top communist activist who is an associate of Ayers.

Obama provided the group with funds in the 1990s when he worked at an education reform group alongside Ayers.

Read more: Bill Ayers' communist provided Arizona shooter's curriculum
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=249429#ixzz1AlWX33Gl

He's all yours, Leftists. Own him.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 13, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Are Leftists even aware that a conservative Federal judge was murdered by this lunatic Leftist?

It is not a "paranoid culture"-- in the wake of a lunatic Leftist shooting of a conservative (Blue Dog) Democrat and a Bush-appointed Federal judge-- when Leftists are NOW openly calling for conservatives to be assassinated.

Leftists are now openly calling for Palin's assassination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgJKNpjSNI&feature=player_embedded#!

Death threats: how progressive!

ABC: Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at “Unprecedented Levels”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blood-libel-sarah-palins-controversial-reference-riled-emotions/story?id=12601352

Can Leftists imagine Giffords effigy hung from a noose?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/27/can-you-imagine-if-an-obama-effigy-were-hung-from-a-noose/

Own the Leftist incitement to violence.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 13, 2011 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I want to repeat:

The immediate attack on the conservatives/Tea Party was part and parcel of the Democrat, talking points memo that had already been distrubuted and memorized by almost all Democrat, media operatives. It was no accident that the liberal media jumped the gun, so badly, and shot off their collective mouths before getting the facts straight.

They were only following orders!

The good, progressive soldiers marched right into a withering hailstorm of righteous protest from falsely accused conservatives and Republicans.

Worse than Pickett's charge.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 13, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

"I do not count RTR or Kaddeffi as conservative or progressive I think they are members of the "wack" party."

I haven't read enough of Kaddeffi; perhaps a little blunt for your tastes but seems to post some material rationally directed to the topic at hand.

Greg should in any event be appreciative of the group of conservatives who frequent here now, though. It's quite a group -- Scott, tao, TMW, skip, brigade, Tomincolorado, Kevin (a little wishy washy anymore, but we'll still take you ; )) -- I know there are names slipping my mind. It occurs to me that we are all enabling Greg and his liberal blog, which would probably be more peaceful but a lot more boring (and maybe not even around?) otherwise.

The two things I've been "passionate" about in the recent past are this Tucson matter and your new pal caothien. You'll note that even mild-mannered tao has been "passionate" about them as well.

"Your post implies there is something congenitally wrong with liberals/dems/progressives. I gotta go Kevin on you now Q.B...OK we're all wacks and the conservatives have been above reproach."

It doesn't imply that to me at all.

"Cause is not synonymous with "contributes"

I am familiar as a lawyer with degrees and gradations of what is said to pass for causation in human affairs, including "contributes." In this context it is imo a 100% bs weasel word, not nuance.

"The charge that actually played the largest part in demonizing Palin came from Rep Giffords herself...and you cheapen yourself dramatically when you suggest Giffords wasn't attacked like Palin. Had Palin had her office violently numerous times. Has a loaded pistol ever fallen from some man at her appearances?"

Let's think about that. The charge that played the largest part wasn't Giffords' statement; it was that Palin had published the campaign map targetting her district and 19 others. Giffords' statement about it was just her statement and was taken up by the media as part of a narrative too uncanny to pass up: "Congresswoman is targetted for assassination in violent Palin hate map, speaks out against map, and is shot!" If you were trying to prove the case in court that Palin somehow caused the shootings, Giffords' complaint would be inadmissible because it isn't relevant

As to the larger point, no, Giffords clearly was not subjected to the same kind of attack as Palin. Your hypothetical was, what if something happened to Palin later this week, after all these media attacks on her since Saturday?

Until Saturday, most people had never heard of Gabby Giffords. Having her district marked months ago on Palin's map was not remotely like what happened to Palin this week (after a steady stream of media attacks on her for the past two years). That's like WWII versus a pillow fight. I have no idea how many times Palin has had offices attacked, etc., but I fail to see how those Giffords inceidents are part of a rhetorical attack that caused her shooting.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRisisng,

I really don’t know what is missing in your life, or your heart. We can all assume that your are lonely and sad. I hope not. I hope that there is love in your life. You are a very bitter person, who does cling to this board a bit to much.
I hope that whatever is missing in your life, that lack, it is filled. There is more to life than just posting on some random message board on the internet. I hope you see that, and if not, I truly hope you do seek help, life doesn’t have to be this bad.
I wish you the best.

Posted by: somethingelse2 | January 13, 2011 8:39 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"People don't have to respond to heated political rhetoric, and if you cheat on your wife, Ruk, you don't get to blame that hot chick that really made it seem like a good idea. ;)"

Ohhhh thanks for the guilt trip guy. :-) And you had to snatch my get of jail free card as well. Thankfully one of the blessings of "maturity" (I'm speaking of those over 55..took me a long time to grow up) is that while I still can appreciate "looking' at a hot chick...right now Katy Perry and Kate Middleton are vying for honors of hottest chick IMHO..I no longer am as "dramatically" effected. LMAO

There was a time when I was 28 and a morning dj at a rock station when I judged a pageant with Miss Greenville...she needed a ride home....are you absolutely certain Kevin that I can use a chick's hotness as an excuse?

BTW Now that I see RTR and Kaddeffi are back I'm going to save this thread and over the weekend follow the instructions you gave Scott and see how it works. If lmsinca approves it must be good...I asked this question on a previous thread but missed the answer..maybe you missed the question...Why are you in Memphis my computer geek friend...why aren't you out in Silicon Valley where you could make some $$$ out of your talent?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 13, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Now that I hear of all these miraculous other features of Trollhunter, I am way jealous that I can't use it on the computer I use 99% of the time.

A paranoid person could almost believe it was all part of the conspiracy against him.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted, including reaction to Obama's speech:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_166.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 13, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"why aren't you out in Silicon Valley where you could make some $$$ out of your talent?"

Hate to say it, but JavaScript wrangling ain't exactly rocket science. I can't do it, but an awful lot of people can.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 13, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

qb

Here are a couple of quotes from lefty bloggers that makes the point that not everyone on the left immediately jumped on the "blame Sarah" band wagon.

The much aligned Jane Hamsher of the professional left didn't go there (blaming Palin). This is her first comment on the shooting:

"I automatically recoil at the suggestion that people should be held responsible for the actions of others, especially when it comes down to the influence they supposedly have on those they’ve never met. It’s the kind of Lieberman-esque thinking that brought us the culture wars, the scapegoating of video games and a decade’s worth of Ice-T demonization. As someone who did not emerge unscathed from that ignoble period in our history, I instinctively feel that the people who trade in those kinds of arguments are demagogues and hustlers.

And for those who want to attribute an overt conservative or liberal agenda to Jared Loughner — I’m not seeing it. Not saying it’s not there, just saying I don’t see it, at least not yet. I’m sure we’ll learn more over the coming days, but there wasn’t a political agenda behind the shootings at Columbine, or the Beltway Snipers, or Virginia Tech. When the target is a U.S. Congresswoman of course the context is different, but in the end it may be that Loughner’s conscious motives are as equally disturbed, idiosyncratic and non-political as those of the Columbine shooters."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Steve Benen, confirming something I guessed at yesterday. One of the reasons ""some"" liberals assumed the worst is because they've been worrying about this very thing for two years.

"If I'm being intellectually honest, I'll concede that early on yesterday, part of me assumed the worst. It seemed plausible to me that a Tea Party-type snapped after being fed a little too much hate, and targeted Gabrielle Giffords for assassination. From what we know about Loughner, those initial assumptions now appear to be groundless, and that comes as a relief. I wanted those emotional, gut-level reactions to be wrong, and the available evidence suggests that they were.

Which leads us to the second point. The shooter may have been politically motivated, in the sense that the assailant targeted a political figure, but Giffords probably wasn't shot because her attacker disapproved of the individual mandate in the new health care law. Loughner appears to be "conservative" only in a loose sense -- he hates abortion rights, is paranoid about government power, and obsesses over states' rights -- but given his madness, he doesn't necessarily fall along the traditional left-right spectrum. The truly crazy rarely do.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 13, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, I think you are on to something here about conservatives bringing Internet traffic to Greg's site. Do you have somewhere else more deserving that you post at? I am so disgusted with the liberals here, especially after Wellstone II last night. If someone shoots a Palin, every conservative here (including RainForestRising) should stop posting.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 13, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

@battleground "The immediate attack on the conservatives/Tea Party was part and parcel of the Democrat, talking points memo that had already been distrubuted and memorized by almost all Democrat, media operatives."


LMAO Some HARD evidence please. I want to see the copy of that memo so I can see WHO sent it...DNC..W.H...MSNBC.....:-)

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid"

Steven Stills and Buffalo Springfield

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 13, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

This liberal, blame game has been going on for almost 60 years. It's been a part of the Democrat agenda at least that long. Consider this:

In 1963, the last, good, Democrat president, JFK, was assasinated. Immediately, the major media and all other, Democrat types blamed the right-wing, of the time, for the foul deed. It was a right-wing conspiracy, they were sure.

Turned out to be a crackpot Marxist and Castro loving left-wing loser what done it.

Deja vu, all over again!

Posted by: battleground51 | January 13, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

[rukidding7 pouts: "Now that I see RTR and Kaddeffi are back I'm going to save this thread and over the weekend follow the instructions"]

LMAO! What a pathetic waste of a weekend.

"There is no manne so blynd as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that wyll not vnderstande."
[1551 Cranmer Answer to Gardiner 58]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 13, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

@Q.B. "It occurs to me that we are all enabling Greg and his liberal blog, which would probably be more peaceful but a lot more boring"

In principle agreed 100%..although I would not include all of the posters you name but I concede that's a matter of personal taste.

"The charge that played the largest part wasn't Giffords' statement;"

We'll simply have to agree to disagree here. I think that was THE main source driving this. In my personal experience as a former broadcast jounalist I realize that perception is literally reality to the TV viewer. Perhaps you could make a case that "liberal" MSNBC didn't have to release that piece of video at this time..but again as a broadcast journalist there is no way that was not news. Did it lead many to the wrong conclusions..probably...is it a bad break for Sarah...well yeah...but IMHO as it says in the Good Book..."They that sow the wind reap the whirlwind"

"If you were trying to prove the case in court that Palin somehow caused the shootings, Giffords' complaint would be inadmissible because it isn't relevant"

Absolutely agree...in COURT...your baileywick..the "court of public opinion" however has no such evidenciary rules. We can both bemoan this reality but I don't believe either of us can change it or will see it change in our lifetimes on the left, right, or center. Again...if I liked Sarah as much as you do I would also be apoplectic but I see this as kismet or karma...Sarah finally reaped what she has been sowing all along. I understand you disagree...alas again one of those points we'll have to agree to disagree.

"Until Saturday, most people had never heard of Gabby Giffords."

Absolutely! However there were enough TParty people to have heard of it to vandalize her office more than once. Why do I suspect they are TPers...well one of the incidents took place at a different "Congress on the corner" when a man with a Gadsen Flag followed the Congresswoman's party to the shopping center and as he approached a gun fell out from under his armpit...a bystander who had brought children said his first worry was that the gun might go off when it hit the pavement and injure one of his kids. IMHO this is intimidation pure and simple.

Again...it's serendipity of whatever...Sarah Palin's rhetoric while heated and over the top was not as despicable as Sharron Angle's 2nd Amendment remedies...and to hear the spinsmeisters now try and say all this gun talk was really metaphorical..what they were saying is come armed with your vote.
BS The 2nd Amendment is pretty specific and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the right to vote.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 13, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

ruk, could you please look up the full "Second Amendment remedies" quote you hate so much?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 13, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

qb

Here is Greg's first post (in part) after the shooting and he never went there. I don't think asking questions about or considering the ramifications of heated rhetoric is the same as blaming the actions of a lone gunman on said language.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It's crass and counterproductive to start asking whether any political parties or ideologies are to blame for the tragic and horrific shooting of Dem Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others at an event with constituents yesterday. That's especially true given that the shooter is looking more and more like a deranged loner and early chatter that he might have had an accomplice is turning out to be false.

But it's fair to ask lawmakers and commentators to use this tragedy as a jumping off point for some serious reflection about what has become of our political discourse. Even if there's no clear connection between the shooting and the incendiary political rhetoric that has now become perilously close to the norm in American politics, that doesn't mean the shooting can't serve as a reminder to those who are inclined towards over-the-top rhetoric that words matter and risk having consequences that are somewhat more important than whether they earn their purveyors cable and Internet play."

Posted by: lmsinca | January 13, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

@Claw Sorry don't have the time. Payroll today and I'll be checking out soon.

But I'll certainly be glad to read it if you wish to post it later. I can see that militaristic violent metaphors have been and will probably always be part of our political shorthand...it just easier to use the shorthand...and so when someone says come armed and they are waving flags about "Watering the tree of liberty" they can try and spin it to say we mean come "armed" with your vote...but again Claw...love to see how anybody can wiggle out of something as specific as the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 13, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "The immediate attack on the conservatives/Tea Party was part and parcel of the Democrat, talking points memo that had already been distrubuted and memorized by almost all Democrat, media operatives."

It's called Leftist "groupthink", clownboy See also;

"Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News"
http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Distort-ebook/dp/B0026IUP2C/ref=pd_sim_kinc_2?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

"A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media"
http://www.amazon.com/Slobbering-Love-Affair-Mainstream-ebook/dp/B001R11C62/ref=pd_sim_kinc_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

"Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right"
http://www.amazon.com/Slander-Liberal-About-American-ebook/dp/B000FBJAPU/ref=pd_sim_kinc_7?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

Don't be a Leftist media toady your whole life, ruk.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 13, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

ruk,

"We'll simply have to agree to disagree here. I think that was THE main source driving this."

I'm really not following you here. I take "the charge" to be that Palin published the map. The "source[s]" of that charge have been many. Giffords repeated it in her interview, but her statement wasn't charge, whether or not you think her statement was the main "source" that brought the map "charge" to the fore starting Saturday.

As for the court of public opinion, saying that the argument is there an not a court of law doesn't excuse people from reason and logic. Giffords' TV attack on the map didn't make the map any more or less "responsible" or "hateful" or "violent" or inciteful.

Indeed, if it is acknowledged, as it must be, that Giffords' complaint did not somehow did lend force to the accusations that the map caused the shootings, then those who seized upon it as if it did are exposed for practicing the most rank political opportunism and rhetorical irresponsibility. They were simply exploiting it for emotional and inflammatory appeal.

Heck, if I wanted to play this dirty game as many liberals have, I might say that it was Gabby Giffords if anyone who engaged in incendiary and inflammatory rhetoric that created a "climate" that could have, might have, just maybe in theory "contributed" to her own shooting. I suspect that all on your side would find this outrageous. Yet it would still be true that she personalized her criticism and said someting more provocative than Palin ever did by publishing a map that "targetted" her district.

"and to hear the spinsmeisters now try and say all this gun talk was really metaphorical"

You keep referring to "all this gun talk" and the like, but there's in fact very little there there. Angle responded to a question about the 2d Am with an accurate statement about its purpose, and responded to another suggestion by saying she hoped we were "not" at that point. The Bachmann statement was patently taken out of context and misrepresented. That's just the fact of the matter.

And you know, that reminds me of the last time the left pulled this garbage -- blaming the Kentucky census "murder" on Bachmann. That one blew up in the left's face as well.

As for all your "reaping and sowing" stuff, yeah, we'll disagree in the realm of opinion. But it will remain the fact that you folks really have never come up with any "hate speech" from Palin. It's a silly characterization.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

@Kaddafi: "Don't be a Leftist media toady your whole life, ruk."

And that, my friends, is what we call "building bridges with dialog".

@jpreston: "Correct, wrangling Javascript is not rocketscience, and not my forte (by any stretch). My forte is actually Filemaker, believe it or not (I don't count my mTropolis expertise, since it is dead as a doornail), and now PHP and MySQL. I also slog through aspx and Microsoft SQL Server when forced. And I have to write a lot of Oracle queries these days. And some AppleScript. I'm pretty good at the HTML and CSS, too.

But people generally don't pay money for niche userscripts. So, that's why it's free!

@ruk: "Why are you in Memphis my computer geek friend...why aren't you out in Silicon Valley where you could make some $$$ out of your talent?"

Well, first of all, the cost of living would eat all that and a little more besides, and I'd be competing with a much more crowded job market of younger people with far superior memories. I did an interview with FedEx where they wanted my to write out SQL queries long hand on notebook paper, and I completely hosed it, because I work to get things done, but I have a far from photographic memory, and look things up when in production all the time. I have to know how to find it out, because I cannot remember it all. But there are plenty of young folks, especially in places like Silicon Valley, that could write entire C# applications out in longhand and have it run the first time. I cannot compete with that.

Plus, I've got a great job working on exciting projects in a public school system. And who knows what bizarre stuff I'll end up wrangling if the two systems here merge!

And, contrary to popular liberal talking points, for the vast majority of people and positions, government jobs (local, state and federal) pay better, and offer better benefits, than similar positions in the private sector (this has certainly been my experience). Scheduling vacation and sick days is policed vigorously, and things like having to take vacation days for, say, attending a funeral are things I never had to deal with in private sector jobs, but, on the whole, it's a good gig, an excellent tradeoff, and I'm very happy.

I would have liked being a teacher (I taught some summer classes at Memphis College of Art before I started working officially, and that was probably the most satisfying thing I've ever done and gotten paid for it). Support teachers, schools, principals and the other service organizations in a large school system isn't quite the same as teaching, but I like it. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 13, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

quarterback, if you regularly post somewhere less contentious, please email me the link:

clawrence3@gmail.com

Thank you.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 13, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse

clawrence,

No I really don't comment anywhere else regularly or much at all. Not sure how I got hooked here. Lunatics attacked me from the moment I came here to ask Greg what his proof was that Dick Cheney had lied about Gitmo "torture." And I guess I just don't back down from attacks. I also got to enjoy discussion with Scott and others.

It does bother me a bit that we are enabling Greg. He has been determinedly irresponsible this week. I truly think this blog would probably have sunk without conservatives.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 13, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Can you tell me how to do a blockquote, I think bold is "" "" right?"
Probably. Alas, two-asterisks in a row won't show up if you're running the Troll Hunter. Next version, I think I need to do a |xmp| tag so I can more easily give examples. However, blockquotes are left-smartquotes or curly quotes. That's option-[ on the Mac. On the PC, it may be trickier. I can't test this right now, but according to the web, you would type:

For Windows, use ALT 0147 for the left-curly quote, and you would both open and close your blockquote with ALT 0147.

This is awkward, but I chose that specifically so it still appears as a quote to the outside world, but will rarely overlap with actual quotes in cut-and-pasted text, etc., though I've seen a few overlaps.

Alt 0149 is a bullet (option-8 on the Mac), and that does •italics•. Alt 0150 is an en-dash, two of which ––do a strikethru––. I figured that wasn't to disruptive to non-Troll Hunter users.

Then two __underline, or shift-dash characters__ should do underline if I remember correctly. And, of course, |hi: pipe-hi-colon-myPhrase-pipe will give you highlited text| in the latest version.

"BTW, I'm not using a mac. I like the highlight a poster, at first I thought we were going to see other commenters highlights and it was going to be a popularity contest :("

That would require that I be able to gather data from each Troll Hunter user, which would require some 3rd party website to bounce it all off of. While not impossible, it's more difficult, and would also require that I have a open-to-the-world server to devote to the task, which I don't. And would cost money, which I'm not going to spend. ;)

It's all about allowing you to organize things the way you want, anyway. If I could gather data and share it, I'd send everyone a list of what other Troll Hunter users had refreshed the page within the last 10 minutes or so. But, again, it'd be complicated, add more ms to script execution, and cost a few $$$ for the server. So, that's not gonna happen. ;)

"But now I see we only see the ones we highlight. Good idea for a busy thread."

That's what I said. :o) And you just click on the name, just the same way, to unhilite 'em. Easy flagging. It's like WaPo sticky flags.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 13, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Kevin, I'll try those. I'm not exactly computer illiterate, but close. I do a mean photoshop though.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 13, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Thanks Kevin, I'll try those. I'm not exactly computer illiterate, but close. I do a mean photoshop though."

Cool. Fellow Photoshop user since the 0.94 Beta (that's what I remember, might have been a different number) in late 1989/early 1990. I kept it on a Mac in the computer lab at MCA in a hidden folder (hidden with Disktop!) so no one could figure out how I was doing those incredible things. ;)

Don't use it as much these days, but I put in plenty of 10 hours days in Photoshop, back in the day.

I remember when they finally added layers in 3.0. Bliss. Sheer bliss.

We don't have a license for Photoshop where I work, so I use Acorn now. It does the job, but it's just not the same.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 13, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, I know what you mean. If I find another forum to post on instead, I will let you know.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 13, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company