Fortunately, it seems as though the public is smart enough to see past the "rhetoric" hysteria from the mouth-frothers. A solid 57% say that "rhetoric" had zero to do with this incident. Said frothers would be wise to let this one drop, stat. Not that I think they're that smart.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

fish82;634670 wrote:Fortunately, it seems as though the public is smart enough to see past the "rhetoric" hysteria from the mouth-frothers. A solid 57% say that "rhetoric" had zero to do with this incident. Said frothers would be wise to let this one drop, stat. Not that I think they're that smart.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

And the fact that this is a CBS poll makes this a high-side 57%.

It's time to drop the "dude got his marching orders from Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh" bullshit and get down to trying and frying this piece of human filth.

Great article by David Brooks yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

ptown_trojans_1;634730 wrote:Great article by David Brooks yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

Good read.

Agreed.

In regards to the recent politicization of this recent act of violence. We have all put our opinions into words. But as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand of them. So I thought I would check out some the pictures of internal politically generated violence this nation has endured throughout its history. We all hear talk of today's political vitriol. Some claiming its at its worst today. Our Pictorial history shows us we are no where near our recent past. Pictorial history did not come into play until the mid 19th century, so these pictures only portray the last 150 or so years.

I can only post four per post so it will take several posts.

Columbia, SC







Richmond, VA

^^^Looks like scenes from WWII.

Omaha, NE 1919 Soldiers on the street with heavy weapons.



Newark, NJ Soldiers on the street with fixed bayonets.



Los Angeles, CA 1965



Detroit, MI 1967 Fixed bayonets in Michigan.

KSU 1970

If any one still believes that we are at the worst when it comes to our political discourse you only need to look back. I will say this. We need to get our spending under control. The door is still open. If we continue to push it off and refuse to sacrifice today. Our children and grandchildren will face the great turmoils our forefathers bore to make this country what it is today. The pictures spell it out clearly. We are in need of a strong leader that can convey this to the American people. These solutions will be tough and must be based on individual freedom and backed by the constitution. If they are not there will be rebellion.

Aw the good ol' days, Majorspark. These pics were obviously taken at a time in our nation when political discourse was much more civil.

We need a new set of amendments to our Constitution to amend our Bill of Rights. If some folks have their way the 1st Amendment of the BOR would now read:

In order to control and decrease the possibility of offending anyone's beliefs, Congress shall make a law abolishing the establishment of religion* and prohibit the free exercise thereof; shall limit freedom of speech to politically-correct discourse as prescribed by Federal law, shall limit freedom of the press to Federally approved mainstream media; shall abolish the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and shall eliminate the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances particularly grassroots Tea Party movements.

*Exceptions shall by made for persons practicing the Religion of Peace.

Yeah, sad thing is, there's just no way to abolish people killing people - even for political reasons.
Which sitting VP was killed in a duel?
Yep.

CenterBHSFan;635246 wrote:Yeah, sad thing is, there's just no way to abolish people killing people - even for political reasons.
Which sitting VP was killed in a duel?
Yep.

Are you thinking of Hamilton? If so, he wasn't the VP. He was killed by the VP, Aaron Burr.

Lakebluestreaks;635392 wrote:Are you thinking of Hamilton? If so, he wasn't the VP. He was killed by the VP, Aaron Burr.

Yeah, Hamilton was the Sec Treasury.

But, I agree on the larger point that violence back in the day was pretty bad and we are not even close to the situations in the 19th century or 1968-1969.

There was another good Op-ed in the New York Times today about how Congress used to carry and use weapons all the time. Interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12freeman.html?ref=opinion

Also, I agree that Palin has been unfairly criticized for the massacre, but her statement today did not help.

"Blood libel" Really? That is a pretty damn strong word there Ms. Palin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

Just libel would have been fine with me.

ptown_trojans_1;635443 wrote:Also, I agree that Palin has been unfairly criticized for the massacre, but her statement today did not help.

"Blood libel" Really? That is a pretty damn strong word there Ms. Palin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I was kind of hoping Palin would just let this be and not address it, since there seems to be a pretty strong sentiment that that whole poster or whatever had nothing to do with it (even if it wasn't the smartest idea when either side did it). Not worth it to address the small set of crazies and make things worse by using terms like "blood libel".

ts1227;635461 wrote:I was kind of hoping Palin would just let this be and not address it, since there seems to be a pretty strong sentiment that that whole poster or whatever had nothing to do with it (even if it wasn't the smartest idea when either side did it). Not worth it to address the small set of crazies and make things worse by using terms like "blood libel".

What's wrong with the term? They all want her blood so bad they can taste it. The printed press, the Left, the socialists, and the television media is overly obsessed with removing her from her popularity and burying her in anything they can dig up. Personally, I don't think I could vote for her, but the unwarranted, constant and personal attacks make me defend her. No one should have to take the abuse she takes. Hell...Kathy Griffin, a farking "comedienne", has named her 16 year old daughter to be the brunt of her 2011 comedy program. How would you like that? If they keep it up, they may create the exact opposite of what they're expecting.

I'm glad she responded...else they'd think she quit and affirmed their attacks. Shame on them.

Blood libel was definitely not the term she should have used.

Do you not find it odd BG that you and others (mostly others you're pretty reasoned about your objections not that you need me to judge your reasonability) do the same thing you think is being done to Palin to Obama?

I'm fine with the term. Were it me, I probably would have doubled down and gone with "fucking blood libel." That's probably just me, though.

In any case, it was the perfect response. Her instincts continue to get better and better, IMO.

Don't worry guys congress is working hard for the American people. Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania is working on a bill that would make it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting. I am sure the federal perceiver will have "blood libel" in it list of criminal terms.

I Wear Pants;635522 wrote:Blood libel was definitely not the term she should have used.

Do you not find it odd BG that you and others (mostly others you're pretty reasoned about your objections not that you need me to judge your reasonability) do the same thing you think is being done to Palin to Obama?

Politcal blood libel? You betcha.
Real blood? I dunno, maybe too strong a term. But if she were to be shot, can you imagine Chris Matthews, KO, Maddow, Krugman, et al to be sympathetic? I can't.

To answer your, "who gets it worse, Palin or Obama" question, I would offer this: 1. No one attacks his children (and this is rightly so). Have you heard any negativity about Bristol, Trig, or Willow? You betcha you have. So which one has it worse personally? 2. Which one was elected and is thus subject to criticisms about their record, their views, their policies, and their votes? Which one is a private citizen? I know that she WANTS his job, but...as of today...she doesn't have it. So...since he wanted the job and all its associated debates/opinions, then why shouldn't he get it? She is nothing more than a paid pundit and gets whacked daily by those that wish so badly to see her disappear they'd make up anything about her and her family. Yep, Obama gets his share, but he pales in comparison to her attacks.

BGFalcons82;635501 wrote:What's wrong with the term? They all want her blood so bad they can taste it. The printed press, the Left, the socialists, and the television media is overly obsessed with removing her from her popularity and burying her in anything they can dig up. Personally, I don't think I could vote for her, but the unwarranted, constant and personal attacks make me defend her. No one should have to take the abuse she takes. Hell...Kathy Griffin, a farking "comedienne", has named her 16 year old daughter to be the brunt of her 2011 comedy program. How would you like that? If they keep it up, they may create the exact opposite of what they're expecting.

I'm glad she responded...else they'd think she quit and affirmed their attacks. Shame on them.

Given the terms history, especially towards Jews and other religious groups, it is not the right term.

It is like saying genocide or holocaust when in reality the terms do not apply.

Yes, the media screwed her over, but equating that to accusations people made against Jews and murdering people throughout history is a big much.

To be honest the negativity I've heard towards Palin's kids has been related to Palin's political positions (things she's said about not allowing an abortion even in cases of rape and some other things).

I know there have been people who have spoken poorly of them but why bother listening to that sort of people?

I'd say he gets at least as much shit as she does. From the birth certificate shit to the "he's a communist" to the flak about his smoking. To him liking basketball, etc. Lots of shit.

I wish we could simply question these people's politics instead of so much stupid stuff. Like you said you don't necessarily like Palin but feel compelled to if not defend, but put the record straight about certain things said. That's sort of where I'm at with Obama.

ptown_trojans_1;635579 wrote:Given the terms history, especially towards Jews and other religious groups, it is not the right term.

It is like saying genocide or holocaust when in reality the terms do not apply.

Yes, the media screwed her over, but equating that to accusations people made against Jews and murdering people throughout history is a big much.

I'm not the familiar with the term's history outside of the wiki link you posted, and I'm not a fan of Palin. But it seems to me the term applies when someone is unjustly accused of being the cause of someone else's death in an attempt to demonize them. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe she was even remotely responsible for this, so that does seem to apply here.