He wasn't in the high rent district

Post #338,619 by jake123 1/14/11 3:14:03 PM Reply	He wasn't in the high rent district ISTR that the stories said he lived about five miles away. The main thing is that this is the district (I have to keep reminding myself not to say "riding") where the Other Dude kept talking about shooting M-16s and Removing Gifford etc etc. If there are lawn signs and billboards everywhere, there's no way the shooter didn't see it. Why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe just maybe the whole "traitorous usurpers out to destroy our country" rhetoric may have had something to do with why he shot Giffords and the people around her? It's not like it's one person doing that stuff, there are plenty. Palin is but one among many, she just had the misfortune of having been the one with a national profile that mentioned the target by name. And yet, Palin's reactions since then seem to me to be one of a person who feels kinda guilty but can't even say it to herself, let alone admit to everyone else. While you're at it, what about those other guys since '08 who've actually specifically named the rightwing blowhards like Beck etc when they either killed people or were caught on their way to killing people, like those cops in (IIRC) Philly, or the guy that shot up the Unitarian church, or the guy on the way to the Tides Foundation? Given that those folks are NOT crazy, why is it you're so focussed on this guy's craziness meaning that clearly all that stuff had nothing to do with it? Like one thing I read said, "If your excuse is that 'only crazy people would actually believe I meant that they should actually kill liberals' you don't get a walk because a crazy person actually did it." Did you see the video posted on Goldberg's blog at the Atlantic about the congressman from California? You should go take a look at that, if you haven't already. None of those people were schizophrenic, nor in any way close to legally or criminally insane. Do you think those people have been reacting to the speech on Fox, or talk radio, or are they all cases of the immaculate conception of violent political ideas? Wake up and smell the coffee on this, Bill... those people are NOT doing your country any favours with their behaviour and speech. If they get anything close to real power, they're going to drive your country into a deep deep ditch.
Post #338,620 by beepster 1/14/11 4:55:38 PM Reply	We're not talking about "those other guys" and I can think of only one (O'Reilly) where it was specific reference... we're talking about this specific incident, and we're talking about it because in this specific incident alot of folks on the left are trying to say exactly what you are...that they are to blame, at least partly...and in this specific incident evidence continues to mount that it was simply not the case. I'm not going to lay blame at them any more than I'm going to blame howard stern for the state of moral decay in pop culture...even though I'm certain, if I had to, I could come up with thousands of quotes of the man saying stupid shit. Part of this is, should we bother to think it through, what it is, EXACTLY, that would be proposed to counter this "evil influence". This is not the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater... You see, I happen to think that freedom means I have every right to say what I want, with reason, and you have every right to not like it...and regardless of how many idiots are out there listening, none of them have a right to shoot anyone...not the kid in AZ, the eco-terrorist at Discovery networks, not any of them. In other words, Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants...and so can Keith Olbermann. We're back to the "Judas Priest and Ozzy" made my kid kill himself shit...just in politics now instead of heavy metal. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,621 by drook 1/14/11 6:48:00 PM Reply	Where were you ... For seven years when anyone in the media tried to question the president, they were told that to say what they were saying in a time of war was un-American at best, high treason at worst. Reporters actually were prevented, by their management, from saying what they thought. Where were you then, defending their right to question the president? -- Drew
Post #338,622 by beepster 1/14/11 7:00:46 PM Reply	Cmon in out of left field there, drook I had no problem then, nor any problem now with a reporter asking anyone anything. Nor do I have a problem if they decide not to answer. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,624 by drook 1/14/11 9:28:07 PM Reply	[Sigh] Fine, I'll spell it out. During the Bush administration, when anyone tried to say anything critical of the president, they were actually silenced, because saying what they were saying would somehow hurt the war effort, or our troops, or out national morale, or ... something. But now that some people are suggesting maybe the things being said by right-wingers might be harmful, suddenly you are a defender of free speech. The question was, what has changed that now you stand up for someone's right to say what they want, but then you didn't take the same stand? Have you only recently come to believe in the value of free speech? Or is it that this speech is more worthy of your defense? Or you could point out how wrong I am by showing all the times during the Bush administration that you posted about your opposition to critics being silenced. -- Drew
Post #338,626 by beepster 1/14/11 9:43:08 PM Reply	Give me a freakin break if your point is to catch me in some bullshit game of gotcha...then your going to have to go back through the posts and do it yourself. Personally, I silenced no one...believe I sided with the old bat when she was dismissed from the press corp (unrelated)...don't believe I was presented with a bunch of posts challenging me to justify the behavior you describe... So..essentially, you are guessing at a possible old position of mine (which isn't one)..then asking >me< to justify >your< guessed position. That's a game I won't play with you drewskie. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,692 by mhuber 1/16/11 4:49:50 PM Reply	One freakin' break... I don't recall Beep as having joined the "why do you hate America" chorus of the Right. On the other hand, pretty much everybody else on his team howled treason anytime anybody didn't sing the party song right on key. Some of us remember debates over people not wearing a flag pin. As a group, the Right has little respect for freedom of speech when a liberal is talking. As an individual, my impression of Beep is that he is an honorable guy who respects the right of the other guy to make a fool of himself. I haven't reviewed his posts and I'm not going to play "gothca" if he slipped up a time or two. His political affiliation makes him kind of like a legitimate massage therapist working in a whorehouse who gets upset when he gets asked for a happy ending. No disrespect for whores intended in that comparison. I'd have a lot more respect for the free speech side of this particular debate if the argument didn't amount to "we were just talking smack". Words mean things. "2nd amendment solution" means shooting people if you don't get your way politically. "Blood of tyrants" plus "this person is a tyrant" means "blood of this person." Beep hasn't been calling for bloody revolution, but the rest of his crew has. And now some blood is being spilled and they are all upset that some people suggest that there is a connection between words and deeds. If you don't want people to shoot at the people you don't like, don't tell them to do it. If that IS what you want, grow a pair. Freedom of speech is the center of our political structure because words have consequences, not because "sticks and stones". --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #338,694 by beepster 1/16/11 5:26:35 PM Reply	my team? you may need to clarify...as some would count as "on my team" the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, et al....hence you come up with "the rest of my crew" spewing violence. I can count on one hand combined the number of times I've listened to Rush, or Beck... Because some of our views are similar, doesn't put them on my team. Otherwise, thanks for the break :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,720 by jake123 1/17/11 12:56:06 PM Reply	Are you an actual Republican, and registered as such? Then they're on your team. It's the way your political system works.
Post #338,722 by boxley 1/17/11 1:34:03 PM Reply	guess you dont know beep that well Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #338,725 by jake123 1/17/11 1:59:03 PM Reply	I've met him once ISTR he was, but that doesn't necessarily mean he still is. Hence why I'm asking... and the central point about being on their team if you're a 'card carrying' republican is well taken, imho.
Post #338,726 by Another Scott 1/17/11 2:04:26 PM Reply	Might be confusing him with someone else? Federal campaign contributions over $200 are public here. http://fundrace.huff...com/neighbors.php Beep's not there, but a couple of relatives might be. Cheers, Scott. (Who knows Beep's not an (R) - he just plays one here quite often.)
Post #338,727 by jake123 1/17/11 2:07:22 PM Reply	Campaign contributions is not the same as member of the party, at least certainly not here. Either way, if he is, then he is, if he's not, then he's not. However, anyone who is... is on the same team as those folks mentioned above.
Post #338,728 by Another Scott 1/17/11 2:27:55 PM Reply	True x3.
Post #338,729 by drook 1/17/11 2:47:30 PM Reply	Not just that It doesn't matter what party you belong to, it's how you vote. Tea Partiers may say they aren't Republicans, but when they vote Republican near 100%, then they're saying they may sometimes agree with the Republican party, but only on the things important enough to vote on. -- Drew
Post #338,731 by beepster 1/17/11 3:54:14 PM Reply	Think I was about 70/30 R this year including the locals this year. Mind you, where I live now there were a couple of county offices and local offices where Republicans were un-opposed. I did vote for maintenance of a higher millage for the school board budget (2 year extension)..which is certainly not a tea party position...just an informed position. For what its worth. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,780 by boxley 1/18/11 9:27:27 AM Reply	guess Im not a tea partier then Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #338,820 by lincoln 1/18/11 9:23:06 PM Reply	debateable but it probably depends on what day it is ... "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #338,834 by boxley 1/18/11 11:59:24 PM Reply	the last repo I voted for was ronnie raygun dont match the profile Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #338,838 by mhuber 1/19/11 12:13:21 AM Reply	I voted for one last November Odd case in the Milwaukee Country Sheriff race, DINO vs RINO, both disavowed by their declared parties. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #338,730 by beepster 1/17/11 3:45:53 PM Reply	No. I'm not. I'm registered in FL as NPA. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,748 by Andrew Grygus 1/17/11 7:19:22 PM Reply	National Pigeon Association?
Post #338,755 by beepster 1/17/11 8:51:12 PM Reply	Re: National Pigeon Association? No party affiliation. But methinks you may have guessed that already Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #338,675 by crazy 1/16/11 6:36:13 AM Reply	Errr That WAS a hell of a side historical attack.
Post #338,627 by Another Scott 1/14/11 11:28:15 PM Reply	I see. It's just words. "Sticks and Stones", eh? "Freedom" is the metric for you. You say: You see, I happen to think that freedom means I have every right to say what I want, with reason, and you have every right to not like it...[...] Rather absolutist, but you include "with reason" (I assume you meant "within reason") as wiggle room. What qualifies as "within reason" to you? Does society and do individuals have rights other than freedom of expression that need to be balanced in this situation? I think so. I believe in a social contract (but not necessarily a doctrinaire Social Contract). I think many of the tea-party-aligned candidates went over the line in the last election. The genuine battle of ideas that is essential in our political system can't occur when implicit threats of violence are a major part of the rhetoric. Yelling back and forth in such an environment of intimidation isn't freedom. I think we all are aware that freedom of speech and expression is precious and I don't think people who think about it carefully are advocating draconian laws against incitement. But it's naive to argue that language doesn't matter. Dehumanizing and eliminationist language is dangerous and should not be tolerated in political discourse. History tells us that Language is more than just Words. For example - http://www.informawo...ontent=a743739870 My $0.02. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #338,640 by beepster 1/15/11 11:42:02 AM Reply	what line, The fire in a crowded theater line? Not a chance. So here we will differ. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!