birdog1960

just watched tonights pbs newshour (recorded). shields and brooks had an excellent discussion of this issue along with two guest academics. these two (brooks and shields) really should be the role models for political discourse in this country. for what it's worth, i thought brooks made the more compelling case (and he's the conservative although probably not conservative enough for many posters here). the prof from yale was asked if she thought any positive change might come from this tragedy. she cited the 16th street baptist church bombing where some crazy person killed several innocent young girls in the middle of the civil rights era. government and societal values and laws were reexamined because of this with changes resulting that i hope all would agree were good for the country. let's hope for similar good results from this tragedy. i won't link as it's available on pbs.com.

maybe the distinction between crosshairs and target shooting targets is a bit subtle for you. unfortunately, your rhetoric is a bit less than subtle, too. in fact, some might describe it as vitriol. i would be embarrassed if i had to curse to make a point. you seem very angry. as caveman said: "stay classy".

i didn't like that, either. they should have nailed the thugs on that. but what of tea party intimidation at town hall meetings on health care? screaming down any and all that disagreed with them. the antithesis of civility. there are plenty of examples of intimidation available and they're all lamentable.

looks like sarkozy and other g20 leaders agree with TPS reuters will soon see what results from it.

no, i did and i feel it's entirely appropriate for much of the stuff passed of as entertainment or commentary.

what, crosshairs on congressional districts (which she is now saying were not meant to depict rifle sights) and "reload" aren't enough for you? they're more than enough for me and they bothered gifford (and her father who when asked if she had any enemies said "the entire tea party) too.

um, she was a vice presidential candidate put forth by a supposedly moderate republican presidential candidate. she was a repub governor. like it or not, she is a republican leader.

didn't see a single dem leader there. certainly not someone being considered as a candidate for pres. looked like looney losers to me. hell, even rockefeller repubs (don't ya miss them?) had some nuts in their midst.

no. their biggest will be inviting the teabaggers to the party. for all the fighting back about the democrats rhetoric also being vitriolic, it pales in comparison to an ex vice presidential candidate and kaufman/west. these are main stream republicans. this would be analogous to the dems embracing the black panthers and endorsing their candidates for high office. the scope and scale of militant extremism in the mainstreams of the parties are not remotely comparable.

i don't recall anyone calling this a new phenomenon nor calling limpbaugh a lightweight. everyone knows he's fat.

maybe this will give you a better idea kaufman in fairness it looks like she was threatened as well but that's hardly surprising given her rhetoric. not excusing it though.

sadly, it appears kaufman is rather well liked in the teaparty. rep allen west offered her the chief of staff position on his new staff. how can this not be seen as extremist?

"if ballots don't work bullets will"- florida radio host joyce kaufman before a tea party rally.

if only it were petty politics but this is a profound divide tearing at the fabric of the nation and exacerbated by opportunistic, cynical, irresponsible pols and their minions on both sides.

the term "rabble rouser" has been around for a long rime. interestingly, the rabble rarely can identify themselves at the time.

no it didn't. i think i beat the sheriff to the punch. the fact that its been done before doesn't make it any less reprehensible. who knows, some heads on pikes on the tower gates in london may have resulted from such publications. the target was clearly the congresswoman. it's on the national news because it was an assassination attempt. everyone mourns the loss of the girl but that doesn't change the fact that this was a political event.

he's absolutely correct about the fact that limpbaugh, hannity, o'reilly et al's actions do have consequences and most often they are not good. whetner they are tied in with this act, i have no idea but i expect the sheriff knows a bit more about the case than you or me.

so you think they would have been worse this year by signing peppers or dansby or vick?

all violence against office holders is by definition political. they are victims of violence as a consequence of there public service. they would not be targeted if they weren't in politics. did you think the murdered abortion doctor was randomly chosen for attack just because it was a nut that killed him? we don't know much yet about this horrible act. but i think everyone can agree that the vitriol spread by the vermin on hate radio doesn't help foster civil discourse in politics or life in general.

he also makes the appreciation of the asset which has been significant and could be more if he produced a decent team. but really the point i was making is that he's smart enough to make that kind of money on his investment but not to assemble a single team in 50 years that wins a superbowl? i don't think so. maybe he is just an awful football man but i would argue that it's more about priorities and choices and winning a sb just isn't near as high as making money (which he continues to do with a horrible product). btw, if at 92, money is not important but winning is why is he not blowing the bank to obtain a winner?

wanna let us al know what $50000 investment we can make now will be worth $900 mil in 50 years?

about this? but what is the small investor to do if: a. these vultures successfully prey on index funds b. actively managed funds lose to index funds about 70% of the time and charge large fees c. hedge funds take big chunks of roi as profit there doesn't appear to be a good option for the "dumb money" that likely constitutes the vast majority of 401k's and therefore the vast majority of US retirement money. the vultures are getting rich by assuring that a significant proportion of hard working, diligently saving americans will retire with less than they planned and less than they need. am i missing something or should we all just give up saving and spend?

yeah. you could really feel the respect and love from his contemporary, bud adams, last year when he flipped him off. and i'll bet wilson savors seeing his teams laughed at by other teams players and coaches. i don't think he ever wanted it to go this badly but he has also never been (or at most for short periods in the distant past) highly committed to fielding the best football team possible.

most of the scumbags we're talking about never approach "debtor" status...there are way too many loopholes and legal protections for that. if you rob a bank with a gun, you will go to jail for a long time. if you rob it from the inside, ilke those mentioned in the article at merril, you get rich.

right. no american goes to bed hungry, cold, wet, or sick without available treatment. and the tooth fairy leaves money under their pillows when there teeth rot out.