Adam Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I remember a lot of hate directed at Bush from the left. Where was this call for an end to rhetoric then? I think BOTH sides need to cool it. They BOTH are guilty of perpetuating hate. There is no innocent side in this war of words between the left and right. Agreed. I remember how much I hated Bush. Took some time to learn how to settle that down. Unfortunately, this country doesn't have the will or patience to learn to do that. They don't have the will or patience to do much of anything- including shouldering the blame for all that is going on.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Agreed. I remember how much I hated Bush. Took some time to learn how to settle that down. Unfortunately, this country doesn't have the will or patience to learn to do that. They don't have the will or patience to do much of anything- including shouldering the blame for all that is going on. Which means stuff like the wars and 911. ?? How dare you lay ANY blame on us! ;)
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) I want my sheriffs to sheriff, too. Part of that job is telling people to cool it. Perhaps, but by far the LARGEST part of that job is finding EVIDENCE to prove what you are saying is true, about anyone. Q. What do you call a sheriff with no evidence? A. A political buffoon that is demagoguing, and complaining about demagoguing, at the same time. If you want your sheriff to sheriff, tell him to focus on job #1: get some evidence before he runs his mouth. So, jboy, oh wise one, you can draw that conclusion? How? Because the kid is described as having smoked dope? Listening to his iPod? Are you as big a lunatic as you come off, that you can interpret the kids ramblings as being "liberal"? And, "a pretty far left liberal" to boot? Is it his ramblings about the illiteracy amongst the voters in his area? How are you coming to this conclusion? Your argument makes no more sense, and is based on as much stereotyping as you are accusing Dupnik, and Offsides of using... Speaking of rambling: Buftex decided to post. The kid was called "liberal" by someone who knew him, but she also says she hasn't seen him since 2007. That's why the liberal thing came up. But at least you aren't stereotyping. You are just combining your poor reading comprehension and standard idiocy here, as per normal. I have to ask...If Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are going to turn me into a killer, does that mean Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are going to turn me into a pansy? This is definitely a question for Buftex, as this is by far the most likely poster to accurately describe the Olbermann effect. Edited January 12, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Adam Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It isn't Limbagh, Olbermann, Fox or MSNBC's fault. They all are awful though. I am sure Sarah Palin regrets the bullseye thing right now and feels as bad about what happened as we do- the bullseye is a symptom of what is wrong here, not the cause. We have come to like conflict, vulgarity and violence way to much. And too many act like psychos and are incapable of good debate, without being offended by the other side. .
RkFast Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It isn't the fault of the right, it was a complete lunatic. But the fact remains that this idiot country is becoming more and more radicalized and full of anger and hate by the day. Our country is horribly broken, and neither side wants to fix it. Not for nothing, but could it be a ton of peope are REALLY pissed off becuase some political novice and his merry band of children declared they are going to "change" the Country in a way those people want no part of? Hey Barry and you libs...you want a pice of everything I own and to control everything in my life and youre SHOCKED Im pissed off about that? Really?
Gary M Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Perhaps, but by far the LARGEST part of that job is finding EVIDENCE to prove what you are saying is true, about anyone. Q. What do you call a sheriff with no evidence? A. A political buffoon that is demagoguing, and complaining about demagoguing, at the same time. If you want your sheriff to sheriff, tell him to focus on job #1: get some evidence before he runs his mouth. And the evidence was this guy was a nut case and the sheriff knew it before this happened. They had runs in with him before, and never charged him with anything.
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 And the evidence was this guy was a nut case and the sheriff knew it before this happened. They had runs in with him before, and never charged him with anything. Simply being a nut case isn't illegal. Fortunately for most of us.
Rob's House Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sheriff Dupe-nik is a piece of ****. Whether or not the shooter was influenced by right-wingers is irrelevant. At the time that Sheriff (*^*&%^$^#came out with his statement he had no evidence to support his assertion. When pressed he offered none still. Then when this is pointed out by the people he was making baseless inflamatory comments about, he cries like a kitty because they're "inflaming people" against him and he's the "voice of reason". Apparently "voice of reason" in the world of the feel-good knee jerk lib is the voice that just throws accusations at real people based on the prejudices of the speaker.
erynthered Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_146 http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040#
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sheriff Dupe-nik is a piece of ****. Whether or not the shooter was influenced by right-wingers is irrelevant. At the time that Sheriff (*^*&%^$^#came out with his statement he had no evidence to support his assertion. When pressed he offered none still. Then when this is pointed out by the people he was making baseless inflamatory comments about, he cries like a kitty because they're "inflaming people" against him and he's the "voice of reason". Apparently "voice of reason" in the world of the feel-good knee jerk lib is the voice that just throws accusations at real people based on the prejudices of the speaker. I am glad that he pointed out that the rhetoric has gotten out of control. Good for him. And fact of the matter is that no one truly knows why this kid did what he did.
Peevo Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 It isn't Limbagh, Olbermann, Fox or MSNBC's fault. They all are awful though. I am sure Sarah Palin regrets the bullseye thing right now and feels as bad about what happened as we do- the bullseye is a symptom of what is wrong here, not the cause. We have come to like conflict, vulgarity and violence way to much. And too many act like psychos and are incapable of good debate, without being offended by the other side. . I think that's true to a point. Thousands of years ago the Romans sicked animals and humans against each other to the death for sport. With people getting crippled and permanently brain damaged on the football field, in the UFC cage, how much has REALLY changed? We've always loved violence. It's as American as apple pie and racism. But your point rings true. By and large, its the extremist on BOTH sides of the spectrum speaking the loudest, and thus get heard the most. It's sad that if you happen to think we spend too much money on foreign wars you're a "liberal kitty." Or if you want to cut back on entitlement spending you're a "facist racist who hates the plight of the poor." The truth lies in the middle. But it doesn't make for good talk radio or cable tv. Everything is in absolutes with the talking heads. It's not fair. You really think Barack Obama wasn't born on US soil? You really think Bush wanted to destroy our country? Why can't we give any of these people any credit? I know, I know, I'm a "!@#$ing idiot." I forgot.
Rob's House Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I am glad that he pointed out that the rhetoric has gotten out of control. Good for him. And fact of the matter is that no one truly knows why this kid did what he did. So you're glad he pointed out that the rhetoric has gotten out of control while taking the rhetoric to an even more extreme and ridiculous place than it already was? Thousands of years ago the Romans sicked animals and humans against each other to the death for sport. Or as Michael Vick calls them, the good old days.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 So you're glad he pointed out that the rhetoric has gotten out of control while taking the rhetoric to an even more extreme and ridiculous place than it already was? Or as Michael Vick calls them, the good old days. So what part of this do you disagree with? Mr. Dupnik called the shooting a "very sad day for Tucson" and a "horrendous, horrendous, senseless, unbelievable crime." And then he blamed the crime on the rhetoric -- presumably political rhetoric -- in the country. "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Mr. Dupnik said it is time for the country to "do a little soul searching." He added: "The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business ... This has not become the nice United States that most of us grew up in." Later, he said: "It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. That's the sad thing about what's going on in America: pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people willing to subject themselves to serve in public office." I'll say that calling Arizona the "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." is a bit much.
Rob's House Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 So what part of this do you disagree with? I thought I was pretty clear, but I'll explain again. I have a big problem with anyone making grand accusations based on NOTHING but their prejudices. I have an even bigger problem when it's a sheriff who's supposed to be ivestigating a case rather than participating in political grand standing. The problem becomes worse when he's so hypocritical as to make inflamatory rhetoric condemning inflamatory rhetoric. Not to mention politicising an event that led to the death of a 9 year old girl just to win some political points, and yeah, I have a big God damn problem.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I thought I was pretty clear, but I'll explain again. I have a big problem with anyone making grand accusations based on NOTHING but their prejudices. I have an even bigger problem when it's a sheriff who's supposed to be ivestigating a case rather than participating in political grand standing. The problem becomes worse when he's so hypocritical as to make inflamatory rhetoric condemning inflamatory rhetoric. Not to mention politicising an event that led to the death of a 9 year old girl just to win some political points, and yeah, I have a big God damn problem. Granted he shouldn't have stated that the shooter acted because of some sort of political statement. And let's face it, this Sheriff wasn't going to be investigating anything. That would be the FBI. I do not think he made his statement in order to gain political points. The point of his statement was very true though.
Rob's House Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Granted he shouldn't have stated that the shooter acted because of some sort of political statement. And let's face it, this Sheriff wasn't going to be investigating anything. That would be the FBI. I do not think he made his statement in order to gain political points. The point of his statement was very true though. The point of his statement was "look what the right has caused". I'd take the charges of "vitriolic rhetoric" a little more seriously if it hadn't been ignored and denied throughout the Bush years. And the Keith Olbermann and Jeneane Garofolo types are much more vitriolic and hateful than Rush Limbaugh, et al. That's why when I hear someone say "hate radio" I immediately know that I'm listening to an idiot.
pBills Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The point of his statement was "look what the right has caused". I'd take the charges of "vitriolic rhetoric" a little more seriously if it hadn't been ignored and denied throughout the Bush years. And the Keith Olbermann and Jeneane Garofolo types are much more vitriolic and hateful than Rush Limbaugh, et al. That's why when I hear someone say "hate radio" I immediately know that I'm listening to an idiot. Sorry I didn't take it as something that was only happening on the right. I definitely will not agree with you about Olberman and Garofolo (a nobody) being more hateful than Rush, et al. There all about the same to me. Just face the fact much of all their programs radio/tv are about stoking emotions. And that statement covers Olberman, Rush, Beck, etc., etc.
/dev/null Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Thousands of years ago the Romans sicked animals and humans against each other to the death for sport. I have a vewy good fwiend in Wome. His name is Bigus Dickus.
DC Tom Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Sorry I didn't take it as something that was only happening on the right. I definitely will not agree with you about Olberman and Garofolo (a nobody) being more hateful than Rush, et al. There all about the same to me. Just face the fact much of all their programs radio/tv are about stoking emotions. And that statement covers Olberman, Rush, Beck, etc., etc. Garafolo is definitely more hateful than Limbaugh. Fortunately, like you said, a nobody.
meazza Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I am glad that he pointed out that the rhetoric has gotten out of control. Good for him. And fact of the matter is that no one truly knows why this kid did what he did. So if no one really knows why, then what does the rhetoric have to do with anything? As bad as this forum is, it isn't as bad as someone blaming Mossad on another forum I saw because this (*^*&%^$^#had Jewish friends.
Recommended Posts