Political Assassination (Domestic Terrorism)

Mr. Hendricks:

What evidence is there that this individual was influenced in any way by "Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly"? I didn't see any of their books on his reading list.

Did you see his rambling YouTube videos? They seem so incredibly alien for a REASON. He is very clearly insane. While conservatives and liberals may each accuse each other of being insane, that perceived insanity pales in comparison with THIS. This level of insanity makes political orientation irrelevant, because it has a language all its own. I'm sure the assassin's bizarre screeds make perfect sense to him. Just not to anyone else.

And you might consider it a GOOD thing that his politics can be written off, overwhelmed by his obvious severe mental illness.

....because the people who actually KNEW him are very clearly labeling him a leftist.

excellent retort, Mr McPhillips. However, I wouldnt expect any liberal idealogue to lend it any credence.

Quick to point fingers I see. No shock here. Crazy is crazy. Blaming Palin and Beck is asinine. Their are reports out that this guy was a liberal, just like you. It wouldn't matter though, you will still blame the right for this tragedy because you are driven by hate, and hate alone.

http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-i...

Yesterday's events were absolutely horrible. Rep. Gifford and the others wounded and the families of those slain are in our prayers...ans undoubtedly in the prayers of those Mike listed, also. Let us remember that the right had called for nothing more violent than voting!

However, sadly, our left is currently doing their best to enrage someone into a violent act against any outspoken conservative.

Mike is actually doing exactly what he accuses Palin and others of doing...but he is doing so ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT SPEECH CAUSES VIOLENCE.

You've painted with a pretty broad brush here Michael. To condemn an action (abortion, your example) or to condemn a person's political stance, on either side of the aisle, is not tantamount to pulling the trigger and condemning the person to death. You need to apologize for saying otherwise.

The best thing mike could do is pull this hate post, but he wont:( how sad! I will be one calling the gazette tomorrow requesting that he is pulled. DISCUSSING!

Nice to see you aren't wasting this tradgedy, mike! Good idea to blame without knowing any facts!

That was sarcasm by the way.

Remington, don't worry mike has a history of pulling blogs when he makes a fool out of himself.

Following video is at a Tea Party rally. What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0&feature=player_embedded

If this is true Mike, you need to remove yourself.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shoo...

It really interests me all the posts demanding that I take this blog down, especially after all the cries months back about violations of freedom of speech when comments were taken down.

I don't feel anything that I said in this blog was out of bounds. When a politician puts up a website targeting politicians with bullseyes and then one of them is actually shot there is a link there.

When a national talking head continually says that a doctor performing abortions should be dealt with and then someone shoots and kills the doctor there is a link.

I also find it interesting how what I wrote was called disgusting and that my blog should be taken down, my question here is where were you when posters openly celebrated (on this blog) the deaths of Michael Jackson and Senator Ted Kennedy? Where was the outrage then?

Bison, you get on to me for being quick to point fingers then within the very same post you call the guy a liberal. Apparently pointing fingers by me, bad. Pointing fingers by you, good.

Owen, can you link to any of these supposed reports? The only things I have heard that were on his reading list were a book by Marx and a book by Hitler. That hardly makes him a leftist, whatever that may be.

On both your points it is very illuminating that I was specifically talking about politicians and talking heads and both of you, and several other posters are jumping over themselves to paint this domestic terrorist and political assassin as a liberal. I never once said whether I believed the coward to be liberal or conservative. You guys have taken that upon yourself. If Owen, as you say, politics doesn't matter because he was so out there then why even mention any reports about his political beliefs.

And MrsSmith, dear MrsSmith:

"However, sadly, our left is currently doing their best to enrage someone into a violent act against any outspoken conservative."

Do you have any proof of this, because I am a liberal (left as you call it), and I know of no one that is trying to enrage anyone into a violent act on anyone regardless of their political ideology. I would say that I wait with baited breath for your reply, but it won't come.

"BASIS OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT SPEECH CAUSES VIOLENCE"

If you honestly believe that speech can not cause violence and that it is just an assumption to believe so then you are clearly blind to the real world and to world and US History.

The bottom line here, though, for me is that for all the shouts of freedom of speech from my conservative friends over the past couple of years to suddenly turn around and demand that I take my blog down because I spoke my mind and called out those that I believe, at the very least, to be partly responsible for the actions in Arizona.

Exactly why should I remove myself CPB? Because of what one of his classmates said? You are trying so hard to paint this assassin as a liberal you are missing the forest for the trees. The guy was not there in the head and he was susceptible to eliminationist and hate rhetoric coming from the political sphere and television.

Seriously, you all are wanting me to remove my blog on the assumption of something you think I believe. I never painted the assassin in any kind of political stripe yet you continue to fall over yourselves trying to paint him as a liberal.

The exact same thing that happens every time that a tragedy occurs where someone guns down someone else (Dr. Tiller, the Holocaust Museum) or flies a plane into a federal building (IRS building in Texas) you immediately try everything to paint him as a liberal.

At least one talking head has made a public statement about what his words can do.

Keith Olbermann said on Saturday that "I apologize for and repudiate any act or anything in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47252.html#ixzz1AbxcQnbD

Whether or not this means he will tone down his rhetoric remains to be seen. It is nice and refreshing though to see someone at least take responsibility for their rhetoric.

"And you are trying to use it to score political points!"

Okay first off, what political points could I be possibly looking to score ocho? I'm not a politician and I'm not running for office so that comment was just weird.

Secondly, yes I know how dare I politicize a political assassination and political assassination attempt.

And finally you can be partly responsible, Ocho, and still have blood on your hands.

What exactly was I wrong about?

Since that has not been proven or disproven I don't know how you can "jump to conclusions" and assume I am wrong.

While we are on the subject, if you truly think that this assassin shot her without any political ideology then why are you also not going after the posters that want to paint this guy as nothing but a liberal?

It seems you can talk a good game when going after me but you don't follow it up when other posters are doing the same thing, except they go after liberals.

Well isn't that nice I ask you a very simple question of why since you don't think politics are involved why aren't you going after any of the posters falling over themselves to paint this assassin as a liberal and you respond by not so slyly suggesting that I am in the same boat as the guy.

Of course you base that off your own preconceptions about me that have little basis in fact and more to do with dreamed up ideas of who I am.

Man, I've heard of avoiding the question but this takes the cake.

Okay so while I was typing in my response you did response so I retract saying that you avoided the question and I apologize.

And you might consider it a GOOD thing that his politics can be written off, overwhelmed by his obvious severe mental illness.

....because the people who actually KNEW him are very clearly labeling him a leftist.

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 1:25 PM

Their are reports out that this guy was a liberal, just like you.

-- Posted by BisonAlum00 on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 1:57 PM

If this is true Mike, you need to remove yourself.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyf...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 11:48 PM

By the way the link was to a story about a supposed classmate of the assassins who called him a liberal pothead.

Now that I have re-read your response I realize that you did completely avoid the question. I asked why, if you believe politics or political ideology had nothing to do with this, were you not going after the posters who were painting the assassin as a liberal? Your response to that question was to say that none of the posters were trying to blame liberals or going after liberals. Had my question been why aren't you going after the posters blaming liberals your response would have been absolutely corect.

Since you have still not answered the question I will pose it to you again. Why, since you believe this assassination attempt to not be political are you not going after the posters who are saying that he was a liberal or a leftist?

"A prime example is the posting on Daily Kos! But then, you agree with their leftist agenda, so you are more than willing to give them a "pass!"

-- Posted by ochosinco on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 2:49 PM

How strange it is that you think I am so horrible I am for giving a diarist on the DailyKos a pass yet you follow that up with giving every poster on here that has suggested that the assassin was a liberal or a leftist (again whatever that may be) a pass despite your repeated posts declaring that this political assassination was not political and it wasn't about liberal and conservative.

It's just one lone nut. The problem for me is this excuse is getting used more and more with every act of terrorism.

Mr. Hendricks:

The source I saw was the twitter account of Catie Parker, as referenced by "Chunky Peanut Butter". I saw it on her Twitter page, early on as the news was unfolding, before it was taken down.

I also saw the account of another of his classmates, which was quite similar.

I believe I've made it quite clear that I believe the political orientation of the assassin to be irrelevant. It's irrelevant because "totally batsh!t crazy" does not appear on any political spectrum of which I am aware.

It just seems to me that the "mainstream media" and left-leaning blogosphere all seem to be leaning in the same direction, to the point of saying or implying the EXACT same things - that this miscreant was a "teabagger" influenced by any number of right-wing pundits, particularly Sarah Palin.

(I thought it was the "RIGHT" who used "talking points".....)

Having seen the screenshots of this nut's MySpace page, his YouTube videos, and the accounts of classmates, the only thing that is ABUNDANTLY clear is that he was mentally disturbed.

He is also quite clearly an atheist, pot-smoking reader of The Communist Manifesto who likes to burn the American flag. Doesn't exactly fit the image of your average Religious Right wing-nut teabagger, now, does it?

Squeaky Fromme was a lone nut, and tried to shoot Ford. John Hinckley was a lone nut, and DID shoot Reagan. It has always happened, and will always happen.

The loudest voices these folks hear are the ones inside their own heads.

You haven't made anything abundantly clear Owen. You spend the better part of your post trying to pain this guy as a left-leaning individual. Saying that the guy is crazy does not account for the rest of your post. He did read the Communist Manifesto. He also read Mein Kampf, why don't you include that? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the author of the book was a conservative leaning man.

Again, I couldn't care less what his political leanings were. He was apparently a very sick person who wasn't thinking straight. People like this are easily convinced to think and even do things by what they see coming from the talking heads and politicos.

We must be watching very different programming because the news I have seen so far from the main-stream media has been much more focused on the victim side than the political side.

I have serious questions about "Catie Parker" because this person was only saying this on Twitter and so far has not issued any interviews or even information on who she is.

Interesting that you only go after the left-leaning blogosphere. You talk a good game about this not being political (much like cinco) but you don't follow through with it, you only go after liberals. What about the email that was sent out by TPN founder Judson Phillips instructing his members to refer to the assassin as a "leftist lunatic"?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/tea-party-group-blames-lefti...

Again if you want to believe that politics and political leanings have nothing to do with this that's fine but at least go after both sides for their vitriol.

For me, this was a political assassination attempt and I believe the links to it are clear. Whether or not the case bears that out remains to be seen. For me, though, when you put up a webpage that puts crosshairs on Democratic Senators, when you talk about "reloading", when you talk about armed revolution words and images have repercussions.

The problem with your examples is that they were isolated instances. What we are seeing is, I believe, a growing trend. Three domestic terror attacks in two years is not isolated.

Mike,

this truly is a new low for you. It is vile that anyone would be using this to try and score points off of this tragedy. EITHER SIDE! that being said, you opened this pandora's box on this blog. You are responsible here. The whole, 'the other side does as bad or worse!' argument is juvanile and pathetic. I expect better from even you, although this is perhaps wishful thinking on my part.

"Did you see his rambling YouTube videos? They seem so incredibly alien for a REASON. He is very clearly insane. While conservatives and liberals may each accuse each other of being insane, that perceived insanity pales in comparison with THIS. This level of insanity makes political orientation irrelevant, because it has a language all its own. I'm sure the assassin's bizarre screeds make perfect sense to him. Just not to anyone else."

"It's irrelevant because "totally batsh!t crazy" does not appear on any political spectrum of which I am aware."

"Having seen the screenshots of this nut's MySpace page, his YouTube videos, and the accounts of classmates, the only thing that is ABUNDANTLY clear is that he was mentally disturbed."

How many times must I say it, and in how many different ways, Mr. Hendricks, before I make my meaning clear to you?

Regarding the mainstream media, have you not heard much mention of Palin and "violent rhetoric" there, when they speak of this event?

Mr. Hendricks, there is MUCH rhetoric in politics which could be considered "violent", on all sides, if one were inclined to view it as such. Someone provided a whole list of Obama quotes to illustrate that point. I'd add the thought that the run-up to an election is called a CAMPAIGN, just as a series of battles, geared toward a specific purpose, is in WAR.

Words do have consequences - it is the most common way we all use to communicate our thoughts - good or bad.

Sometimes words are spoken to produce a desired outcome - to sway opinions or mislead a person into believing something that is not factually true.

My real concern is that many people from all political beliefs, have somehow managed to refocus the underlying fear, anger, and confusion against our very form of government.

When we go to any school sporting event it is very evident that taunting or threatening your opponent in any manner -- now or in the future - is absolutely not acceptable behavior. Yet these same accountability standards do not seem to apply in the political arena. Do we have one set of acceptable standards we teach our youth -- and another set we utilize as adults? The transition from one set of values to another set of values is where the problems are occurring. We cannot expect our youth to carry the values we as a country teach them, if we as adults do not adhere to the same set of values.

QUOTE:"Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by...Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urg...

YES, MIKE, THERE IS PROOF. Your post is proof.

You seriously believe that Palin's SPEECH caused this disaster...then you turn around and duplicate Palin's speech.

YOU are doing the same thing Palin did!!! The only difference is that Palin knows that speech does not cause violence.

You, however, believe that speech DOES cause violence, so what are you doing when you name names and assign blame?

If conservative speech causes violence, how can liberal speech NOT do the same? You can't have it both ways, Mike.

Liberal speech is to blame for the deaths of military recruiters. Liberal speech is to blame for every incident of environmental violence. Liberal speech is to blame for every hate crime on Christians. Liberal speech is to blame for inciting race-based violence. We know this is true because YOU say so. Speech = violence, according to MIKE.

A more clear picture begins to develop;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/scary-world-jared-loughner-dems-targe...

MSM, the breeding ground of hypocrisy;

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urg...

A "target" list from the Daily Kos;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

Much more anger from the left;

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=249273

Speech can cause violence. If you don't believe that your an idiot. Plain and simple.

Palin had no discernible influence on this person.Everything that I have read shows he was a mentally unstable person. His political affiliation has nothing to do with the actions he took.

Hate speech is espoused by both those on the right and the left. This I have no arguments against. The bigger picture however is that the left has no one that even comes close to the right in regards to it.

I offer the following for your consideration:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Or, perhaps you prefer this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/palin.noose/

Why does Ocho have to end every post with...

JUST SAYIN'???

just sayin'

Once again Mike, comprehension is not your strong suit. You point fingers at Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc... without having any facts to support your accusations. You jumping to conclusions to blame the right wing media = bad. Me using the information available to state there are reports that this guy is a liberal = good.

"Palin had no discernible influence on this person.Everything that I have read shows he was a mentally unstable person. His political affiliation has nothing to do with the actions he took."

Riggghhtt...especially since he's not a Tea party member. I'm having a hard time believing this was just a random act of violence and his political views, as crazy as they might have been, had nothing to do with it. Can you imagine the uproar in the media if there was an actual link to this guy and the Tea party? They went nuts speculating about it as it is. If he is a Tea partier, he would have been labled the "norm." If he is liberal, he is just an extremist nut case.

@Owen Please, do you believe that in the incidents you have put up compare with the amount of exposure that Hannity, Beck, Palin, ect get on the national stage?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/1016/Did-Glenn-Beck-s-rhetoric-inspire...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3405336/S...

This just popped up today, and is more humorous than anything.

http://twitter.com/Bristol_Palin/status/24175501618716672

@BisonAlum00 Would a link like that surprise you? Do you find it odd the media is looking for links like that based on some of the people in the Tea Party, or some of the ravings of the politicians claiming to represent it?

Sorry I didn't bring anything to the conversation... I was

Just Sayin'

"@Owen Please, do you believe that in the incidents you have put up compare with the amount of exposure that Hannity, Beck, Palin, ect get on the national stage?"

Oh, PLEASE, Damu!

Who, exactly, do you think is GIVING them such exposure on the national stage?

Hannity has a talk radio show in the afternoon, and a TV show at some time in the evening. Beck has a TV show, LATE in the evening. Palin, last I heard, had a "reality" TV show. I have no idea when that is/was on.

There's nothing there in "prime time".

I'm pretty sure that the VAST majority of Americans hear FAR more ABOUT these pundits than FROM them. Especially Palin, who KEEPS getting free coverage in the media.

Seems to me that the media has already chosen her as the 2012 GOP Presidential candidate, and is keeping the pressure on.

I'm not impressed by Palin. Sure, she's got some executive experience, and talks a good limited government, fiscally conservative game, but I'm simply not a fan of social conservatism.

Was I right or was I right Owen?

The leftist hypocrites are alive and well. Mike is a shiny, smelly pile of an example how these bafoons will stop at nothing to blame conservatives for all the nations problems and trajedies.

How dare you Mike. You are as sick and twisted as any person that has evern blogged here to lay blame on people other than this psycho for what he did.

You, in your holier than thou and ingnorant rant, have done the very same thing in laying the blame on those you don't like as you claim they have done.

You truly are a hack and need to find some sort of outlet for your hatred of people who don't share your opinion instead of coming here and masquarading as someone who "gets it" while no one else does.

I'm not impressed at all with your "very predictable" response to this trajedy. Only a libratard could realy see things in the sick light as you do. Shame shame shame.

God knows the Tea Party isn't politicizing the the political assassination, just fundraising off of it.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/tea-party-express-fundraises-off-giff...

A "target" list from the Daily Kos;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 10, 2011, at 12:00 PM

Really? This is your answer for a website that has bulls eyes on Congresspeople? A website with a list?

Owen, you continually (whether purposefully or not) continue to miss my point with you. You stated twice that politics had not play in this (political) assassination and then asserted twice that the guy was probably a liberal or a "leftist".

My point of contention is not whether he is a nutcase it's that you said there was no place for politics and then decided from one Twitter account that he was a liberal. If you truly are going to stand by your convictions that politics played no role in this assassination and assassination attempt then there should have never been any mention of what political stripe he was.

ALL political organizations do fundraising at any and all times, for any reason, or for no reason at all. I believe someone else may have already posted a link to a liberal organization doing the same thing....only first. If not, I'll see about finding it.

Are you surprised? I'm not. As the world's SECOND oldest profession, politics bears a striking resemblance to the FIRST.

Mr. Hendricks, and Damu, where was all the media outrage over all THIS:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustra...

"Owen, you continually (whether purposefully or not) continue to miss my point with you. You stated twice that politics had not play in this (political) assassination and then asserted twice that the guy was probably a liberal or a "leftist"."

Perhaps you are missing MY point. This guy appears to have been SO crazy that his thoughts in the arena of politics would likely have no similarity whatsoever to either mine or yours, nor those of any sane person, for that matter.

As far as it being a "political" assassination, it would depend on what you mean by that. Was it an assassination of a political figure? Certainly. Was it a politically-MOTIVATED assassination? Doubtful - again, in the sense of what politics means to you, me, or any other sane person.

And if, as most people agree, the shooter is insane, what difference does it really make whether you point fingers of implied blame at The Right(tm), or if I respond in kind by pointing fingers of implied blame at The Left(tm)? Crazy is crazy. There's no letter after its name.

If this bothers you so much, Mr. Hendricks, I'll offer you a deal. We'll go in order of who said what. If you acknowledge that you were wrong in impugning Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly (none of whom were THERE), I will acknowledge that I was wrong in impugning The Left(tm) by the very same sort of tenuous association.

"My point of contention is not whether he is a nutcase it's that you said there was no place for politics and then decided from one Twitter account that he was a liberal. If you truly are going to stand by your convictions that politics played no role in this assassination and assassination attempt then there should have never been any mention of what political stripe he was."

In the same manner as there should have never been any mention of the four names you very specifically mentioned?

Might I remind you that everything that has been said in this post has stemmed from YOURS?

Mike, I do believe Sarah Palin's map featured crosshairs on Rep. Giffords district, not on her. Unlike Keith Olberman, who had actual picture of his targets in the crosshairs.

Justin, never has so little been said in such a long rant. I mean, seriously, all your post was you attempting to get the most amount of insults in as possible.

You sure have gone a long way from wanting protection of speech to wanting people to shut up for speaking their mind.

It really doesn't surprise me, you suffer from the same thinking issues that Cinco does. Assuming you know what other people are thinking and then attacking them for doing so, even if they have never said it.

Once again, I haven't blamed "conservatives" for anything. I have simply said that the above mentioned people have said and done things in the past that had lead to some horrible acts. I not one time said conservative, Republicans, the TEA Party, rightists were responsible for this act.

The funny thing is you, and other posters, don't care that I didn't say it you believe I did say it so you are getting all twisted in knots getting angry, disgusted, and sick over words I have not said. Job well done.

Oh okay this defense CPB, because it was just on her district and not specifically on her it's not as bad.

Speaking of people not saying things....

"you said there was no place for politics"

I don't recall that. I did say that I thought his insanity made his political orientation irrelevant, but not that there was no place for politics.

Hell, it's abundantly clear that there's ALWAYS a place and time for politics, no matter what side of the political fence you're looking at.

Yes, Owen I do realize that, it's my blog. But again just because I specifically mentioned those people meant in no way that I was blaming conservatives. The words never crossed my fingertips. You had the very first post on here and you quickly decided that he was a "leftist".

Why was I forbidden from mentioning the four people I mentioned. I fully believe that their eliminationist rhetoric would and has called imbalanced people to perform acts they probably wouldn't and won't unless that rhetoric is out there.

I fully believe that this was a political assassination and political assassination attempt therefor I brought politics into it. You, however didn't believe it to be political in nature yet still felt the need to paint the terrorist in a political stripe that was different than yours.

personally, I'm still waiting for Michael to respond to ocho's list of inciteful hate speech. Is it being ignored, or do you truly not know the answer?

"But again just because I specifically mentioned those people meant in no way that I was blaming conservatives."

I am wondering if mike thinks that everyone else is a clueless idiot or he really doesn't read what he types. I don't know which is worse.

OMG Mike!!

You have finally gone round the bend. This is perhaps the funniest and most hypocritical thing I've ever seen from you, and trust me you bless us with a lot.

"Interesting that you only go after the left-leaning blogosphere." Who does this sound like, do we know someone who posts a blog and only criticizes conservatives? Somethings niggling at my memory here.

"Again if you want to believe that politics and political leanings have nothing to do with this that's fine but at least go after both sides for their vitriol."

Too rich! How nice to speak with you again Mr. Pot.

@Owen I've never seen that random site before. I don't actively seek out these things. However, fox news is nice enough to let me know on a near daily basis how the left is destroying american.

Also, I found this enlightening video on the difference between Repubs and liberals.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

Drop everything and allow the blog to be quiet for a few days. All of you are pathetic. Who raised this group. Show some respect for the dead and each other. You are proof of the problem in America. All sectors in the economy lost a lot of money during the crash creating much anger and fear. Start posting some good things or keep quiet.

Damu, I saw that video quite a long time ago.

Beyond its condescension, I believe that it is flawed because it only looks at the SOCIAL side of liberal/conservative disagreement.

Now, if we're straying slightly off topic, beyond conservative vitriol, let's go ahead and take one step farther and ask: if conservatives are so ANGRY, what are they so angry ABOUT?

The liberal whipping boy for The Angry Right(tm) is the teabaggers....er...tea partiers. Now, why would a "right-wing" organization call itself the "Tea Party"? Two possibilities spring immediately to mind: the Boston Tea Party, which was in essence a tax protest; and the notion that the "Tea" part is in fact an acronym -T.E.A - for "Taxed Enough Already".

That's about FISCAL conservatism, not SOCIAL conservatism, and therefore has little or nothing to do with the theory put forth in the video.

I'm not saying that there are no social conservatives involved in the TEA Party movement. (and it is more of a movement than a party - if you doubt that, just try and tell me who's in charge of ALL the "teabaggers") No, they've got plenty of them.....but not nearly all. I've participated in the local TEA Party movement, and I'm pretty definitely a social "liberal". I'm also considerably MORE conservative, fiscally, than most other members.

I'm just trying to point out - and "progressives" should be able to understand this - that the truth about The Right(tm) is just a little more.....NUANCED than you seem to think it is.

(and, yes, I used the derogative "teabaggers" to point out a bit of RHETORIC commonly used by The Left(tm)....)

BuffRoam:

You tell people to have some respect for the dead, and then you talk about a loss of MONEY?

Tell you what: since the market is DOWN, why don't you just BUY while you're sitting up there, above it all?

I've contacted the gazette sounds like they will be pulling mike! We dont need this hate speech!

Owen,

Take a break.

All right, BuffRoam.

Just one offering, in (temporary) parting:

I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.

I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.

I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.

I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system -- regardless of their underlying ideology -- whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.

I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

Remington, firecribbs, et al.

Lay of the "this blog should be pulled" crap, please. Let Mike or anyone say whatever they want so long as it is within the rules. The rules don't say he has to make sense or be coherent. They don't say he has to be fair or considerate.

If you don't like what he has to say there is an easy remedy, don't read it.

@Swneb An excellent call, censorship of any kind is abhorrent.

Yeah, Mike needs a place to vent his hate. The tension has been growing rapidly in this country ever since Obama starting telling these leftist loons to go get in your enemies faces or whatever. I'd hate to see another tragedy like this happening in, say Arkansas, for example.

I'm not really picking up where you guys are getting this "hate" from mikes article from. The points he made above are quite true. I honestly don't see where the "hate speech" decried about the article is coming from, perhaps one of you can point it out to me.

@BisonAlum00 Wtf. Listen to yourself, do you actually believe the nonsense that your espousing on this website right now? "Leftist Hate" I mean really does that make sense to you somehow? Actually, let me guess. Your a 40+ something white guy aren't you? It's very interesting the way racism rears it's ugly head in such a subtle way nowadays.

Both sides are guilty of hate speech. Is it really worth it to try and blame one side or the other for some loons actions? Wouldn't it be better to perhaps take this as a lesson that the political punditry and rhetoric should be toned down a bit? The way that many of the pundits talk it's difficult to separate the crazies from everyday people. I think it would be nice to make it a bit easier to make the distinction.

It doesn't matter if he was a right wing or left wing nut. All that matters is that he was a nut. Arguing over his politics (which is all speculation and no real substance, right now) is as foolish as arguing over whether Hinckley shot Reagan because of Jodie Foster or Jane Fonda. The guy was crazy, he was going to hurt somebody and it's the same with this guy. If he didn't find a political target then it would have been someone at his school or somewhere else. Would that have been better than what happened at the Safeway? I don't think so, regardless of the victim. Whether it's a member of Congress or an average citizen, it's equally tragic.

Personally, I find it sickening that people are even arguing over whether he was left wing or right wing. This tragedy was quickly politicized by people who still know nothing of the man who committed this attack except what tiny bit they hear on the news. He liked the Communist Manifesto but also liked Animal Farm which, politically speaking, is contradictory to one another and jumping to conclusions about anything is precipitous speculation.

I happen to agree with SWNEB; leave Michaels blog on the net for all to see. Most of us are intelligent enough to make up our own minds as to whether or not Michael makes any sense.

(An aside to DAMU; I may have misjudged you and for that, I apolgize. But I can tell from your postings that you and I are about 180 degrees different - and I am sure you can tell the same from my postings. I am not sure you are quite the idealogue that Michael appears to be.)

wtf does race have to do with this? Oh yeah, that's the ol' trump card the lefties try to play when they run out of ammunition. There are plenty of examples of "leftist hate" right above you. Mike's hatred of Republican oozes out of every blog and every comment he makes on here. I know this isn't the first blog of his you've read, so don't act so naive. Saying that some media pundits have blood on their hands and then specifically calling out right wing media members is a good example. Heaven forbid we wait until the facts come out. The guy had a letter from the gal locked away in a safe from 2007...long before Sarah Palin had a target map on facebook and long before the tea party was being bashed by MSNBC every five minutes.

@Ochosinco I tried pointing it out. I don't believe you get it though.

"I'm not really picking up where you guys are getting this "hate" from mikes article from. The points he made above are quite true. I honestly don't see where the "hate speech" decried about the article is coming from, perhaps one of you can point it out to me."

I was initially going to agree that Mr. Hendricks' INDIVIDUAL statements were, indeed, quite true, and it was merely the connections implied by the statements that were specious, a la Michael Moore. But then I gave those statements a second look.

*He is an inhuman being who, whether or not he was actually ill, was very susceptible to the political and eliminationist rhetoric that has been sweeping this land for a few years.*

What evidence exists to suggest such susceptibility?

*There are certain politicos and talking heads that have blood on their hands today, but they will be protected by their flocks and by the main stream media.*

What evidence exists to support this allegation? Surely such evidence would identify those persons by name, referenced by the killer himself. (I assume that Mr. Hendricks was not referring to Karl Marx or Adolf Hitler here)

*When you have a website that has 20 Democratic Senators targeted by gun sights and then one of those are actually shot you are just as guilty of (sic) the man who pulled the trigger.*

If the offense is not complete, and the guilt does not exist, UNTIL someone commits an act which is, in and of itself, a heinous crime regardless of motivation, is it in fact that same offense? Or is it a lesser offense, or none at all?

*When you routinely go on television and state that a doctor should be held accountable for abortions that he has performed and then someone shoots him (in a church no less) you are just as guilty as the man who pulled the trigger.*

See above.

*Just a few of the people that will no longer appear in my blog are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. Their words and actions over the last few years have lead (sic) to innocent people being killed.*

Again, where is the evidence that the killer was even exposed to, much less influenced by, the words of these people?

*Their rhetoric over the last few years have (sic) been the final straw that have (sic) lead unbalanced people to take actions that they probably would not have without that rhetoric.*

How does he know, how COULD he *KNOW* that:

1. unbalanced people were driven to violent action by the words of these very specific and solely right-wing pundits

-and-

2. that those unbalanced people would not have done the exact same things if they listened only to the voices within their own heads?

My main question or sticking point if you will, instead of reacting which such shock and anger that anyone would dare point a finger at someone who says that we need to reload, or someone who says we need to be armed and dangerous, etc why is the right not just simply saying, you know what, the rhetoric does need to be toned down.

Instead they have gone into attack mode after anyone who dare says that certain politicos and talking heads on the right might be partially responsible.

When is the last time that someone killed another based on something they had heard or read from someone on the left?

Jim David Adkisson went on a shooting spree in a church killing two people and directly said that he wanted to do more because of Bernard Goldberg's writings:

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

Do I think every conservative or people that subscribe to the conservative way of thinking uses violent or eliminationist rhetoric? Absolutely not. They are out there however, same for the liberals.

So far we have seen Keith Olbermann (on the left) directly apologize for his hateful rhetoric over the past and pledged to do his best not to use it again in response to this shooting. From the right there is nothing but anger and disgust that anyone would suggest anything they did or said might have repercussions.

Obama has used similar vitriol when he was running for President and since he became President and he should apologize for that language, as well.

This is a most disgusting politicization of a tragedy for liberal gain and the gazette ought to be ashamed of themselves. This immature liberal hack ought to be removed from the gazette blog page as he is an embarassment. The only blood on anyone's hands is on the shooters and to imply otherwise is just plain immature. Does the Gazette now endorse immature liberal rantings? I will be cancelling my subscription and no longer advertising if this nut job is allowed to spew his liberal hate any longer.

-- Posted by firecribbs on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 9:54 AM

Considering that the website is a free service and none of my work actually appears in the actual paper, nor do I get paid for any of my blogs this seems like a very strange response.

I do have to thank you, though, the more that you protest and make demands, the more people will visit my little blog and read. Some will agree, most will disagree (as is the culture of the area, a lot more conservatives than liberals) but they will read. So I thank you firecribbs for bringing my little blog to light.

Okay cinco I have responded. Where is your response? You decry me for going after conservatives yet say nothing about the posters who specifically declared the guy to be a "leftist (again whatever that is)" and/or a liberal?

This has nothing to do with your silence justifying what they have said or somehow meaning you approve of what they said. You like to consider yourself (from your posts) as somewhat moderate, yet (much like some other posters who believe themselves to be moderates) you only ever seem to go after liberals/progressive posters for their statements while ignoring conservative posters for their statements.

So, why is it that you only go after me or Damu but you never go after any on the right? Several posters believe and stated that the assassin is a liberal but you only seem concerned with people who want to hold the conservative politicos and talking heads responsible for their rhetoric?

Ahem! Question waiting for an answer:

*If the offense is not complete, and the guilt does not exist, UNTIL someone commits an act which is, in and of itself, a heinous crime regardless of motivation, is it in fact that same offense? Or is it a lesser offense, or none at all?*

First off...well written Owen McPhillips...here here.

Secondly, Mike, I'd like to say I offer no apologies for my following comments. If this offends you, then my point was clear. You are sad. As my father would say, "When you hit rock bottom...you started digging".

I have avoided your blog for months due to the division and the hate that you purport. But somewhere in the back of my head, I knew that you would be one of those pointing the finger where it does not belong -- proof be damned. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment as I find myself pulled back into your blog. Although, I remember you being a better debater...that seems to have diminished since my last visit.

Unfortunately, the libs will ride this horse right up until election day 2012. This appears to be their ammo (oh please Saint Mike forgive the pun): "Never waste a good crisis" http://in.reuters.com/article/idINTRE5251VN20090306 from Hillary Clinton herself. This kind of politics is outright disgraceful and pathetic. Nothing short of treasonous political propaganda and it is why they are hated the way they are. Much like the way they put "racist" tags on conservatives.

If you want to be honest, Mike, there is as much blood on your hands as anyone else. If you disagree, then answer this question for me Mike...Is your blog reaching anybody? If it is, and it is influencing people the way you would like, then you are part of the problem -- directly or indirectly. Can you say that you haven't influenced anybody? Can you claim with 100% absolute certainty that your influences haven't pushed your "followers" to the point of criminal activity? If your blog isn't reaching anybody, and isn't influencing then why continue? May as well retire, huh? Having a vocal influence or even a controversial website does NOT make one an accomplice to any crime. If that were true, you'd likely be in jail based on the hate that you write.

Don't kid yourself Mike...your blogs are usually full of hate. That is when you're not writing your personal pity party diatribes. You provide the fuel, and then sit back and let the bloggers ignite the fire. There appears to be some twisted satisfaction that you get from it.

"When a politician puts up a website targeting politicians with bullseyes and then one of them is actually shot there is a link there." -- link please. Seriously....please provide the link that connects this lunatic to the website...unless this is just a baseless opinion...thanks in advance Mike.

The reality is that this is a great opportunity for you and your liberals buddies, isn't it? It puts conservatives in between a rock and a hard place. By arguing with you about it, we only give your accusations fuel and a platform. By ignoring it, public perception is intentionally manipulated toward the views of the biased left wing media for political gain. I am thoroughly disgusted with you and any other talking heads that attempt to make this ridiculous connection. Obviously proof is not necessary today for respectable journalism. When did that change exactly?

Back up your sorry claims Mike...show the link that connects this lunatic to Palin, Beck, or Limbaugh. Show the link that connects him to ANY right wing individual or conservative group. Until then, I'll be patiently waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

I'll put this another way:

Everyone who believes that the words spoken or written by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly caused Loughner to kill six people in Arizona.......raise my hand.....

@ocho I said I found it humorous. I'm not entirely sure how you equate my thoughts of palins daughter bashing her mom as "going after her daughter". Perhaps you should re-read the statement.

I still want to know how I'm trying to score political points on the mccookgazette.com/blogs website. That is just amusing.

That question's still waiting.

And, while we're waiting, here's a little in-flight entertainment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36016527/The-Anti-American-Manifesto-Ted-Rall-EXCERPT

@Ocho If obama's daughters publicly decry him on a site, by all means post it. For the lulz.

Here's some more interesting reading...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3405336/S...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB7g3y597fs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CSj2a45MMI

http://patriotshop.us/images/DSC_0033_sm.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bIdU2.jpg

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/assassinate-assange/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2815/

Ahh one more for good measure

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/10/22/california_gunman_admits_glenn_beck_influenc...

*If the offense is not complete, and the guilt does not exist, UNTIL someone commits an act which is, in and of itself, a heinous crime regardless of motivation, is it in fact that same offense? Or is it a lesser offense, or none at all?*

You want to give it a shot, Damu, since Mr. Hendricks is not answering?

And, what do you think of the other thing I posted:

_______________________________________

I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.

I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.

I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.

I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system -- regardless of their underlying ideology -- whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.

I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.

I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

___________________________________________

Agree? Disagree?

Wow. Another twisted teabagger, fundraising off of this tragedy:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/sen-sanders-sends-out-fundraising-email...

Oh. Wait.

As of now, it's been nearly 24 hours since I originally posted that question, among others.

It's been 36 hours since I posted that pledge.

No response to either.

I'll most likely be out of the loop for about the next 48 hours. It'll be interesting to see if there's a response by then.

DEATH THREATS AGAINST SARAH PALIN at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say

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.

{{{{{{{Wow, it's a good thing liberal speech doesn't incite violence...or whatever.}}}}}}}

Now that evidence is mounting that this was NOT a politically motivated massacre. Will Mike offer a retraction of his statement of his above listed conservative commentators?

@Owen You postulate an interesting question. I don't really have an answer for it to be honest. America punishes people already for crimes that haven't been committed, I don't believe the US has laws on the books for speech related crime involvement yet. (Otherwise MR. Limbaugh would have already been prosecuted, along with a few of the other FOX commentators. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/12/who-i-wanted-to-kill-was-every-democrat-in-the-senate-house-where-the-notion-of-right-wing-political-murder-comes-from.aspx)

Your second post I can't argue against, because I agree with it. I read today that boehner recently decided to help with fund raising back in Washington, instead of flying down on Air force One with the president, I'd ask if you think that's a correct response to this?

@MrsSmith Hmm I wonder if Palins recent use of a Jewish slur is helping her with that at all? I wonder if you were worried when they showed that her insane rhetoric was increasing the number of threats on the Presidents life? It's up above in the links I posted, some reading would be required.

@CPB I think Mike's statement still stands. Although in this instance those commentators were not directly involved, there have been others were they were directly fingered in the violence.

I'm re-posting the link. I know some people don't know how copy paste works.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/12/who-i-wanted-to-kill-...

Enjoy.

Until all the facts are in I stand by my original statement. You say all the evidence is mounting, I disagree. This was not some sort of random shooting, I still believe it to be politically motivated. There is evidence that my assertion is correct. His YouTube videos closely resemble a groups rhetoric (even exact words) who are very anti-government.

I do find it very sad and extremely strange that Speaker Boehner would turn down a flight on Air Force One with the President to attend a memorial to instead go to a fundraiser.

In very contrasting speeches, Palin continued her tired vitriol and rhetoric playing the victim, while President Obama urged coming together and learning from this (my own words, not his) domestic terrorism.

I agree with all your denouncements Owen except, obviously, this one:

"I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen."

We have two different mind-sets, you believe that people do not react to what they have seen, heard, and read from political leaders and national talking heads.

I however, do believe that people do and will react (sometimes extremely violently) to those set of circumstances.

I believe in calling spades, spades. If an assassin reacts because of what he has been exposed (or has exposed himself to) the blame can not and should not rest solely on his shoulders.

DEATH THREATS AGAINST SARAH PALIN at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say

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.

{{{{{{{Wow, it's a good thing liberal speech doesn't incite violence...or whatever.}}}}}}}

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Jan 12, 2011, at 6:57 PM

It occurs to me that you completely went down the exact same path you accuse me of going down. You are so hellbent on painting liberals as inciting violence (as you have accused me of with conservatives) that you automatically assumed that every single death threat comes from a person responding to liberal speech.

Seeing as how you do not believe that speech can cause violence as evidenced by your own words this very thread"

.but he is doing so ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT SPEECH CAUSES VIOLENCE.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 2:03 PM

it seems very illogical for you to then turn around three days later and make the assumption that people are responding to liberal speech and threatening to kill Sarah Palin.

So, you can't have it both ways you can't decide that conservative speech can't cause violence but liberal speech can. Which is it? Either you believe speech can't cause violence or that it can.

"Until all the facts are in I stand by my original statement."

Isn't that the exact thing you criticize others for, Mike? Making claims, assertions or opinions without all the facts seems to be something you didn't like until just now, when you are the one doing it.

Damu,

Once again, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a contemptible little fool. First, there is NO evidence that the listed conservative commentators had any influence of THIS gunman's massacre. And second, the challenge was to Mike, not you.

Damu,

Blood libel isnt a Jewish slur. It is a term for what non jews did to Jews. And I am sure you are right, the violence is because of right wing 'hate speech'. After all, they said something that made people make death threats! That means their speech caused hate, right?

Mike,

So, let me get this straight, you don't see the disconnect in your arguments? Mrs. Smith is wrong because she is doing what you did, but you are not wrong because you are right? Or did I get that backwards or upside down. Or, did you just admit that liberal speech causes violence? I am confusedimacated.

I agree with all your denouncements Owen except, obviously, this one:

"I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen."

We have two different mind-sets, you believe that people do not react to what they have seen, heard, and read from political leaders and national talking heads.

I however, do believe that people do and will react (sometimes extremely violently) to those set of circumstances.

I believe in calling spades, spades. If an assassin reacts because of what he has been exposed (or has exposed himself to) the blame can not and should not rest solely on his shoulders.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 13, 2011, at 2:44 PM

So, we can expect a blog denouncing Jodi Foster and J.D. Salinger soon? We might have a hard time persecuting er...prosecuting Salinger though, he died about a year ago.

Mike,

I eagerly await your blog on the culpability Al-Gore had for that Discovery channel dude too.

My point is, I could do this all day, for all ideologies. If you were railing about the lack of mental health care and trying to blame that on someone, THAT would at least have some validity. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of the hole you put yourself in.

@CPB Perhaps you should check your reading comprehension friend. "Although in this instance those commentators were not directly involved, there have been others were they were directly fingered in the violence." Thats the direct quote. Like I said re-read it not that difficult to comprehend. As for your second statement. I was providing my thoughts on the matter not replying to some silly internet challenge you put forth. Calling me names really hurts me chunky. It will take me at least a few days to get over the emotional damage you have caused me.

@SirD "Blood libel refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays."

I suppose while not technically a slur, I assume the almost assassinated Jewish senator will be none to impressed. Sentiments I assume the rest of the Jewish community will share. I would say the violence is mostly caused because these people are crazy. However, if someone is at a tipping point and subscribes to BECK U, or "I don't know how tides work" Orielly and that pushes them over the edge, shouldn't their be some responsibility on those parties parts?

"Although in this instance those commentators were not directly involved, there have been others were they were directly fingered in the violence." There seems to be an indirect connection in your logic. Where? My argument is there is NO connection.

Again, the challenge was meant for Mike, not you.

@CPB Yes, there is a direct connection in my statement to other instances where those connections do exist. As stated before though, the connection doesn't exist in this instance.

So Damu, what is YOUR solution? Do we strip down the First Amendment so that government officials are never to be offended, or at the very least, challenged? At least we will all be safe, right? Or do we allow free speech, without limits of governmental control?

Please, no copy and paste solutions.

@CPB My solution, is instead of calling each side fascists, Hitler ect. We try having actual intellectual debates about issues. Sure, playing to peoples emotional side is great for ratings, but it really doesn't work that well in regards to actually disseminating information that people need to have to make informed decisions at the polls.

The example they always give of shouting fire in a crowded theater I think works well here. I think that baseless political rhetoric should fall under the same category. The death panels would be an excellent example here. This statement had no basis in fact whatsoever, but was much touted to simply stir anger in people.

I'm curious if you have a solution, and if so what it is?

"We have two different mind-sets, you believe that people do not react to what they have seen, heard, and read from political leaders and national talking heads.

I however, do believe that people do and will react (sometimes extremely violently) to those set of circumstances."

I don't know how you divined my mindset on this, but whatever method you used, has failed you.

People ABSOLUTELY "react" (in some way) to any and all information they absorb.

I just don't believe that speech, in and of itself, no matter how derogatory, no matter how fiery, no matter how "hateful", has the power to CAUSE a person to do violence. That's not to say that it may not embolden someone who IS ALREADY WILLING TO COMMIT VIOLENT ACTS.

Examples have been posted here of incidents where killers have claimed to have been influenced by political rhetoric. And there is no reason to believe that is NOT the case. But influence and cause are not one and the same.

I'm glad you like that pledge. I suggest you Google it.

"I believe in calling spades, spades. If an assassin reacts because of what he has been exposed (or has exposed himself to) the blame can not and should not rest solely on his shoulders."

Again, where is the evidence of such exposure?

Even Sheriff Dupnick, in an interview with Megyn Kelly, admitted that no such evidence had been uncovered, and that such motivation was simply his "belief" and "opinion". I could find that video clip for you, if you like.

http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2011/01/12/youtube-asked-to-remove-video-o...

And the whole hyper-analysis of the phrase "blood libel" is just ridiculous:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-...

Friend of shooter says he didn't watch TV, listen to radio, and was mainly influenced by online video "Zeitgeist"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7xLg2C2iI0&feature=player_embedded#!

And.......here's the kicker:

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

"Management of the Earth's Natural Resources: Once surveyed, the Earth's natural resources will no longer be privately owned. They will be managed according to general sustainability principles of preservation, recycling and optimization."

"No Money, Barter, Trade or Property: The monetary value of commodities does not represent the actual physical supply of natural resources, or their utilitarian value, which is integral to the success of the type of sustainable global society that the Zeitgeist Movement advocates.... With universal access to goods and services provided by a sustainable means of production based on resource availability, optimization and preservation, these problems of a monetary economy can be overcome."

So, Mr. Hendricks, based upon evidence provided by someone who KNEW him, it seems plausible that the assassin's comments on his videos may indeed have been influenced by an outside source, namely the movie "Zeitgeist"......and the above quotes illustrate that movement's ideology, which is clearly NOT at all similar to that of the Tea Party, or the "Sovereign Citizen" types, which I believe to be what Mr. Hendricks was implying. (I've seen that theory proposed on left-wing blogs)

At the same time, this witness states most emphatically that the assassin did NOT watch TV, did NOT listen to talk radio, and did NOT show an interest in politics.

What say you now?

"Until all the facts are in I stand by my original statement"

Wow Mike, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

How many times have you posted decrying people for saying things without proof, yet here you admit to doing it. Classic Michael Hendricks hypocrisy.

It is an interesting commentary on the state of the political climate in Arizona when the Legislative District 20 Republican Chairman resigns because he fears violence in the wake of the tragedy in Tucson. A number of the other local party officals have also resigned.

Google Anthony Williams and you can read for yourselves. He stated that he loved the Republican party but will take a bullet for no one.

Didymus, exactly what hole did I dig myself into and how am I trying to dig myself out of it?

Simply because you and other posters believe that I should be ashamed of myself for calling out those I believe to be the most responsible for the most violent and eliminationist rhetoric out there doesn't mean I am or that I am trying to to back walk my statements.

One of the posters earlier advised me to make sure my porch (or backyard I forget which) was clean before cleaning another's.

Interesting statement considering that none among you are interested in holding conservative politicos and talking heads accountable for what they do and say.

YET

You want to hold liberal politicos and talking heads accountable for what they do and say.

You say that words don't cause violence, except (oddly enough) if a liberal says it.

You want me to go after both liberals and conservatives for caustic language that could lead to violence, yet you aren't courageous enough to do it yourself.

I've been challenged by a few posters over and over again to go after liberals as well as conservatives, yet when I bring up the fact that they themselves only go after liberals they come up with the line that since I am already doing it why should they bother. Well since they are already going after liberals then why should I bother going after liberals?

@Damu

My solution is simple;

1. Observe and follow commandment number 6.

2. Follow the laws.

3. Cheerish Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

"Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot once in the head by a coward who believed too much of his own rhetoric AND THOSE OF THE POLITICAL RHETORIC."

Are enough of the facts in for you to retract this, or your implication that the four people you named bear any responsibility in this instance?

I'll wait. Just not quietly. :o)

"I've been challenged by a few posters over and over again to go after liberals as well as conservatives, yet when I bring up the fact that they themselves only go after liberals they come up with the line that since I am already doing it why should they bother."

I disagree with you here Mike, I've gone after both left and right, while you only go after right. Most of what I say isn't going after anyone rather I just like to point out when you are saying stupid or hypocritical things, fortunately for me, this occurs regularly.

Also any evidence that Didymus "want(s) to hold liberal politicos and talking heads accountable for what they do and say"?

Interesting that you seem to want to hold conservative politicos responsible for what OTHER people do, while compaining that

Didymus wants to hold liberals responsible for what THEY do.

A "target" list from the Daily Kos;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 10, 2011, at 12:00 PM

As it turns out the story that you linked to above was not the actual story but a photoshopped one from, that's right, a TEA Party group.

Here is the REAL link:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/25/541568/-2010-will-be-primary-season

So it appears your own attacks on liberals was an absolute falsehood CPB.

"I disagree with you here Mike, I've gone after both left and right, while you only go after right. Most of what I say isn't going after anyone rather I just like to point out when you are saying stupid or hypocritical things, fortunately for me, this occurs regularly."

You know, SW, it has become very commonplace for you to completely change your own arguments so that you can feel that you are always right. I used to think you did this on some subconscious level. But with this little quote you have proven, to me, without any shadow of a doubt that you are just flat out lying.

You know full well that I have and I will go after those on the left, so to say I ONLY go after the right isn't just factually wrong it is just completely made up.

And I'm sorry going after (which is what you do, sugar coating doesn't change that) one blogger on the right is not going after both left and right.

Here are just two examples of my blogs in which I have gone after my own side. Two of course, being a far cry from ONLY go after the right. Only is one of those finite words:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/38674

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/37260

There is one reason I believe you were just making up that statement and that is because we had quite the lengthy discussion that lasted for several blogs about "know"ing what someone else was thinking. You fell into your own trap.

Owen until all the facts are in, not just the sprinkling of information we have to this point, and certainly not from Twitter accounts of people that "know" the assassin, I stand by my comments.

However, if the evidence does come in and this was not a political assassination the four above mentioned, in my mind, are not absolved of anything. I fully believe that words and actions have reperussions and when you have a website that has ONLY Democrats gun-sight targeted, something will eventually happen.

Mr. Hendricks, you know full well that "ALL" of the facts will NEVER be in.

Truth be told, the only person who knows WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what motivated the shooter, IS the shooter himself.

Early on, I challenged you to point out the existence of ANY evidence indicating that the shooter was even EXPOSED TO, much less influenced by, any information put out, in any format, by any of the four people you identified BY NAME, implying that they bore some responsibility for THIS attack.

That was six days ago, and you have been unable to identify any such evidence. You can find a link between the shooter and one of the victims. You can find a link between ONE of the culprits you indicted and ONE of the victims. But you cannot find a link between the SHOOTER and ANY of your FOUR scapegoats.

....in six days.

How much time do you need, Mr. Hendricks? Name a reasonable time frame.

I find it simply amazing that some people have gone so far as to accuse Palin of trying to "steal the spotlight" away from the victims.

Now, can there be any doubt that she was PUT in the spotlight by the MANY people who decided, before ANY significant information was available, to assign blame upon her?

She did not ASK for the spotlight. She did not DESERVE this particular spotlight. She did not "steal" the spotlight, or even attempt to. If anything, it was a "gift" - a gift every bit as unwanted as the one the 19 victims in Tucson "received".

Mike,

The link that you attributed to my post is dated January 15, 2011. Where as my post is dated January 10, 2011. Either you are trying to make me look dumb by changing my link with a different link with the wrong date, or you're dumber that you even think.

Also noted, your "corrected" link is my original link.

Mike,

I've been reading somewhat on all this hullabaloo and that daily KOS article that is being talked about has nothing to do with the graphic. Even the blogs that stated that the Daily KOS targeted the congresswoman said that. What was pointed out was what the article said. You do read them right? You are right, the altered one was a screenshot of the article with graphics added. The text of the article was....

"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."

There was a list of a number of politicians above that article. Just to let you know.

And all that my previous post meant was, it doesn't make you less of a man to admit that you got caught up in your emotions or even just were wrong. If you would have done it earlier, you might have spared yourself some "I told you so" I see that you can't do this from your newest blog. "Yeah but"'s are a whiner's best friend.

P.S.

You might work on your pronouns of you are going to be pretending to work in a print medium. I realize that you probably didn't mean to target me with the "you" statements after you answered my post,(if you did, you are wrong) but it reads like you did. Try being clearer on the YOU's and THEY's that you like to sling around.

Okay one, Didymus, I am not pretending to work in a print medium, I blog on an internet site. Two, you really shouldn't criticize anyone for any grammar mistakes when you put of instead if right off the bat.

"She did not ASK for the spotlight. She did not DESERVE this particular spotlight. She did not "steal" the spotlight, or even attempt to. If anything, it was a "gift" - a gift every bit as unwanted as the one the 19 victims in Tucson "received"."

Really Owen? You are going to put Sarah Palin in the exact same boat as the shooting victims? I sincerely hope you misspoke here because I'm pretty sure the shooting victims would much rather have the "gift" (as you put it) that Palin has than the bullets they actually received.

Playing her off as a victim (strangely enough as much as a victim as someone who was shot) aside, she had many avenues she could have taken with this tragedy, she chose to take the victim role. I couldn't care less if she was trying to steal the spotlight, what ever she did worked on at least you as you apparently believe her to be as much a victim as the people in Arizona.

Let's see, the entire main stream media put the blame of the massacre on Sarah Palin, and all other conservative commentators who dare to voice their opinions, squarely on their shoulders. Yes, in this instance, I would say they did become victims. There is no level of victimhood, other than a wrong has been commited against you.

And how dare they respond. From response I heard from Sarah, she put the blame on the shooting squarely (I hope this word doesn't offend or cause any act of violence) on the shooter. Not on society. Not on those who voice an opinion. But on the shooter.

The profile of the gunman is not found only on a twitter account, but from several acquaintances. All saying the same thing, he wasn't political, and did not listen to political commentary. I know this realization would blow (again, no intention to offend or cause any act of violence) Mike's view that all who are right of center have a predisposition to kill. But, these are facts, and a few amongst us cannot, or will not, accept them.

This guy is not handling the shooting well and needs help. Any outbursts like this especially as threatening as his is not acceptable:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/tea_party_threat_arrest.html

"Mike's view that all who are right of center have a predisposition to kill"

Wow talk about making a charge with no facts what-so-ever. When have I said this CPB? Can you find a post or a blog or even a sentence when I have uttered these words? I guess it goes to show you are great with demanding that people (well, me) show facts before they make statements but you can't hold that demand to yourself.

A few posters have gone to lengths in using elimitationist rhetoric and typically apologizing in some form as soon as they make the statement. If you have to say no pun intended or that you aren't trying to offend anyone as soon as you type the word, then a better word might be in order.

One of the points that I think have been missed here is that in this past election both liberal groups and conservative groups did their best to not elect Giffords and yet she won her election.

The one thing I believe that this shows is that the American electorate as a whole is still a moderate one. Liberals and Conservatives will win majorities from time to time, but moderates always come back.

Mr. Hendricks, I did not put Palin in "the same boat" as the shooting victims. The only time I used the word "victim" was when referring to the shooting victims.

Re-read what I wrote. The meaning is abundantly clear.....unless you read something INTO it which is not there.

And still no evidence or retraction. 7 days. 22,416 articles.

Mike,

Medium, when used in this context, is describing the vehicle that a person uses to get his message across. Print medium is what you are using. If you are making a video blog, it would not be print medium. You could say that an internet blog is a medium all its own, but your blog is still print medium.

Pronoun errors, I think, are more of a matter of syntax than grammar. There are fewer misunderstandings with poor grammar than poor syntax.

Thank you for correcting my grammar. I am sorry that you seem to have a problem with any criticism. That must make it hard to learn.

@owen: lol

Michael is avoiding your question and I (IMHO)believe he is getting dizzy from the spin.

"She did not ASK for the spotlight. She did not DESERVE this particular spotlight. She did not "steal" the spotlight, or even attempt to. If anything, it was a "gift" - a gift every bit as unwanted as the one the 19 victims in Tucson "received"."

Owen I think it is pretty clear. You said that she got a gift every bit as unwanted as the one the 19 victims got. Again, I'm pretty sure the victims would gladly accept her "gift" than theirs.

Just goes to show that EVEN you, given the change to retract something you have said will attempt to say that the meaning is not what it appears to be. Do you really think the spotlight that has been put on her is the same as the bullets the victims got?

Before Didymus gets the change to correct my spelling, in my last paragraph it should have read "given the chance" not "given the change". My apologies.

When looking at what print medium is you seem to be using an extremely broad pain brush. Most, when thinking of print, do not think of the internet as a print medium.

If, though, you have to use your broad definition that's fine, I'm still not working in the print medium. I do not get paid to post my blog. It is not a job.

Ah, once again, I point out that a person should really concentrate on their grammatical, spelling, pronouns, or other issues before they criticize someone else for theirs, and it is I who has the problem with it. Classic.

Owen, are you putting this much pressure on the police and federal agencies to get all the facts out there? It seems odd that you are focusing all your intention on a blogger on a website to produce evidence.

I will say this, I am still very much convinced that this was a political assassination attempt. There has been a very detailed accounting of the hours before his attack. He had several attempts, if he just wanted to shoot some people, throughout the night; including family and friends. Instead, he took a taxi to Safeway, where he knew Representative Giffords would be. He went there, I believe, with full intention to kill her, a politician.

Okay, then, Mr. Hendricks, what MOTIVATION do you think was behind this "political" assassination attempt?

When you posted this blog, it certainly seemed to imply that it was the "violent rhetoric" of those four people you named, or at least similar rhetoric.

And, yet, there is NO evidence of this.

You hem and haw over my meaning in my post regarding Sarah Palin. I know what I meant. Everyone else seems to know what I meant. It seems to me that you are grasping at straws over the words, "every bit as unwanted", but that does not change its meaning.

You see, Mr. Hendricks, when it comes right down to it, this is digital, not analog. Those people didn't want to get shot AT ALL. Sarah Palin didn't want to be libeled AT ALL. This is not a matter of 10% vs. 5%. Do you suppose the shooting victims might've wanted to have been shot "just a little bit", grazed, perhaps.......or not to have been shot AT ALL? Well, neither did Palin wish to have been libeled "just a little bit." Ergo, EVERY BIT AS UNWANTED.

Now, WHY must I explain something so simple to someone so educated?

Mike,

I was just hoping you could be clearer. As usual, your bigotry knows no bounds.

Incidentally, Mr. Hendricks, did you by any chance simply do a mental "copy and paste" job on this blog from an article written by Paul Krugman within mere hours of the shooting itself?

If so, here's an analysis of that article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576072840602094576.html?m...

"However, if the evidence does come in and this was not a political assassination the four above mentioned, in my mind, are not absolved of anything. "

OMG this just keeps getting better. So if your opinion and careless statements are proven wrong, which they appear well on their way to being, it doesn't matter because YOU already decided these people are guilty. HILARIOUS!!! Glad to see you are so objective and willing to learn from your mistakes :)

Owen that's a fair amount of spin you are putting on your statement. You continue to try to put the two in the same boat, you won't retract your own statement, and yet you continue to demand that I retract my statement?

You're right this isn't "10% vs. 5%", you put out the assumption that Sarah Palin not wanting the spotlight (though if you actually look at the main stream media she wasn't) is the same as people not wanting to be spot. As I said, given the choice the people shot would have much rather been put into Palin's spotlight than be shot.

You compared Palin's spotlight to being shot (in particular the shooting in Arizona).

It's pretty simple to me.

By the way, no I did not copy and paste from Krugman, I don't even read him. I couldn't tell you what his beliefs are.

Mike,

I was just hoping you could be clearer. As usual, your bigotry knows no bounds.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 4:52 PM

So let me get this straight, you correct me on my yours and your's, I suggest you check your own spelling before telling other people how to write and that makes me a bigot?

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Then it's clear ochosinco, all metaphors must be banned!

Mike,

No, your correction of my spelling does not make you a bigot, your stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own makes you a bigot. It is pretty plain to see who the bigots are around here, and I'm afraid you fit. If I misspelled any words, feel free to correct me. I would hate to "humor" you. You make it hard for me to cut you any slack, and your quick accusations and attacks are a bad example for those of the left leaning persuasion. I find it hard to take seriously any claims that the talking heads on the right are engaging in angry irrational rhetoric coming from someone on the left speaking with much the same words and tone. Just my 2 cents.

I was talking about pronoun usage errors, simple misspelled words are easy to get around. People generally know what you are trying to say. When you open a post targeting a specific individual, then switch to a group form "you" it muddies up the meaning. I realize you are a history teacher, but that doesn't excuse you from knowing how to communicate. History majors are generally pretty dim, but there are a few exeptions.

P.S.

I realize that this is somewhat of a tangent to the topic, and I apologize to those that do not like it when someone makes an idiot out of themselves. It is still despicable and low to use this tradgedy to use as a platform to rail against unrelated topics. Yes, Mike, I think you are despicable in doing this. If you would have stood up like a decent human being it would have been mitigated. You still have to argue that your cold hearted bigoted calculation to use all those deaths to further your opinions is justified.

Mike,

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insensitive with the history teacher comment. I apologize. I forgot that you are going back to school, not a history teacher anymore. The rest stands.

Mike,

"By the way, no I did not copy and paste from Krugman, I don't even read him. I couldn't tell you what his beliefs are."

AMAZING! When you post a similar argument as someone else, they didn't infuence you, but when someone posts an argument you disagree with they are getting all of their information from Fox News or one of the evil four huh? Then they have the GALL to LIE and say they don't follow those people.

Mr. Pot, this just keeps getting better and better.

"No, your correction of my spelling does not make you a bigot, your stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own makes you a bigot."

This of course being completely an opinion from you. You are of course entitled to this opinion and if you feel that my calling out four national figures for their words and actions and the consequences of those actions makes me a bigot then again that's your opinion.

Just a little aside here, your complete inability to ever question those on this website not named Michael Hendricks for the same accusation you throw at me is very telling.

I know, though, and am comforted by the fact that most of the time that you post you can't help but throw an insult in there as well. It's a pretty empty apology when you end that apology with yet another insult, so I don't accept or believe that your apology was sincere.

You can go ahead and insult me and my profession it doesn't bother me. I'm used to it on this site. I've come to expect certain people to always slam my profession (specifically the teaching part)so I guess you are now also on that list.

Having said that though:

"...your stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own makes you a bigot."

"History majors are generally pretty dim, but there are a few exeptions."

Interesting that you would start out your post with your definition of what a bigot is and then finish with a fairy bigoted statement.

How does SW put it? Mr. Pot?

I will just say on the whole spelling vs. grammar debacle that my original statement still stands. As has been said on this very blog (paraphrasing of course), Clean your own porch before trying to clean someone else's porch.

By the way, Owen, I am not asking or demanding that you retract your statement. If you feel comfortable in making that kind of comparison than that's fine.

I notices, cinco, that when Owen made his inflammatory comments comparing what Sarah Palin is going through to people being shot you kept silent.

I guess you are only on the hunt for inflammatory comments when they come from one particular side, or to be more exact from one particular blogger.

Even though I have and will continue to go after both political sides when they make their blunders I will make a deal with you (if you except). Once you actually start calling out people from both political sides (and not just one) for what they say as you have often demanded of me (despite the fact that I have) I will actually start reading what you have to say.

Mike,

"History majors are generally pretty dim, but there are a few exeptions."

Interesting that you would start out your post with your definition of what a bigot is and then finish with a fairy bigoted statement."

I don't think his statement was bigoted so much as is spiteful and designed to needle you, which it may have since you felt the need to respond to it. He clearly allows for exceptions and besides, I don't think one person making rude comments rises to the level of bigotry, stop trying to be a victim.

Personally I don't think it is your choice in major that makes you dim, rather your blindness.

Also funny that after your latest diatribe on grammar you say this: "Even though I have and will continue to go after both political sides when they make their blunders I will make a deal with you (if you except)."

How is he to except, does this you mean you will try to be fair if he doesn't? I'm so confused.

I have noticed you've ignored all of my posts point out your blatant hypocrsy, having difficulty trying to spin this in your mind perhaps?

"By the way, Owen, I am not asking or demanding that you retract your statement. If you feel comfortable in making that kind of comparison than that's fine."

I DO feel comfortable in comparing the UNWANTEDNESS of the experiences......as opposed to the experiences themselves, as you keep inexplicably insinuating.

"I notices, cinco, that when Owen made his inflammatory comments comparing what Sarah Palin is going through to people being shot you kept silent."

See above. How is that inflammatory?

10 days.

32,607 articles in Google News for *giffords shooting*

SW, when a hypocrite tries to point out another's (mine) hypocritical statements I tend not to really take notice of them. I know, I know, you will try every which way to spin yourself out of being a hypocrite but I have already gone in depth about your hypocritical nature.

cinco I was unaware that I was ignoring you. I'm so happy you know so much about me that you can announce exactly what I am doing.

"By the way Michael, I already explained that I have no interest in calling out what you label "inflammatory comments" from the Republicans, conservatives, and the Tea Party, because you already spout enough hate for those groups without any help from any of the rest of us!"

So basically you expect me to be "fair and balanced" in my opinions but you don't have that need because I am already filling that void for you? That's very interesting. Basically, you expect me to do something you have admitted you would never do. You want to preach at me about how my views should be, but you won't follow them yourself.

"I DO feel comfortable in comparing the UNWANTEDNESS of the experiences......as opposed to the experiences themselves, as you keep inexplicably insinuating."

I really see no difference in the two Owen. Bottom line is you are comparing Sarah Palin not wanting the spotlight (which I find very hard to believe to begin with) to people not wanting to be shot.

She did not ASK for the spotlight. She did not DESERVE this particular spotlight. She did not "steal" the spotlight, or even attempt to. If anything, it was a "gift" - a gift every bit as unwanted as the one the 19 victims in Tucson "received".

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 8:54 PM

Those are your words. There is no insinuating. Your attempt at painting Palin as some kind of victim in this whole debacle is amazing at a glance, at another it is almost shocking that you would then go on to say that her wanting this "gift" was on par with the "gift" that shooting victims felt.

You fell comfortable with your statement and feel no need for retraction yet you continue to demand a retraction from me on a statement that I feel completely comfortable with.

It does interest me that of the above four people that I did mention, instead of coming out after all of this and saying that in their opinions nothing they said led to Tuscon but they do need to tamp it down some; they have all come out and done their best to blame liberals for everything.

Even you, Owen, instead of simply saying that I was wrong, in your very first post implied that the guy was a "leftist", based solely on one account of someone on Twitter. Instead of retracting THAT statement, you attempted to spin that one as well.

"I don't think his statement was bigoted so much as is spiteful and designed to needle you, which it may have since you felt the need to respond to it. He clearly allows for exceptions and besides, I don't think one person making rude comments rises to the level of bigotry, stop trying to be a victim."

I didn't realize I was trying to be a victim. I never realized that defending myself was the same as being a victim. Thanks for pointing that out SW. He allows for exceptions? You mean when it comes to himself? I would say painting almost an entire group who have chosen to become Historians as dim would count under his definition. I was unaware that you could pick and choose who was and who wasn't a bigot. I didn't see that in his definition.

Mike,

Surely you jest. I have stated several times here that I am a hypocrite in some cases. How is this "spin(ning)...out of being a hypocrite"? I am just honest and I think that is why you can't respond. Because I am not flawless, does that give you license to ignore your's? I just want you to look back at what I've called you out on in this thread and either man up and admit your flaws or show how they aren't hypocritical. Is that too much to ask?

BTW great stance Mike, Shoot the messenger huh? Just because you don't like me you ignore the truths I speak. Since you can't refute me you ignore me eh? Very mature. Are you also sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm not listening"? Metaphorically speaking of course. Just because you hide from something doesn't make it go away or less true.

Mike,

Sorry for the confusion, Sir Didymus, please make me the arbiter of who is a bigot, thank you.

Actually you were the victim in this case that's whats so funny. However you weren't the victim of bigotry, just some rude remarks. Are you really so dim as to think it is more likelty that Didymus really thinks than thinking that he is trying to get your goat?

Still waiting for you to clear up your hypocrisy.

Well, I guess some facts are just so plain that only a true intellectual can ignore them.

I have explained my position on the libelous smearing of Palin several different times, in several different ways. You don't seem to understand.

I have pointed out that there is NO. DIRECT. LINK. between the shooter and ANY of the FOUR people you clearly hold responsible, and have challenged to you produce even ONE piece of evidence to the contrary, which should be fairly simple if such evidence in fact existed. You have failed to do so, and have gone so far as to say that even if it was proven that none of those four had any influence whatsoever over the shooter, you would STILL hold them responsible.

You rail against "hatred", but are blinded by your own.

You dismiss the "hateful" commentary of your own "side" as not being hateful at all, or as being the extreme rhetoric of a mere few, not indicative of your side as a whole, while at the same time believing that this does not hold true for the "other" side.

I suppose, though, for this area, that it could be said that you bring "balance".....

Maybe he's still hung up on the definition of "is".....

Have I missed something or did Mike completely skip over the other incident in Tuscon? The one where a suspect named Eric Fuller actually made a death threat against a TEA party official. Seems that the MSM, while still trying to link Sarah Palin to the previous massacre, is doing their very best to cover this one up.

So Mike, is "Your Dead", shouted by a liberal somehow not as inflammatory as conservatives "targeting" electoral voting districts?

Let's also look at the rhetoric from 3 years ago, George Bush and company were constantly under attack from the left using metaphor much more threatening and violent than any of the above mentioned conservative commentators. We were told this is in fact "patriotic" to do so. Will you go after Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSM as well? Or will they get a pass?

CPB,

You're wasting your breath, Mike said he doesn't know Paul Krugman.

A democrat just call the Republicans in the House of Representatives Nazis. Will the MSM or Mike take notice of this breech of civility?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/abc-news-jonathan-karl-reports-the-newf...

Oh, that's pretty tame, CPB. Check out the second half of THIS article for something you haven't seen/heard plastered all over the news...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/docs_upgrade_gabby_condition_LZ3Z2FWj75oEr...

@CPB Do you not see the difference between the video you displayed and something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ

You might get rhetoric from both the right an left that has undertones of that nature, but the rights appears to be much more outspoken, and stupid.

Nice little sound bite there. Wonder what the context was.

Did he say anything about ears.......?

damu

your posts are generally civil. Calling some groups more outrageous and stupid can instigate name-calling and your point will be belittled.

@Doodlebug I usually try not to belittle posters. Criticism of the individual poster doesn't contribute to the credibility of any argument.

However, in this instance there have been more than enough examples for me to label the rhetoric used by them as stupid. Death Panels come directly to mind as do many more examples.

I would like you to note, I am not calling all members of your party stupid, only the ones that participate in such antics.

@Owen

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594343,00.html

I like his Nazi chalkboard, its very cute. Also, did you see the piece he did on George Soros? It was comedic gold as well.

Damu, that is very true; but the same could be said of some of those with the opposing viewpoint. Although not local, some of the first that come to mind are Keith Olberman, Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow - -

@Doodle I can see your point. Perhaps stupid wasn't the correct term here. Fear driving and unrelated to actual topics may be the better phrase to use.

CPB if you would have actually taken the time to read instead of just seeing an opportunity to attack me you would have known that the day after the shout of "You're Dead" I came down against it:

This guy is not handling the shooting well and needs help. Any outbursts like this especially as threatening as his is not acceptable:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/tea...

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 16, 2011, at 12:03 PM

That post was four days ago yet it took you three days to attack me for not saying anything about it after I had already spoken out against it.

Also, I have always been against either party in this country comparing the opposing party to Nazi's. I spoke out against it when my party compared Bush and his administration to the Nazi's. Yes I do believe that the Congressmen's comparing Republican lying on the Health Care Law to Goebbels' Propaganda campaign to be deplorable. There are much better ways to illuminate the lying we are seeing from Congressional Republicans than comparing them to Nazis.

Sadly I haven't seen the same backlash against Republicans from their members on this board against actually calling Obama, Hitler. I also don't really expect it. For the brief future, civility is something that is lost in our political landscape.

There are simple reasons why I haven't gone after those people that posters think I have to go after:

Keith Olbermann: He immediately apologized, the night of the shooting, for any vitriol that he has handed to the political landscape and he promised to do better. To this date he is the only person from either the talking head class or the politico class to take responsibility for his words.

Chris Matthews: He is not a liberal to begin with, but the most insidious thing I have heard him say in the last two years was that listening to a speech given by Obama one night gave him tingles up his legs. Of course, the reaction to those comments were so inflammatory and homophobic to not be mentioned here.

Paul Krugmann: Again I don't know much about him. He really isn't on the same level as the four I mentioned or the ones on the left that have been mentioned. Like I said, I know little about him, I don't really know what his politics are, take it or leave it.

"You dismiss the "hateful" commentary of your own "side" as not being hateful at all, or as being the extreme rhetoric of a mere few, not indicative of your side as a whole, while at the same time believing that this does not hold true for the "other" side."

I suppose, Owen, that you are buying into the lie that several posters have said that I don't hold those on my side accountable to their words and actions. I do and I have. I have posted my own blogs where I did. I stated my objections on this particular blog thread yet you want to continue to believe that I dismiss. That's your right I suppose, but it's also mine to correct you.

Also, another lie from certain posters on here (that you alluded to) is that when I speak of certain conservatives I am meaning conservatives as a whole. I have never said that nor have I thought that.

The lies run rampant on this site about what I do and do not believe, so it is understandable that you would fall for them.

You believe what I said about the four conservative talking heads and politicos to be wrong and jumping to conclusions. I believe your statement comparing Palin not wanting the spotlight to the victims in Arizona not wanting to get shot to be a poor comparison at best a horrible statement at worst.

Yet neither of us will back down from our statement. It's pretty indicative of the political mood in this country.

The great news is that Giffords can stand on her own now and her motor skills are fully coming back. It is anticipated that she will be moved to a rehabilitation room as soon as tomorrow.

I continue to wish her a speedy recovery.

Ah typical SW bating attempts. You can't pull me into one of your "debates" so you resort to name calling, classic.

Have you, or cinco for that matter, ever stopped and thought that maybe the actual reason I don't respond to either of your posts is because no matter what I state both of you will attempt to twist my words into something I have not said? Or without the possibility of twisting my words just flat out lying about what I have or have not said, or done or not done?

Good luck, though, SW with that whole not responding to my blogs. This is your second or third attempt at doing this. I hope you stick to your guns this time around. Best of luck, Kettle.

I do apologize SW, I succumbed to the name calling and called you Kettle. I should not have done that. I don't like it when posters call other posters names and I shouldn't have done it with either.

My apologies.

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" - Chris Matthews -- October 2009

I guess Olbermann's gonna have to come up with a different schtick now, since "The Worst Person In The World" will be problematic for him henceforth.

Krugman is in the print media, specifically the New York Times. You know how liberals are constantly telling conservatives they should READ something.....?

Thanks for the link, Damu.

Did you read it? I found the quotes from others to be interesting, and illustrative. In context, it's clear that when he said, "You've got to shoot them in the head," he was telling the Democratic Party that they were going to have to exclude the radical elements (rather than compromise with them), lest the radicals take over the entire Party.

....which doesn't seem to fit the situation in Tucson at all, because Giffords is well-known as a "blue dog" (conservative) Democrat.

Of course, Beck also warned, "They might shoot YOU in the head".....

@Owen I did read the entire transcript. Although, I have yet to see any commentators on the Democrat side utilize a Chalkboard and Nazi symbols to try to make a fairly obscure point. :)

I don't know what the Nazi symbol was about. From what little I could see of the chalkboard in that VERY short video clip, it appears to me that it was one of two things at the end of a spectrum, presumably a political spectrum. I can't see the other symbol clearly enough to identify it.

The transcript clearly shows Beck stating that assorted Democrats are NOT Nazis, and NOT communists, and I'm guessing that the spectrum was something he used earlier in the program to illustrate that.

But, speaking of Nazis......did you hear about the newspaper ad that featured a photo of the (Republican) Georgia governor, photoshopped into a Nazi uniform?

@Owen I'm not sure if you watch becks program, but you can see him toss the Nazi symbol up quite a bit. As I mentioned before, he did an amazing set not that long ago with George Soros that involved a number of puppets.

I haven't seen the photo, have a link to it?

@Owen Also, I see you don't think that speech can incite violence in deranged individuals, I'm curious what your explanation for this is?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2011/01/12/who-i-wanted-to-kill-...

I posted it above, but since this is probably the most commented article in the gazettes history, it was easy to miss.

Damu, here's an article about the ad, including a link to the picture:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/18/about-that-photo-...

....and I'm quite certain that speech can incite violence in deranged individuals. It's just that, given the fact that they THINK differently, it'd be pretty hard to avoid saying ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY "incite" them. I mean, you could be careful to not say anything at all that was derogatory about your political rivals, instead labeling them as cute fuzzy puppies, but there's bound to be at least ONE nutburger somewhere who was bitten by a cute fuzzy puppy as a child, *understands* your *coded message*, and heads out to even the score.

I'm still trying to figure out what sense it makes, after some man-made tragedy (tm), to point fingers at, hold accountable, and call for additional restrictions upon all the people who DIDN'T pull the trigger.

Noticed Olberman quit. Do you think that since he "repudiated" himself from "hate" rhetoric he had nothing to talk about?

Or do you think he knew he was quitting and made the "repudiate" claim knowing it wasn't going to apply to him?

Or did he just wake up and decide to move on?

Not making any political statements just asking a question.

Wallis

@Owen I've thought about what you said quite a bit. I have actually decided that you are correct. Imposing limits like these on political pundits isn't in our best interest. If we start putting limits on what these people say where will it end.

@Wallis An even better question, do you think hes simply a causality of the recent merger?

Comcast paid a lot of money for NBC. If Olbermann was pulling in ratings and making money for the network they would keep him on.

Therefore, without more info, I cannot offer an opinion. I can only ask questions.

Wallis

wallis, you already posted an opinion that he quit the show so then coming back and saying that you won't offer any further opinion is a little late.

Olbermann was pulling in ratings, he had the number 1 show on the network and he hadn't lost near the number of sponsors as Beck (Fox News hasn't fired him yet despite the dwindling number of sponsors).

The official news reports state that both parties agreed to the separation.

I have my own opinions as to why he left MSNBC (fired or quit), and I do believe that Comcast was heavily involved in the decision. His exit seemed to be quickly coming after he was suspended for donating money to Democrats, even though, other commentators were not suspended for doing the same thing.

He will resurface in the future.

So, to recap, CPB, you railed against me for not speaking out against something that I had actually spoken out against, I directed your attention to that, and your response is silence.

Enjoy.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-demonstrates-just-how-often-fox-news-pers...

Three weeks.

Still no evidence?

As I said, and pretty clearly, I feel absolutely comfortable making the charges that I made against the four personalities, you feel absolutely comfortable comparing Sarah Palin not wanting to be in the spotlight to the victims in Arizona not wanting to be shot.

Has there been evidence to this point? Some, but it's only speculative on anyone's part, (much as it was speculative to insist that the assassin was a leftist because of one person on twitter as you did) because it is still an ongoing police investigation. So giving me weekly updates when the investigation isn't even complete is just weird.

It's fairly interesting that Sarah Palin, who apparently does not like being thrust into the spotlight, has come out and said that a supposed boycott of her in the social networking world was actually good because now she can't be blamed for the uprising in Egypt. Swing and a miss.

So, from this point forward I am not going to talk or discuss those people who think that it is all fun and games when they use their eliminationist rhetoric for all to see. Just a few of the people that will no longer appear in my blog are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. Their words and actions over the last few years have lead to innocent people being killed. Their rhetoric over the last few years have been the final straw that have lead unbalanced people to take actions that they probably would not have without that rhetoric.

post by Michael 01/09/11

It's fairly interesting that Sarah Palin, who apparently does not like being thrust into the spotlight, has come out and said that a supposed boycott of her in the social networking world was actually good because now she can't be blamed for the uprising in Egypt. Swing and a miss.

post by Michael 01/31/11

lets hear some more whine about hypocrisy LOL

or was it just a lie?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110201/cm_atlantic/rachelmaddowandnbcstruggle...

Mike- I always thought your news was a mix between reality and fantasy. Now I know why.

Wallis

lol

I also love how liberals credit Bill Clinton for the budget surplus of the late 1990's.

People forget that the Cold War ended and we had a peace dividend. Our Military budget being cut and the growth the followed the end of the Cold War was what led to that event. It wasn't Democrat or Republican.

Be careful of a breakdown of OPEC. That could be as big as the end of the Cold War.

If you will notice the post that I did about Sarah Palin had nothing to do with her eliminationist rhetoric it was about her being so full of herself that she thrust herself into the whole Egypt crisis going on.

right michael. i LOVE your spin. there were NO qualifiers in your post; it stated that "these people will NO LONGER appear in my blog". keep spinning but be extremely careful; most folks get dizzy when they spin too much

Sarah Palin involved herself in the Egypt revolution? How?

she probably made a comment about it. you know, no one else has

So what exactly did Mrs. Palin do?

She said that the media boycott (which apparently only she knows about) on her will keep her from being blamed for what is going on in Egypt. There was really no reason to do this, making a joke out of the violence in Egypt just to score political points. Nothing though really surprises me though, nor do her ardent supporters who never believe she has or will do anything wrong, Of course, that those very same people believe that a new religion has popped up around President Obama will sing her praises for everything she does and says really isn't surprising either.

Naturally, leave it to Chunky, to change my words in order to claim that I said something I didn't. Sarah Palin didn't involve herself Chunky, as you well know. She pulled some of the spotlight, which she supposedly hates, on herself by trying to make a joke out of a violent situation, talking about some mysterious media boycott, that she imagined out of thin air. Yes one writer said he wouldn't talk about her in the month of February, but that does not make a media boycott.

Defenders of Palin, pull a rabbit out of her hat on this one.

She wont go away......She wont go away........She wont go away!!!! arrrrrrrgghhhh

Here's a thought: maybe if they ignored her, she WOULD go away......

you're proposing the impossible

I was not aware of any of this, what exactly happened.

An entire post of insults, but you aren't trying to be mean. You are an outstanding human obvious. Though one point. Your example of the former cigarette smoker that still smells of cigarette smoke seems to be a self-description of yourself. You aren't really insulting anyone or trying to be mean. Self-realization is the first step obvious. Actually your name fits perfectly.

I'm pretty sure that isn't what CPB was actually asking about but he will probably nod his head and thank you now.

Yes captainobvious, I did just that! But seriously Mike, what did Sarah Palin do?