Political arguments and rhetoric had almost nothing to do with this act of violence. This was one person acting alone.

If it weren't for heated rhetoric we'd still be subjects of the Queen of England.

I don't know what all the uproar is about political debates lately....they are a healthy aspect to the process. So Sarah Palin had a website that had crosshairs on it showing what districts the republicans wanted to target in an election. That doesn't mean anything. My son's battleship game has crosshairs on it...does that mean he's going to go blow up PT Boats?

More press sensationalism and just another opportunity for the press to try and discredit anyone that doesn't follow their political views. (Fox blaming liberals, NBC blaming conservatives...it's all biased and bs.)

My son's battleship game has crosshairs on it...does that mean he's going to go blow up PT Boats?

I'm with you Joe.

The goal of the left is to silence the right, as it's very difficult to convince someone that Big Government is good for them, as long as they're not on the take yet.

So how many libs knew that in 2004 the Democratic Leadership Committee publication included a similar map with bullseyes drawn on targets of Republican districts?

"Unnoted by Giffords then, or Krugman now, is the routine use of similar language and imagery by both parties in a culture obsessed with "battleground" states. Indeed, a nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bullseyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute."

Hipocracy is alive and well. This guy was no different than the nuts that tried to assassinate Reagan or Ford, yet the conservatives did not try to politicize those actions.

There is a difference between reasonable debate and rhetoric.

Yeah, it's reasonable debate if your side wins, right?

Joe: excellent post!

No, it's reasonable debate when it is reasonable debate.

Fear mongering is not reasonable debate.

I hope this is more clear to you.

Although we use the nice term "heated rhetoric," in these last years it's included alot of references to killing people who don't agree with you--"second amendment remedies, " "Reload," "Behead the journalist from the NY Times," etc. etc. etc. All of this has been coming from a crazed right since they lost power in the last Presidential election. When you combine this heat with the easy of buying automatic weapons, and crazy people--you get such horrendous crimes.

You think it was a coincidence that a Democrat was shot?

Accepting your unattributed quote, one has to note that there's a difference between behind-the-scenes imagery used by the Democrats and publicized, toured-around and pushed violent imagery used by the right.

To compare Sarah Palin's targets to Battleship is silly. Only one of those can be achieved by an average person (or crazy person).

I don't think, based on what I've read, that this guy was a partisan. But I can't ignore that, especially in Arizona, the right has used violent and fear-based imagery. Those closest to the edge are the easiest to cause to jump off.

Joe for you to think that this is an event in a vacuum is simplistic at best. The argument is not whether this has a direct link to a website or a persons speech. It is impossible to deny that in today's world there is an unreasonable use of violent icons and terminology that the weak minded may take as the public acceptance of such violence. This is not a right vs left argument. It is a societyas a whole. The right feel assaulted because they tend to use this imagery more often then the left (I will be happy to look at any left leaning website that has such imagery). It is a shame that politicians do not have enough respect for the citizens of the US that they feel they need to cater to base instincts rather then put forth intelligent arguments. Bully's are bullys regardless of their politics.

Neither side of the asile is going to take this tragedy as an opportunity to back away from that which is working very hard at tearing the country apart. By the posts on this and other vines, I see it as being used as nothing more than additional fuel for a political fire that continues to rage out of control. This is a fire that will burn this country to the ground.

Heated debate is one thing. Empty headed hate speach as spewed by palin, limbaugh, beck and all the other right wing fear mongers is something entirely different. And please don't advance that lame steam non sequitur "this guy didn't have any conection with the hate speakers (insert name of any wing nut talking head here). They have promoted an atmosphere of hate and fear against anyone who they don't like to the point that psychos are going to be emboldened and take sensless tragic action.

All of it makes me very sad. I wish I knew the answer. 9-year olds shouldn't ever have to worry about being gunned down at Safeway. It's not the gun's fault. It's not the rhetoric's fault. Removing politicians from their constituents certainly isn't the answer.

There are some really, really sick folks out there. This polarizing, hatred-filled dialogue we see from talking heads on both sides of the aisle - and definitely on online forums - just gives the average whacko an infinite amount of fuel for their fire.

Sigh...

Rob: I agree with most of what you say. Please give me examples of hatred filled dialogue from the left. If there is, I agree it has to stop.

This "nut" acted alone, however the corruption from our elected officials has played a big part in creating rhetoric and anger. End the corruption and you help end the rhetoric.

Dissecting Obama’s Role in Creating Climate of Political Violence

http://fringewire.com/?p=65

Sorry to point out your ignorance, but 99% of the hate speech in our politics comes out of right field folks.

Stop trying to rationalize and excuse the Right Wing's actions.

WAKE UP before more people lose their lives in senseless acts like this one.

I call on the FCC to cut off the broadcasting of hate speech from those like Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Angle, etc. from now on. So either these people tone their rhetoric back down the civil levels, or else they be forcibly REMOVED from ALL of the airwaves.

The Republican party path to power is anger for angers sake. If you see pure anger, and Shadow Villains, as your means to power and money; someone may see a path of blood. Pure anger to power is an old game and it often works. Is it wrong? Should it be expected that others see your goal as power and money and not real bloodshed?

Is the issue therefore that mentally ill males are not identified, forced drugged and tranquilized into, if not normality, at least silence? Is identification of the mentally ill, preventive detention, drugging and monitoring the answer? If so, who does the identifying and who makes the decisions?

The issue is not heated rhetoric; but using a platform of pure anger to attain power. Again, is this wrong? You say the Republican party platform is not a platform of pure anger and Shadow villains...

I borrowed the below from dodger-448227. It demonstrates the hyposcracy of those on the left that believe the right is the sole source of hate speach.

As long as we're citing examples of incendiary rhetoric:

Remember Chris Matthews fantasizing on air about seeing Rush Limbaugh shot in the head?

The Craig Kilborn Show superimposing the words "Snipers Wanted" over the face of President George W. Bush.

Nobel "Peace Prize" winner Betty Williams publicly stating her desire to murder President George W. Bush.

British film makers Gabriel Range and Simon Finch making a 2006 movie fantasizing about assassinating President George W. Bush.

Alec Baldwin urging the murder of Henry Hyde, his family, and ALL Congressional Republicans and their families on national television.....

David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, two America-hating left-wing terrorists, were arrested by the FBI after conspiring to firebomb Republicans at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The American Media refused to report the story.

NPR commentator and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg wishing death by AIDS on Senator Jesse Helms and/or his grandchildren.

Julianne Malveaux publicly wishing death on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Obama:“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”

Obama to His Followers:“Get in Their Faces!”

Obama on ACORN Mobs:“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

Obama to His Mercenary Army:“Hit Back Twice As Hard”

Obama on the private sector:“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“

Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”

Obama to lib supporters:“It’s time to Fight for it.”

Obama to Latino supporters:“Punish your enemies.”

Obama to democrats:“I’m itching for a fight.”

All from the LEFT, I might add.

Political arguments and rhetoric had almost nothing to do with this act of violence.

Calls for bullets if not ballots most certainly are responsible for this. You people really think you don't have to own responsibility for your own words.

I admit the goal of the left, ie liberals and progressives is to put an end to the lies and political terrorism created by the rightwing.

If the republicans were more reasonble in thier arguments and they were backed up by truth and proof, then we can all sit at the table and discuss progress.

I am afraid that the rightwing will go back to its old ways in very short order, after the funerals.

So yes we want the right to go away and never some back if you cannot sit at the table in reasonable manner, and if it takes silencing you with truth, or locking you up behind bars forever for inciting violence and terrorism against all of us, then so be it.

The rightwing cant yell fire in a crowded theatre and get away with it.

The only difference (organic mental lunacy notwithstanding) between this guy in Tuscon and those who packed weapons with Don't Tread On Me flags at Obama rallies is this loony actually used his gun. Nuff said...

Lost in all of this is the fact that this guy wasn't motivated by any rhetoric, the tea party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or anyone else. He is a mentally unstable person who picked a target. It's like blaming angry lyrics for the murder of John Lennon.

Citizen is that anything like the Bushwhacker guillotine that was at one of the Obama rallies in 08 in Denver where they repeatedly beheaded Pres Bush who I might added was still POTUS at that time????

You hear the same crap from the likes of Matthews,Oldberman, Maddow, Schultz, just to name a few. Fox News nothing on MSNBC or CNN..

Right. And how many right-wing candidates/media darlings have been assassinated, or attempted assassinated?

You have quotes from liberal organizations/people that seem violent, true. Now, let's compare volume. And who the real crazies listen to. And content. And truth-factor. And reasonableness. And, oh brother, I'm too tired for this.

All those saying that this was a lone nut, you're missing two points: 1) it's not a given he would attempt to kill anyone without incitement. Many mentally ill people go their entire lives without trying to kill people. FAIL.

2) It's not a given that he would have chosen his target without encouragement. FAIL.

Matthews, maybe. Olberman, Maddow, not so much. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Palin, Boehner, yes. Who has larger audiences? Who speaks to more people currently? Who has a larger percentage of uneducated, borderline insane people in their audiences?

Tone down the rhetoric. Now.

Here we go again, "it's somebody else's fault I did, or didn't do something."

There is a difference between "targeting" issues and "targeting" people. What I heard from the Tea Party rallies was frightening - they not only IMPLY but flat-out SCREAM that the President and other politicians they don't agree with are TERRORISTS, TRAITORS, KILL THEM! All the while toting weapons, pictures of weapons and talking about how many guns they own.

I don't see how anyone can say that Sarah Palin's gun-sights map wasn't targeting PEOPLE - the Congressmen's names were listed right under the map with the words "17 more to go!"

">http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/palin-puts-gun-sights-on-"target"-map-urges-we-"reload"/

That is flat-out wrong. Why should we put up with ANYONE, left or right, putting gun-sights on our elected officials? Did she ever stop to think that someone will take this seriously? Does she care?

1) it's not a given he would attempt to kill anyone without incitement. Many mentally ill people go their entire lives without trying to kill people.

It is also not a given that the political right had any influence on this young man at all.

2) It's not a given that he would have chosen his target without encouragement.

What caused Chapman to target Lennon? What caused Hinkley to target Reagan? Deranged people choose their targets because they fit their deranged purpose - not because someone told them to. This mass act to blame anyone other than the shooter is misplaced and anyone using this tragedy to score political points is beyond contemptible.

Whether this incident is the "smoking gun" or not, we need to put a stop to portraying politicians as unAmerican, terrorists, Satan, or otherwise worthy of dying because of their stand on issues. Period.

High profile individuals, politicians and the media have a responsibility to be careful with their words and choose them carefully. We must hold everyone with such public influence to that standard and make them accountable. Freedom of speech is very different from using violent terminology that evokes images of violence...there are plenty of mentally ill people out there that are willing to take those kind of words literally!

This is a perfect example of immaturity and irresponsibility...

This is from a rally promo on Sarah Palin's website:

"SATURDAY 06/12/10, 10:00 AM
Get on Target for Victory in November
Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"

Obama's language seems more like generic revving up his supporters. He is not calling for people to specifically fight against individuals like Giffords by shooting an automatic M16, like her Tea Party opponent did, for instance.

All the other examples you give are of reporters or celebrities; two of them aren't even Americans, for pete's sake.

This is really not the same as a Republican vice presidential candidate targeting certain Congressional officials, (including Giffords, who expressed concern about it), by name, like Palin did.

It was not the left who attended Congressional Town Hall meetings armed with automatic weapons -- that was Tea Partiers, inspired, perhaps, by Rep. Michael McCaul, who told a rally, "Thomas Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty will be fed by the blood of tyrants and patriots. You are the modern day patriots."

And it was not some Democratic congressman who urged followers to be "armed and dangerous". That was Michele Bachmann, the US representative from Minnesota.

In terms of irresponsible speech, the left currently just can't hold a candle to the right. Sure there are liberal commentators that use stupid rhetoric. But on the right, you've got elected officials using that kind of speech, people that should be more cognizant of the danger of suggesting that not only do they disagree with their opponents, but that their opponent are so evil they must be stopped by any means necessary.

You can disagree with someone over the direction the country should go. You can even call them names and be a real jerk about it. That is freedom of speech. But when you start suggesting that there should be armed revolution, like senatorial candidate Sharron Angle did, or that certain people should be targets, literally,in gunsights, because of how they voted on congressional bills...that is crossing the line into incitement of violence and insurrection . And the people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

@Dano: You show me ONE example of Maddow or Schultz advocating guns over ballots. Show me one direct quote from either of them suggesting violence. You can't. They go after issues, not personalities. That's the way it should be,

High profile individuals, politicians and the media have a responsibility to be careful with their words and choose them carefully. We must hold everyone with such public influence to that standard and make them accountable. Freedom of speech is very different from using violent terminology that evokes images of violence...there are plenty of mentally ill people out there that are willing to take those kind of words literally!

This is a perfect example of immaturity and irresponsibility...

This is from a rally promo on Sarah Palin's website:

"SATURDAY 06/12/10, 10:00 AM
Get on Target for Victory in November
Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"

But did this have anything at all to do with what motivated the shooter? No! You are just exploiting the tragedy for political gain. Shame!

What caused Chapman to target Lennon? What caused Hinkley to target Reagan?

Well for Hinkley he wanted to "impress" Jodi Foster and mimicked a movie she had made.

Chapman said he was reenacting parts from The Catcher in the Rye.

People with mental illness cannot always place a divide between reality and fiction. Those in a position of power need to understand that there will ALWAYS be someone who takes what they say literally. It doesn't matter if it's a politician, actor, actress, singer, model, or athlete.

Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle were very clear in what they were saying.. reloading, second amendment remedies, take them out.. Their rhetoric obviously resonated on some level with this young man. A child died because someone took rhetoric seriously, and it's not okay. That sort of bullsh*t has to stop, plain and simple.

People with mental illness cannot always place a divide between reality and fiction. Those in a position of power need to understand that there will ALWAYS be someone who takes what they say literally. It doesn't matter if it's a politician, actor, actress, singer, model, or athlete.

Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle were very clear in what they were saying.. reloading, second amendment remedies, take them out.. Their rhetoric obviously resonated on some level with this young man. A child died because someone took rhetoric seriously, and it's not okay. That sort of bullsh*t has to stop, plain and simple.

More to the point is that Hinkley and Chapman didn't need outside influences to choose their victims. They made them based on their own criteria.

Let me repeat: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS PERSON WAS MOTIVATED BY ANY OUTSIDE RHETORIC!!

Attempts to pin this on Palin, Angle, Bachman, Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity are just weak efforts to exploit a tragedy for political advantage. It is despicable and shameful.

Heinz, please explain your statement. What evidence is there that the shooter in this case was a "liberal"?

The right has a serious problem with cause and effect. Just look at global warming.

A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.

Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her "tweets" in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as "stupid and unintelligent."

We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

Though I will state once again that all blame belongs to him alone.

Right. And how many right-wing candidates/media darlings have been assassinated, or attempted assassinated?

Giffords was not a left-wing politician. She proudly stated openly that she was a blue-dog democrat (and former Republican) so she had plenty of people on both the far-left and far-right who had something against her.

In fact she had been the subject of wanting to be replaced by both the Sarah Palin's map and one featured by KOS (apparently shown on Olbermann, but really - no way that incited anyone. After all if a tree falls and there's no one to hear it . .)

BTW- you do remember that there was an attempt on Reagan's life, right?

"There is a difference between reasonable debate and rhetoric."
@clarke ong

True, but if you try to limit free speech in any way "mission creep" usually sets in. First it's "Rhetoric" & "Hate" speech, then its talking about "illegal activities", then its "dissension", "un-patriotic" & "rights" speech. Just look at the "War on Drugs", it started out with minor fines & limited jail time for a very limited number of "dangerous drugs" now we have mandatory drug screenings, SWAT teams, property confiscations, etc.

I'm not buying into the "Leftwing" remark as this man was distrustful of the government and that means every aspect, right left or in the middle. I've read that he was of an independent mindset cursing the religious sheep and the lying government. If this were the case I don't think we can point fingers at anything but violent rhetoric that some have decided is the only way to get others motivated.

I like how most folks point to conservatives as the source of hate speech but stand behind Obama, Pelosi, Rev Al, Ayers, Rev Wright, etc and support groups like ACLU and muslim clerics like Al Alawki who not only have worked hard to increase tensions between races, but created more hurdles to protect public safety and provide blind justice keeping criminals off the streets or away from our children. This kid had mixed political views as he was a 9/11 Truther - which is more a lefty stand than a conservative one. He also targeted a political figure that he targeted was not a leftist by any means.This kid had serious mental problems and wasn't coherent. Not at all like Nadal Hassan which Obama, liberals, and HS desperately tried to defend his "religious" convictions and blame our military for his terrorist act. I denounce all violence whether carried out by left, right, or insane. The victims are always innocents. Race, childhood experiences, and religious convictions are no excuse for violence PERIOD. Let him face a firing squad.

Just think how this violence happened on a weekly basis in the swamp of Chicago on a weekly basis last year - record number of mass homocides...

Just ask yourself why it is all the right wing folks who are scrambling to deny any kind of link between this incident and rhetoric?

I watched Fox News after the shooting, very quickly they tried to spin a picture of a random act of a nut case with no political ties. Repeated time and time again. I also watched MSNBC and saw Ed Schultz biting his tongue not to say what you know he was thinking. (amazingly self controlled I might add)

Was the shooting political? Of course it was, the target was a politician! It doesn't make any difference whether or not the shooter was a political "activist" or closely associated with a political party or movement. Things look pretty clear that the motive didn't have anything to do with some personal relationship with the congresswoman. This wasn't some jilted lover who was emotionally distressed and his victim just happened to be a congresswoman!

Anyone who's denying any association with the rhetoric that has become so pervasive, is denying it because fingers are pointing their way. Hopefully, some of it is from a sense of guilt, because they should realize that their language in all likelihood did have something to do with this.

From a partisan perspective, although there may be a few cases where such speech has been used by the left, most of these are either very obscure or relatively mild. By far, the overwhelming majority of this has come from the right. But even if the reverse were true, I still believe it needs to stop.

I'm not buying into the "Leftwing" remark as this man was distrustful of the government and that means every aspect, right left or in the middle. I've read that he was of an independent mindset cursing the religious sheep and the lying government. If this were the case I don't think we can point fingers at anything but violent rhetoric that some have decided is the only way to get others motivated.

It seems that you don't buy it because it doesn't fit into the narrative so many are trying to peddle. Your response is, then, to cherry-pick the evidence that fits your conclusion. BTW, His anti-government rage extended only to their control over grammar. Yes, grammar. Not anti-government in general.

Q22 and others saying this is not political,

It is. Sad, but true. Own it. This mentally unstable man targeted and shot in the head a Democratic U.S. Representive of the 8th District(Tuscon area) of Arizona, before killing 6 others. We have to accept that all of these harsh words from both sides need to stop. We also need to control guns more i.e. better background checks, tougher laws, less guns on the market. We also need to spend money to improve the recongnition of the extremely mentally ill, so that way instead of reacting to these tragedies we prevent them. I am not trying to "peddle" anything aside from the cold hard truth.

Lakerman..I agree with you.. just listen to those right ringers..

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

Get out there and “punish our enemies”

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”

“Punch back twice as hard.”

I want to know “whose ass to kick”

“…I’m itching for a fight.” – Yep, him again

OBAMA!!!

The real problem is that neither side knows the definition of debate. Hurling slurs and accusations is not debate. Just look at some of these insane posts from both sides. It's time to form a viable moderate third party.

The muzzling of Free Speech is exactly the wrong approach. Heated debate in the open is necessary. It clears the air and gives a pressure valve, thus avoiding explosion.

There were no Internet, blogs, or CNN when Kennedy was assassinated. Whatever plans were made by Kennedy's assailant(s) were made in private discussion.

Giffords isn't the first (attempted?) assassination in all-history. And it shan't be the last.

Get a grip folks. Keep your rights in force, as your forefathers intended it to be. This too shall pass.

Our nation and our political system has tolerated hate from the left for decades. From the Bill Ayers bombing of the Pentagon (now a left wing hero) to decades of "rallies" where signs reading "Death to Bush", what seems to be missing here is any perspective at all from left leaning people.

And here is why that is - your left leaning news services have all but ignored, or worse, encouraged, this "freedom of speech".

Your leftie artists display Piss Christ and you call it provocative, instead of the religious hate that it is.

I am really sorry to tell you, but for 50 years the left has cultivated a society that has lost respect and decency, and replaced it with profanity and disrespect.

You lefties disrupt meetings for years, shouting at people, splashing them with red paint if they don't wear the right clothing and now you suddenly want civility?

The utter insanity of the posts I read today provide ample examples with just how out of touch the left is to the damage they have done to our society and the inevitable outcome of unrelenting "tolerance".

Funny thing, with the murdering Muslim attacked our military people in Texas, the left was really quick to call for tolerance and understanding.

I am beyond sick and tired of the left and their unending need to control, shift blame, and lie without ceasing to try and win people over to their side.

This idiot was insane, and if he had any political leaning, he was a socialist leaning towards communism.

Q22 and others saying this is not political,

It is. Sad, but true. Own it. This mentally unstable man targeted and shot in the head a Democratic U.S. Representive of the 8th District(Tuscon area) of Arizona, before killing 6 others. We have to accept that all of these harsh words from both sides need to stop. We also need to control guns more i.e. better background checks, tougher laws, less guns on the market. We also need to spend money to improve the recongnition of the extremely mentally ill, so that way instead of reacting to these tragedies we prevent them. I am not trying to "peddle" anything aside from the cold hard truth.

Really. Was the attempted assassination of Reagan political? He was a politician. If you are really interested in the truth then show any evidence at all that Loughner was responding to or acting on behalf of any political chatter. Because if you can't then it is reprehensible to assume any Constitutionally protected free speech or any speaker bears any responsibility for the tragedy in Tuscon. More to the point is that you want to assign responsibility to innocent people who happen to have different political views than yours.

Silence the right???? Unlikely, but one can still hope.

Does anyone really believe that all the gun and hate rhetoric doesn't affect anything? Well, that's not what two of the victims believed:

Roll, a Pennsylvania native, received death threats in 2009 over a $32 million civil-rights suit filed against an Arizona rancher by illegal immigrants. At the time, Roll and U.S. Marshal officials attributed the threats to hysteria from talk radio.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

Roll was killed because he happened to be at the Congresswoman's event, not because of any lawsuit in 2009. I would guess that the vast majority of public officials or public people have gotten death threats yet there isn't an epidemic of assassination in this country.

And still...Loughner is as likely to be influenced by bullet points and battleground states as he was to Palin's map.

ROR

Lakerman #1.13 - Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:04 PM CST

Rob: I agree with most of what you say. Please give me examples of hatred filled dialogue from the left. If there is, I agree it has to stop.

THE NEW YORK TIMES June 14, 2008

Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

Q22,

Different times when Reagan was shot, and the shooter in that assassination attempt had different motivations. That is out of context. Also, free speach is a great thing, but there is a limit to what is exceptable in a respected society. You can speak your mind, but words have can have profound impact. A man named Adolf Hitler caused the 2nd World War not by shooting people up, but by convincing the down-trotten and disgruntled people of Germany they deserved better and should be racial pure. We have lost sight of that.

Besides, I would not want my name on a list with 19 other people and where we live is shown on a map IN CROSSHAIRS. Think before you talk or act.

How about Rahm Emanual striking a piece of meat (steak) while calling out candadates he wanted to see loose and then yelling out 'DEAD'

Link, please Kevin? I've never seen anyone in Obama's administration do that.

Loughner attended a similar Giffords even in 2007 to start his planning. Long before the Sarah Palin crosshairs, long before the Tea party.

Clarke you and Joe are right

Different times when Reagan was shot, and the shooter in that assassination attempt had different motivations.

That is your assumption. You have no facts to support the notion that political rhetoric - especially right wing political rhetoric - influenced Loughner. The truth is that at this point we can only guess about his motives. We do know he was mentally unstable, that he had some crazy views about mind control and the government's control of grammar. That he had met Giffords before and had a low opinion of her and that he was a pot smoking leftist. Beyond that is only speculation (or wishful thinking)

That is out of context. Also, free speach is a great thing, but there is a limit to what is exceptable in a respected society. You can speak your mind, but words have can have profound impact. A man named Adolf Hitler caused the 2nd World War not by shooting people up, but by convincing the down-trotten and disgruntled people of Germany they deserved better and should be racial pure. We have lost sight of that.

And all this time I thought WWII was started because Hitler invaded Poland. Who knew that it all started because of populist political campaigning!

Marylin Manson made him do it.

It's as plausible!

Real American

Well, at the time he was in the Clinton Administration

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5106463.ece

Anyone denying the impact of the right on this kid is either incredibly ignorant or just a right wing shill!

Look at his writings they are full of Hard right wing catch phrases and Ann Rand phony philosophy!

And, Kevin, I haven't seen anyone on the left condoning speech or behavior like that recently. No one from the GOP has said anything about Palin's chart, and the Tea Party is still full of this crap. What is your party going to do to stop it?

Okay, Kevin. You're called out. Not only is that Rahm "incident" you're referring to just a rumor in a British rag, it supposedly happened at a private dinner and not the way you described it. Just a little different from being a party politician, making public speeches about "2nd amendment remedies" and posting this stuff on your website for all to see, isn't it?

See, it's only "they're just like us" until you start looking at the facts. Then it all falls apart and the true culprits remain.

Real American

Read post 1.17

The posts on here castigating the conservatives that used the crosshair symbol and the word targeting must have missed the Daily Kos editor's using them in reference to Rep. Giffords herself during her campaign in 2008.

Immediately the liberals are blaming various talk show hosts, and the right. along with the Tea Party.
The libs are name calling and using slang words such as "crap". They just cant stand it when someone does not agree with them. This is about one person , ONE PERSON. No one can blame a group of people for what one person did. This one person had already exibited bizarre , possibly violent behavior. What is sad is that because everything in this country has become about special interest groups, and because everything has to be politically correct, people feel that they cant say anything bad about anybody , or report bizarre behavior , because they might "offend someone".

Real American

Read the Wikipedia link. There are plenty of articles about the incident, so it seems to be pretty much a public knowledge incident that neither he nor anyone of the Democrats have denied or appologized for.

I don't believe this tradgedy was directly caused by the hate of political parties. This boy clearly had serious problems and would have acted regardless of what was said by any politician. The way I see it, both sides are hypocritical and need to stop with all of the hate regardless of what has happened. The words exchanged between parties no longer qualify as debate and are now nothing more than garbage and hate speech, something that should have stopped long ago.

This person was a walking time bomb; no one, teachers, parents, friends, law enforcement did a damn thing to get this person mental health/ confinement or out patient; people must become more involved, before the fact , not afterwards !

I’ve been listening to the hatred spewed by the right wing for years now Rush, FOX and Beck does and wasn’t it Palin that recently posted a video of her self shooting and killing a moose (a Sarah snuff film). And yea the GOP does spread lies, like WMD, the Pres. is an Alien, and Death Panels and all the other malarkey, as Joseph Goebbels the propagandist once said, "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth”. As far as the tea baggers go let’s see… one confessed to witchcraft, Rand Paul’s goons beat up a protester, wasn’t it the right wing that showed up at the Presidents speeches waving guns, wasn’t it Sarah Palin that put cross hairs on people she didn’t like, wasn’t it a conservative who talked about the 2^nd amendment solution. Heck the conservatives don’t even believe in science they deny global warming, they deny evolution and prefer to live in ignorance and superstition - I think it’s the right wing that spreads the hate

obama doesnt do hateful rhetoric now does he? in fact, if you voted yes, then shut up and keep your opinions to yourselves!

windycreek

you are copying and pasting the same garbage that others like you have already copied. You people are taking a full statement, chopping it down until tou have what fits your agenda.

stop taking words out of contest because your Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat” really means:

A Republica in majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy, President Obama warned Wednesday…

it does not mean Democrats go into combat with the Republicans.

They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun” is a famous movie line from THE UNTOUCHABLES!!!!!

your Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.” really was part of the sentence that said: Obama vows to fight Republicans -- next year in Congress.

Your Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.” is really:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

I can go on. My point is stop using parts of a sentence because all you are doing is creating the very propaganda that angers people. Write the whole sentence and let people decide what it means!!!!!

what you are doing is not any different than taking a video, and re-editing it to make a new video - one that states something else. Kind a like Fox played the re-edited the Shirley Sherrod video and called it NEWS!!!!!

We can do that to ANY politician but why?

I think Jon Stewart said it best

I do think that its important for us to watch our rhetoric, I do think that its a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with our enemies if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid mad men and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let’s at least make troubled individuals easier to spot.

"America is shocked"?

I'm not shocked. To say that you are shocked implies you don't have a clue as to what's going on in America. This was completely expected to me and if it wasn't expected by anyone else then you're an idiot! Is that what you're saying MSNBC? Fox? Politicians? Anyone?

American was shocked and saddened. The Left rushed to blame the Right (always seems to happen this way). This stoked angry emotional reactions form anyone already primed that the right is the problem. Now the Right, armed with the facts that clearly to any reasonable mind shows them as not even remotely responsible, stormed back unhappy and rigorously. Now, watch the extreme left deny, deny, deny the facts and insist they are right, that the proof is lies, lies, lies, and continue on as they did nothing wrong and the problem is the right.

Joe-Blow you better hope Sarah"Frankenstein"Palin doesn't put crosshairs on your back!

Those who demonize and dehumanize their opposition, are the true Nazis of the 21st century. How did Hitler and the Nazi party convince hundred of thousands, if not millions, of people to turn in their Jewish neighbors? How did the Nazis get people to guard, and starve and gas the Jews to death?

This is what hate and violent type speech gets you. Your leader becomes a Nazi and you become a Nazi follower.

Yes, we will argue about what is destroying the country. We will even try to prove each other wrong on their arguements. When we start dehumanizing and demonizing our opposition, we become less of human beings, in regard to ourselves. Will you allow yourself to become a Nazi?

DB Akron,

Obviously, you are one of the idiots I refer to.

You make a great case - not! Please state how so?

I didn't realize the National Socialist Party was contagious.

Reason and Logic, is there a vaccine? Do I just need earplugs when listening to the radio or watching TV?

On a serious note, something terrible could arise out of the political upheaval in the ME & N Africa. I would be more worried about that region than the US.

Duane, no one is suggesting the elimination of political arguments. It is absolutely needed to fully discuss issues and solutions. It can be done so, though, without demonizing the other person with an opposing viewpoint. Because one may support health care reform doesn't mean they are a Socialist/Communist/Fascist/(insert any "ist" here) who's secret motive is to destroy our country.

Unfortunately our media encourages this type of vitriol because it's good for ratings. Yes both sides do it but, just by sheer number of outlets, there is far more coming from the right. Hopefully both the right AND the left will learn from this....

I think the most foolish comments are the ones that say "without heated rhetoric we would not have the USA". If you are not smart enough to know the difference between heated political arguments that need to be made and comments like "we need to use our guns to settle this", than you are just a fool.

Part of the problem as I see it, is the right using violent and fear-based imagery for just about everything.

Why call repeal of healthcare the "repeal of the job-killing healthcare law" for example?

We are a violent culture already. There is no need for infusing everything with violent language.

I would like to see both sides step away from the fear mongering. On the right they make us afraid of lefties and the outsider...On the left they make us fear the righty and the crazed domestic loon. Democracy is dangerous and neither side has a lock on safety. Bad things will happen because there are bad/delusional/crazy people out there. Let use have reasoned well thought out arguments. There are many things to disagree about and have valid conversations over, we just need to remember to actually have a conversation not a screaming match. Living your life to protect you from the inexplicable actions of a person(s) will eventually put you in a world of inexplicable rules.

etothex freedom of speech is part of the backbone of this nation. How do you read the part about settling things with guns in anything I have posted here? You are wrong in your assessment of who is the fool here.

Duane we all agree, that free speech is a gauranteed right in the 1st amendment. But what is not free speech is out right lying about something, (in most cases rightwing politicians) and inciting political terrorism to get thier way.

The lies and the political terrorism go hand and hand. The rightwing lies and lies, but they get away with it. And now we have dead people because of Glenn BeKKK et all. They must be held accountable in a court of law and have thier liscenses striped to broadcast hate and violent political terrorist rehtoric on our airwaves. I own those airwaves as much as anyone else, and frankly they do not have the right to free speech because our airwaves are all of ours, not the just the Christain right and thier media propagandist.

Case in point, every channel on AM in my area accept one is a rightwing religious station or a conservative station, and they say they have no freedom. I call BS on them and thier lies.

@duane - where do I refer to any comments you made? Or freedom of speech? It's actually a similar comment to the one above mine. So I think you may be the fool.

Doesn't explain why he killed the 9 YO girl.

Sorry real - both sides tend to exaggerate and vilify the other side. The difference is, when it comes from a democrat, it's usually whiny and they play the victim role. When it comes from a republican, it's usually a bit more aggressive along the lines of "they're stealing from us".

I love freedom of speech. Everyone should be able to speak his or her mind. However, that does not give anyone the right to intentionally distort the truth, a practice that has been fully embraced by politicians, Fox News and MSNBC. When these supposed news organizations do their op-ed pieces under the guise of calling it news, this intentionally misinforms the public so that these organizations can make a profit.

Freedom of Speech carries responisibility. Palin, Angle, Beck, Limbaugh, and anyone who uses fear, and lies to heighten that fear, in order to gain an audience, is not acting in a responsible manner. They know who their audience is. They know exactly what they are saying and to whom. On what basis do any of you use the word "leftist" refering to this shooter? No one denies he could as easily have been pushed to violence by anything, but it is clear that his version of politics was his rational.
There must be a distinction between rational debate, which is necessary for a democracy, and intentional divisive propoganda based on half-truths and full-on lies.

Why does it always have to come down to right vs left. It said in the articles about the shooter that he was aggressive and was against government, all government. Sighting that he believed in conspiracies, like 9/11 being perpetrated by our government. He was disturbed and against all government he was not persuaded by heated rhetoric from either side. Why does it always have to turn into a battle between the left and the right.

folks both the left and right have their share of fear mongers. the left is just as guiltyas the right. Neither is right. neither extreme represents a majority of our citizens. I have seen this nut described as both a leftist and a tea bagger. Each side is trying to use this for political gain. This is reprehensible no mater which side you are on. Lets call it what it is a senseless act of violence by a true lunatic.

Real,

The rightwing lies and lies, but they get away with it. And now we have dead people because of Glenn BeKKK et all.

You've got to be kidding me. You complain about rightwing lies and then in the next sentence lie about this situation. There is absolutely nothing that indicates this nut job ever saw Glenn Beck, et al, but you conveniently want to twist things and state unequivocally that we have dead people because of them. THAT is the real problem - the lies and distortions from both sides of the aisle on every conceivable issue.

NYworking, because that is the political climate we exist in. And the finger pointing will continue until the lies from both sides stop. Which is unlikely. Very few people in this country want to hear truths from their politicians, and politicians, in order to be re-elected, will tell their constituants what they want to hear. Do you think any sitting or want-to-be-sitting politician from the the right is going to PUBLICLY say enough is enough? Imagine the outpouring of TEA that would ensue! And when the President or any other Democrat tries to reach across the aisle and deal with the Republicans,there is a huge cry of "traitor!" from the left. Intelligent and informed discourse no longer has a place in our society. Maybe, with luck, it will re-emerge.

Magnificent50, it is really a sign of how single minded many Americans are. They are consumed by accusations and anger instead of banding together to mourn for the loss of life that came from this tragedy. I think you are right the lies wont stop from either side anytime soon. The reaction to this tragedy is a clear indication of that. Its amazing to me that people can't see this for what it is, a very unstable anti-government minded individual who snapped. Instead they will sit here all day pointing fingers and trying to "score points" by claiming it is the other sides fault.... so sad.

What people are missing in this terrible tragedy, is that we still need to tone down the level of rhetoric ANYWAYS. With or without this horrible, horrible event the country is still in a bleeding bad way, and we demonize the other side to no end. The fact of the matter is the right is much louder in this than the left. The right also uses stronger imagery more often. The left does this too, way more than they should I might add, but they don't do it on the same level.

The reason this has come up because almost a year earlier she mentioned being on Sarah Palin's "hit list" and nobody taking any notice that she was figuratively in the sights of the right. Now she actually was shot. Does anybody, ANYBODY, see how incesitive this is?

I don't think anyone is trying to squelch political debate. What is being suggested is that we keep that debate in a civil tone. There is no need for symbolic and euphemistic language that remotely links civil debate with violent debate. The primary reason this is used is to get attention and reaction. People respond when they feel threatened. However, people respond when they feel hopeful too.

Threats and fear effect the reptilian part of the brain and initiate survival type responses. Hopefulness on the other hand appeals to the logical part of the brain. These are developed as creative responses and desire. To me it's a question of if you want to create actions about suppression or actions about growth and development.

It's not about stopping debate, it's about debating with a set of ground rules and principles. Political campaigners know that fear works when it comes to gettting out people to vote. We also know that buying votes with money works too, but we've decided that is an inappropriate and illegal approach. The irony is that creating fear, which is legal, has a much more lasting effect than illegally buying someones vote.

Debate should be about an outcome where the observers conclude what they are for vs. what they are against. Being for opposition doesn't count as being "for" something. But that's what this rhetoric drives.

Amen, 1NewDay!

Dial it back, people!

Using the term "hate speech" for that you disagree with is about repressing free speech. BTW - I read talk about banning terms and practices writers called "hate speech". Good Lord - parts of the Bible in Canada are termed "hate speech" - is that where we want to go? http://biblelight.net/bible-ruled-hate-speech.htm

Seems to me the left has a cow if they think for a second that someone might burn a book. But, many of them would like other things banned like the term "lock and load". How much more inconsistent can we all be?

I agree, banning speech is ridiculous. If it doesn't meet the criteria of assault or inciting violence, it is protected.

It doesn't matter which side does it. The hate-filled rhetoric and calls for violence and killing must stop!

BBYANKO you are doing the same thing as Merc8 by repeatedly saying "liberal idiot". Don't you see the irony?

bbYanko,

I see that a little humor is lost on you, however, this is not about politics, this guy was not a rational person. This guy did not live in a vacuum, he was a marginal personality and a nut case before he purchased the gun. There were many people around him who knew he was a marginal personality making completely irrational pronoucments, why was he not treated, and/or at least diagnosed?. What these people do is not rational, its not thought out, its acted out, anything can set them off, and if they have a gun in their hand, anything can pull the trigger. We can make all the back ground checks we want, but unless those who are close to a person like this will do something, we will never discover their illness. This young man should have been examined and treated months ago, he should have been identified as a risk for gun ownership, months ago, he should have been under agressive treatment months ago. Why didn't that happen? Apathy and denial, and an environment where EXTREME statements seem normal and everyday!

Spiggs- I call them as I see them.

@merc8 - it is exactly the point, he did not live in a vacuum.

A crazy will be crazy no matter what, but the environment will play a part in what the crazy does.

"Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively. It involves three audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as the five canons of rhetoric: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic or dialectic, rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. From ancient Greece to the late 19th Century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments." -from wikipedia

Rhetoric isn't inherently bad.

Where the problem is is in folks using McCarthyism, fear, circular arguements, framing, and other propoganda techniques to lead the listener and dehumanize the opponent.

Actually if rhetoric was still being taught in schools, more people would be able to recognize it for what it is.

Merc8- I know that it ain't about politics but the far left keeps making it an issue. This blog also is playing the blame game and accusing Palin, Rush, Beck for this kids actions. Read the far left news papers and MSNBC. I have and I am so sick of the pointing fingers and spitting out hatred and nastiness. The far left are doing a lot of spitting out garbage. Maybe you should open up your eyes and read some of the blogs and read some of the rhetoric the far left are saying and doing.

TO ALL YOU LIBERALS!- Here's a good one for you. When Ronald Reagan was shot did any of the GOP or Conservitive party blame you Liberal Democrats for the shooting? I never heard any rhetoric for that incident.! only you Demo/Liberal's are making this political based on your rhetoric nonsense and pointing fingers towards the right.

I REST MY CASE!

dosh.. very educated comment.

Thank you

Hey Liberals/Demo- Here's another good point. How about all the rhetoric and nonsense you made towards Bush calling him a Nazi and other bad names. Pelosi calling the Tea Party Nazi's and evil mongers more rhetoric from the left. So if your going to sit there and point fingers people, I suggest you look at yourselves in the mirror. I sure don't see a pretty image. The far left are just as guilty for their rhetoric nonsense. So before you start casting the first stone maybe you all should think about what was said about the previous President Bush.

I have to agree with Dosh's definition of rhetoric. I also wish more schools taught rhetoric and debate, and to more of their students. I must also, however, note how often I have read comments that actually advocated violence against various groups in this country and others who had not themselves committed violent acts, along with numerous examples of labelling others as racists and bigots, and demands that others "shut up", simply for disagreeing. Add in various ethnic slurs, and you create an atmosphere that actually discourages debate. Much of the above is merely fodder for those with issues of hatred. People like that exist in every group.

Spiggs: All subtlety is lost on BB.

BBYANKO:

What you fail to realize is that there wasn't the hatespeech and violent rhetoric coming from the liberals at the time President Reagan was shot. These are very different times and the rhetoric is very different. That's the reason we are having this discussion NOW and we didn't have it THEN!

I'm 61 years old and have been actively involved in politics all of my adult life. I have never seen or heard anything like this. I am appalled at what has come out of the mouths of Russ Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sara Palin and some of the teaparty candidates this year. It goes well beyond name calling - but even the name calling today from the right is meanspirited- and without facts to support it.

@BBYANKO

And the Tea Party arn't any bigger idiots, by your standards? (Double standards I might add.) The left and right have their fair share of idiots, but which ones are louder? Which ones have more and importantly, more RECENT angry rhetoric? And if you hate MSNBC so much, why do you have a Newsvine account? I'm simply pointing out the hypocracy of your logic.

I call it like I see.

I've seen Sarah crapping in the woods and eating yellow snow at the same time!

Scott Kelly in regard to his sister-in-law, Gabby Giffords':

"...What is going on in our country that such a good person can be the subject of such senseless violence?"
.
As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful," said Cmdr Kelly. "Unfortunately, it is not.
"These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words."
"We are better than this. We must do better," he said.

Again, WE AE BETTER THAN THIS! WE MUST DO BETTER!

Unfortunately, no one can do much about a person such as this until he hurts someone or tries to commit suicide. Why? Because quite a few years ago, (the '80's I think), the progressives decided that everyone should do as they like. As I recall, it started with mentally unstable homeless people who didn't want to go to homeless shelters. It was decided that, even if they didn't have much beyond a clue of who they were, they couldn't be removed from the streets to a shelter or to a mental health facility. After all, how can it be up to anyone to judge another unless a crime has been committed.

Some states more difficult than others, but still very difficult to get someone committed.

So, since Jared had no medical or legal history of insanity, he was free to purchase gun (if that's how he really got it).

MARI THE REASON there is so many mentally ill walking our streets is because newt and the gang cut off there assistance and mentally sick people can not get jobs so they have no where to go but to roam our streets

Willie: It's the unstable ones that can't understand rhetoric, sarcasm, or simple showmanship. While Rush probably doesn't believe half the things he says, some walking zombie out there will use it as an excuse to strike at some imagined foe.

"Normal" people know the difference. A reference to armed uprising may just be political theater. Some paranoid lunatic makes it his credo.

I believe we need to take the rhetoric down a notch. We need to speak about issues, without demonizing the other side. Just because your political opponent sees something differently, that doesn't make him/her less of a patriotic American. We need to embrace our differences of opinion, debate them vigorously, but leave the hatred and vitriol out of our politics.

Mari, et al - the release institutionalized people was not simply an act that "progessives" thought would be a really neat thing to do. The COST of warehousing people was out of control. Can you imagine, given the state of the health care debate as it is now, what would happen if we suddenly decided all the "marginalized" people, the people with various mental issues, should be warehoused again? Who would pay for that little project? Just curious. Hind sight is 20-20, but in reality, where was the money going to come from? Until Health Care Reform, the insurance companies could drop people from coverage at will. So who pays for treatment for the mentally unstable? What a merry-go-round. Interesting how the quick-fixes seem so easy but make no sense in real time. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.....

Ronald Reagan was the one who closed the federally funded mental institutions and said their populations should be taken care of in (cheaper) community-based treatment centers instead. Problem was, it was an unfunded mandate to the states, so the "community-based treatment centers" were never built. Ah, the joys of outsourcing!

And, no, magnificent, I don't think it costs less to leave the mentally ill without treatment than to treat them. It just moves the cost to the community, their relatives and those they injure as they move through life. Along with stricter gun laws, why do you think countries with adequate mental health care have fewer of these incidents than we do? Are you really willing to accept what happened yesterday as just part of the "cost" of leaving these people on the streets????

magnifcent50,

A family would still have their 9-year-old girl. That is enough for me to suggest we should increase the funding for the mentally ill.

I don't disagree with Real or Michigan, I believe we should treat the mentally ill appropriately, we do not have adequate mental health care. Michigan, tell it to the Republicans who are working very hard to dismantle what little care that is available, "provided" by health insurance companies, limited care provided by diminishing federal funding. Community based care was an unfunded fiasco, and the situation has not improved.

Some things have (slowly) begun to improve in mental health care legislations. See here for discussion of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act passed in 2010: https://www.cms.gov/healthinsreformforconsume/04_thementalhealthparityact.asp

There go the careers of Ed Schulz and Rachel Madow.

@mari: I can't speak for Ed Schulz, but you obviously haven't seen Rachel Maddow.

and Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage.......

Glen Beck's radio show in NY has been pulled, the last show will be on Jan 17, he and Hannity have lost Philidelphia, and Palin had her Alaska show pulled on TLC.

To edit my above posts, it appears Beck and Hanity losing those markets was well in advance of this tragedy. Palin had her show pulled the same day however.

Mari: Whenever I've heard Schultz or Maddow, I never heard them attacking people, only questioning ideas. In fact, on Maddow's show, I've heard a lot of humor to lighten the tone. Not so for Limbaugh or Beck.

Dosh, what does one person no longer being on a radio station have to do with anything? The radio stations are business and if they don't get the ratings, they will be replaced. It happens all the time no matter what the content of the show is about.

Dosh – you can’t through drivel out like that. There are some of us who actually check into the events and are plenty glad to show the whole truth, not the ‘enhanced” truth we all seem to be hearing first.

Palin’s show being on or not on is a question of price and/or contingent upon a possible presidential run. Glenn Beck radio is off because of low ratings in those markets, just like Jerry Springer (the largest Liberal Radio show) got dumped out of a multitude of markets.

If you don't draw the listeners, the greedy capitalistic Right Wing, Jewish, Left wing media owners won't keep you on the air. Yeah - I researched that too - it doesn't matter who owns the station - if you don't make them money - they replace you.

Ms. Palin's TLC show lasted 8 of 8 planned episodes.

Duh.

It wasn't caused by political debate, it was caused by political mud-slinging.

This was a mentally disturbed person. However, didn't you see any correlation between his posted rants and those from other well paid political extremists.

I consider my self a libertarian and I am very concerned how both democrats and republicans (and their media extensions - MSNBC and Fox) distort the truth for profit.

This should not be pinned on any one political extremist (from either side), but the extremists need to be held accountable for when they distort the truth in the name of profit.

I think what Mike was getting at was even in the absence of "Political Rhetoric" this guy was going to flip out. The guy seems to be the type to find something to go wacko about to justify his killing people. A few years ago it would have been "The abortion doctors were killing babies, so god told me to blow them up" or "The black people were plotting to seduce my wife & take my job so I had to kill as many of them as I could" Some people just have some kind of brain damage that makes them want to hate and kill and they'll find something, anything, to "Justify" it.

Truth - Jared met with Congresswoman three years ago. Had questions that he disagreed with the answers - and made that known. What is not known is what the disagreement was over. What is known is that he had big issues over our money not being backed by silver and gold and his favorite books are Mein Kampf and the communist manefesto. Far left claims this to be republican despite the history of Republicans being staunchly against these - McCarthyism who's anti-communist, anti socialism stance is notorious.

The police released excerpts from Jareds own writings - he acted alone. He was a registered Independent - and yet did not vote in 2010. If he disliked her that much voting was the proper way to show it.

This leads me to the Sheriff. Last time I voted for a sheriff, it wasn't for his political view, it was to enforce the law. Politically that guy is out of his league and should stick to law enforcement. Seeing as Jared had been the subject of multiple previous calls - he needs to focus on his job more, instead of politics.

itastallion

um his acquaintances have also described him as a right-wing wacko.....

His affliation to any party has not been determined except to say he wrote a hate-filled letter to Gabriel Gifford (the letter that was found in his safe with the words - "I planned a head", "My assasination" and the name "Gifford" writen on the envelop with his signature.)

Few details of this letter has been released except to say the letter was written in 2006 and that it was full of rage and hate towards the congresswomen....

I doubt very much if he hate democrats that much, if he was a registered Democrat or "left-leaning".

Sooooo......saying he was registered a democrat....as I heard on CNN Radio this morning...was fanning the flames....but you insinuating he MUST be republican isn't? Just checking to make sure I understand how the rules work in your world.

The FBI is also looking into his ties with a white supremacist group.

The white supremacists hate liberals as much as Jews or Blacks. Going to an Aryan Brotherhood meeting and telling them you're a liberal will get you invited to a boot party.

The point being this guys beliefs are all over the place, so there's no way to you can place him into a nice little niche to bludgeon others with.

Stang, no responsible person is saying he was a Republican. He likely did not subscribe to any "party". It is unfortunate, however, that many of the dangerous loonies out there identify with the most extreme views of the far Right. Not all, there are a share who identify themselves with the far left and share far left views. But the trend for the radical right is towards bigotry, hatred, wild conspiracy theories, and very anti-democratic beliefs, veiled with Bible and Patriotism. The hatred and fear being spread, coupled with a call to arms, however symbolic in intent, is just what the doctor ordered for the already unstable to jump off the proverbial cliff.

um Where did I refer to this guy as a Republican - I distinctly type

His affliation to any party has not been determined except to say he wrote a hate-filled letter to Gabriel Gifford (the letter that was found in his safe with the words - "I planned a head", "My assasination" and the name "Gifford" writen on the envelop with his signature.)

I did not hear on CNN or any where else that he was a registered Democrat nor have I heard that he is a registered Republican.

Perhaps you have a link you can provide that backs up your statement, because I have been watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox and I haven't heard anything of the kind.

Sorry - my comment is directed at "Stang".

um Where did I refer to this guy as a Republican

Um...you insinuated it right here....

um his acquaintances have also described him as a right-wing wacko.....

And...um....right here....

I doubt very much if he hate democrats that much, if he was a registered Democrat or "left-leaning".

I didn't say you "referred" to him as Republican....I said you "insinuated" he was.

Just FYI....I couldn't find a link to the remarks I heard on CNN yesterday morning...and I did apologize if the information was wrong which it sounds like it was. But I have no way of knowing that the news reported on my radio in the morning isn't true...you'd expect it to be but obviously not usually the case lately.

All I'm asking is that if you accuse someone on here of doing something you feel is wrong...whether they meant to or not....don't go on later to do the exact same thing and expect anyone to respect your opinion. I can admit when I'm wrong...can you?

Stang

My comment "um his acquaintances have also described him as a right-wing wacko....."

is in direct response to itastallion's comment

"How about people who were familiar with the shooter describing him as "leftist?"

Which is the truth - people who live in the area have expressed both sides - he's a liberal - he's rightwing - BOTH

I then went on to say in the same comment

His affliation to any party has not been determined

except to say he wrote a hate-filled letter to Gabriel Gifford (the letter that was found in his safe with the words - "I planned a head", "My assasination" and the name "Gifford" writen on the envelop with his signature.)

Which are the FACTS.

I then went on to say that I doubted that he hated Democrats or was a Democrat or that he was left-leaning as was assumed by itastallion since I had address my comments to that poster.

You are the one who is assuming - not me -

So as far as I am concerned - you are the only one who "insinuated" something that was never there.

Thank you for coming back and admitting that there was no reports of the shooter being a Democrat.

When I am wrong - I know how to make apologies - BUT I AM NOT WRONG.

LOL Of course not.

They apparently set you off.........

If you want to talk about heated dialogue then lets include Van Jones, Frances Piven, Bill Ayers and all the other leftist hate mongers that are actually calling for violent revolution.

How about who cares who is doing it. You don't have to name names or say its this party or that party.

Why is it that you need to place blame? Does that really make you feel better? You just realize that ALL the talk is wrong, and EVERYONE needs to make changes.

@cardoug: you might want to update your info. You aren't quoting any of those people recently.

Also, do I need to remind you of the Tea Party members' love of the "blood of patriots used to nurture the tree of liberty" quote, or the Tea Party as metaphor for revolution itself? How about right-wingers bringing guns to rallies? How about right-wing talk of "2nd Amendment Remedies" when they lose elections? This does not seem to happen on the left.

cardoug, I am a Democrat, can't recall any of the people you refer to - I guess I have heard of Bill Ayers, but nothing stands out. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, - they among others, have made a lucrative business out of screaming lies over the airwaves and cyberspace. Point being, the extreme right has become a business, unconcerned with truth. Few can recall the names and messages of "lefties". Or maybe I am simply out of touch.....

@magnificent50-----don't play dumb, there's plenty of them, obama, ms obama, Barney Fwank, Al Gore, George Soros, Mao, Castro, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, all of them "socialists" hoping to destroy capitalism and our "constitutional republic"!

Legal, I am not the one playing dumb. Check out the reflection in the mirror....

Well said, John. Sadly very few will listen or understand what you wrote here. Too much hate in America today...........The hate has blinded many.

Amen.

Two key words.... Freedoms and Responsibility. The first requires the second.

Janet Renos attack on Waco was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing . Timothy McVeighs own words.

Trying to educate the uneducated

Anavrin - McVeighs reasoning, but look at the political atmosphere at the time. Unless of course you possible believe McVeigh was justified (I hope not).

Wow, that's why more physical attacks and assaults come from the left? Does Sarah Palin incite violence in liberals?

William Ayers, former Weatherman and suspect in police murders, "I wish I had done more!" 2008

Squeeky Frome, attmtped assassin on Geralds Ford "trying to bring to to light the plight of the redwood forests."

Charles Manson and Family.... incited by Beatles music (lock up Paul McCartney)

John Lennon, murder was Reading Catcher in the Rye (arrest J.D. Salinger)

John Hinckley, attempted assassination on George Bush, wanted to impress Jodie Foster

David Berkowitz aka Son of Sam, inspired by messages from a dog. Guess we need to go after the SPCA.

Name me who incited this violence based on the evidence before us. No one even knows what music or tv this kid listened too. Maybe it was PBS?

Couldn't agree more. We run around looking for reasons why people do this stuff and we forget people will do evil if they have no moral compass.

"John Hinckley, attempted assassination on George Bush, wanted to impress Jodie Foster"

Reagan not Bush

Libs "feel" that right-wingers lie, fear-monger, incite violence. Yet the Left made a movie about Bush's assassination while he was in office, called him a war-criminal, applauded the nut who threw his shoe at Bush, and Obama's said the following:
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t wan...t to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back...... Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Also mentioned "keeping his boot on the throat" of someone, I forget whom.

Jim - let's just take your supposedly "equivalent" left-wing hate speech. Exactly who are "they" in any of these statement? Did Obama make a target of any person in what he said? Can you identify "them"?

Now, let's look at Palin's map, shall we?:

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/palin-puts-gun-sights-on-“target”-map-urges-we-“reload”/

Not really any need to guess about who she's targeting there - their names are all listed under the picture. See the difference????

And, navyvet, don't you take an oath of honesty when you join the military?  Does that expire when you get out?  In the Bill Ayers' 2008 interview you reference, he said no such thing:

In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker, Ayers said that he had not meant to imply that he wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more @!$%#.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.” He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property,” and “We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves.”^[35]

He was correcting a misconception about something he had said in 2001 to a NY TImes reporter.  Get your facts straight and quit demonizing people.

And here's what Obama actually said in a speech to Latino supporters:

"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,' if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

Now, is he talking about SHOOTING people? Or is he (obviously, since he said it twice specifically) talking about VOTING? Is there ANYTHING in that statement to encourage anyone to harm anyone? Anything about guns? Anything about violence? No.

Show me ONE place in Sarah Palin's gun-sight map that talks about voting.

And where did that quip about Obama bringing guns if they brought knives come from? Why, GOP staffer Joyce Kaufman, who was defending herself after making this statement:

"I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will." The Second Amendment, remember, is the right to keep and bear arms.

Here's what Politifact has to say about her claim:

On her radio show Nov. 12, Kaufman suggested she isn't the only political player to use rhetoric that some could interpret as inciting violence.

"Nobody has played clips over and over again on the FOX (News network), which is supposed to be fair and balanced, of President (Barack) Obama said, 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun,' " Kaufman said. "I've never heard that clip played. We all know it was said. Did the cow play that? No. Of course not. Because we knew what he meant. These are metaphors, these are ways of stating in large terms simple facts. President Obama was saying if they try to fight us and pick at us with amendments we will come at them with legislation. And that's what he did. I knew that’s what he meant."

Obama was quoting from the 1987 movie The Untouchables about gangster Al Capone (played by Robert De Niro) and the efforts of government agent Eliot Ness (played by Kevin Costner) to bring down Capone during Prohibition in Chicago. The trailer on YouTube contains the quote that Obama borrowed -- muttered by actor Sean Connery playing cop Jimmy Malone -- in a sinister voice: "You want to get Capone? Here is how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That is the Chicago way."

We also found a June 23, 2008, article in the Chicago Tribune, which stated that Obama meant the line delivered at the Philadelphia fundraiser as a joke.

And, if Ms. Kaufman said, "no one has ever heard that clip played", how would some nut job take it out of context and shoot someone because of it.

Agreed!

Then why will no one join an effort to tone things down a bit and come together for the good of the country? Why not want to live in peace? Is it really because there are those who want everything their way or no way? America has been strong for 234 years because we have been flexible enough to grow with the times. Why not now? If so many of us are mentally unhealthy, it seems that mental health concerns should be on the front burner. I have a feeling that there are people making themselves crazier because of the society we are forming now. Who wants to live like this? What is the point of demonizing? America is forgetting who she is and we have too many enemies waiting for us to lose our grip!

Why is there no will to come together in peace like adults?

Anindividual,

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to believe that it is because we don't "have an app for that". The advent of social networking, instant messaging, and text messaging have radically changed how people interact with one another. Things that people would never say face-to-face are now commonplace because of the anonymity. I personally think outlawing cell phones might do more to calm the rhetoric than anything else......

JC and An -

Agreed, and because so many pundits are willing to continue to raise the temperature for ratings and to sell their many books and sponsored products. Makes me sad!

Obama wants people to deal with his enemies and he suggested bringing guns if Republicans have knives. Chuck I suggest before blaming the right if you got the facts Jared hated the flag, he was a fan of Karl Marx. The communist manifesto was one of his favorite books. The facts point to him being more of a left leaning person who supported violence if necessary to make changes. I think if people follow his rants and way of thinking if he was politically driven it was definately by the left.

Wow! You were born in the 1860s? You got stamina!

I haven't seen this much Hatred and Vitrol since the Civil Rights era when White Southern Elected

Ironic isn't it since George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Ted Kennedy were all effin DEMOCRATS!

Why did you leave out Mein Kampf????? The other favorite book. He hated government!! Communist usually love government! As I said on another comment that you made. Linda, you get only one really dumb comment per day. You have had two. You are over your head and over your limit.

Chucky!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Speaking of over the limit on stupid posts. You are just stealing now. The NAzi Party was the National Socialist PArty. Get it now or did they not teach you that at Nancy Pelosi Elementary School?

The nazi party was considered and is still considered right wing extremism. Don't believe me, then go ask right wing Russel Pearce about his Nazi affiliations. You people get hung up on names because you view it as an escape from your reality.

Anyone who believes the neo-Nazis are left wing needs to take a moment to look at what that group believes.

"

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism^[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.^[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.^{[11]" -from wikipedia}

Oh well if wikipedia says so then it must be because they are the ruling authority.

LOL, yeah, atheists who burn the flag are all right-wingers to me...sure!

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/week7_keyfeaturesofnaziparty_early.htm

The Nazi Party was formed as the German Workers party by Anton Drexler, Dietrich Eckhart and Gottfried Feder in 1919. Drexler, who was the original leader of the party, had strong nationalistic views and was anti-semitic. This small political party was noted by the armed forces as being a potential Socialist threat and a spy, Adolf Hitler, was sent to investigate the party to assess how much of a threat the party was. Hitler became fascinated with the politics of the group, and began an active participation in the activities of the German Workers Party. This led to him rapidly becoming the member of the GWP executive responsible for propaganda and in turn his skills as a public speaker led to him becoming the mouthpiece of the movement.*

His skills as a political speaker and his assertive manner within party meetings soon led to Hitler becoming the recognised leader of the party. It was he who then began to formulate policies. This culminated in the production, in 1920, of a 25 point programme or manifesto. This outlined the aims of the NSDAP (The Party name had by now been changed from 'German Workers party'). The programme, along with Hitler's speeches, illustrates what the ideology of the party was in its early days and, via speeches, how these ideals and aims might be put into practice.

You may also find this interesting:

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm

Pay close attention starting with point 10.

The 25 point Programme of the NSDAP

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

In it's current form from here .nazi.org/

A Nazi Libertarian Green Party? Anyways

To address the Socialism thing

Socialism

Another term likely to be confused is Socialism. In the traditional use, it means that able members of any community are given a guarantee of employment unless they are completely inept or morally deprived, in which case they are exiled from the community. When society transferred from feudal organization to that of economic competition, there was a sudden proliferation of beggars; competition allowed some to get wealthy, but displaced many more who wanted only a working wage and were less inclined toward wealth. Socialism in the National Socialist sense resembles feudalism, in that each is guaranteed working employment, although competition allows those who are more adept to advance further. In this it is distinct from both capitalism and Communist-related Socialist movements.

The role of government, sound familiar?

This one is a no-brainer: our government is so big that it has to observe itself through the media to know what it is doing. We can simplify and consolidate its functions, discard others, and encourage it to hire fewer but more skilled people to do what now is passed to legions of contractors.

Government spends much of its time and energy on non-issues because it has to justify itself. This is how we get politicized public education, sponsorship of non-profits which contribute nothing to everyone and a lot to special interest groups, and programs that produce nothing of merit. Big government likes to hide behind a lot of activity. We need to remove that cover and have a government that responds to actual needs with practical solutions.

One way to help with this is to clearly articulate the scope of government. We don't need a Nanny State, or a government that teaches us morality, or a government that is there to take care of our every need. We need a government to provide safe streets, sound defense, and some social programs to keep us on course. Everything else can go

The economy

Much of the platform above involves cutting out programs that don't work and saving money, time and energy spent on them. Where does that power, representative of the value produced by our society, go?

My advice is that we re-invest in ourselves by investing in our future, and channel that money into education and research and development. This will make us more competitive, make life better, and guarantee that our best and brightest rise to the top.

For each program that squanders wealth, the cost to us is little, except in terms of what we then can't afford. Each welfare program is less money for college students to take on the vast costs of education. Each Nanny State program is less money for parks and nature preserves. Each vast bureaucracy steals from our future generations by depriving them of the research and funding to be their very best.

Instead of squandering our cash, let's move it into areas that are both productive now and will be in the future.

Social programs

People who are misinformed use their support of the disadvantaged to make themselves seem more compassionate than others. That wins some points in the popularity game, but it confuses those who are genuinely disadvantaged with those who are not a match for our society.

Foreign Policy

Especially as we see the blip on the radar that is the Georgia-Ossetia-Russia conflict, we need to remind ourselves of the intelligent advice of our forefathers: avoid entangling overseas alliances that obligate us to war for other people's bad decisions. We need to defend the USA and Europe, and that means looking out for our needs first. There are always going to be countries, like there are always going to be people, doing things we disagree with. That doesn't mean we need to force our morality on them. If we're right, and I believe we are, nature will take care of them.

In other words, let other regions solve their own problems. We can make our nation self-sustaining in energy, manufacturing, food growth and entertainment products -- in fact, it's better for us if we do all this stuff locally because it creates more jobs for skilled people and keeps cash within our borders. When we get really good at it, we can export some of it to the rest of them, and if the Chinese become a totalitarian state or the Russians exterminate their own population, it's not our concern.

Some feel better if we support anyone, no matter how dysfunctional, because they fear their own potential dysfunction. Our goal is to navigate between the extremes of being intolerant of basically good people who have fallen on hard times or are having a hard time, and support of those who will never contribute anything to our society.

We ask everyone to contribute as part of our social contract. There are many ways to contribute, not all financial. For example, it makes sense that the state helps subsidize students, artists, environmental workers and some non-profits. But over the past decades, we have accumulated a permanent underclass who live on state handouts.

I will always support job insurance and disability insurance as a universal right. If the economy heads into the toilet, or even a job is lost that's hard to replace, it is fair that society support that contributing worker. If someone is injured on the job, that is a sacrifice like those made in wartime that we should subsidize.

However, welfare programs cultivate dependents. They reward people for not contributing, and then increase their reward if they have more offspring, especially in single-parent homes. This disaster is just creating more people who are not going to contribute, and bleeding more of our effort to them that could go to things that everyone can enjoy, like arts, culture, museums and education.

We do not have to be monsters. All we have to do is say we are no longer supporting those who cannot contribute. If they become criminals, we can arrest them and put them to work in our jails. If they find work and stay on it, we will have succeeded in rehabilitating the otherwise lost.

In addition, we should consider universal health care the way the Swiss do. They pool their money in a state-run fund that provides health care at an extremely low cost. We can require all citizens to buy into this plan and it will be cheaper than any other method of ensuring our citizens are health insured.

Does todays Nazi sound liberal to you? consider this excerpt

The problem is not blacks; it's multiculturalism and liberalism, both of which encourage the herd to gang up on the few people who are realistic.

Set, point, match

Thanks Dosh, that description of the Nazi's fits today Republican/Tea Party to a "T".

No not really I'll admit I cherry picked them to emphasize my arguement on the differences between them and liberals, but they are also radically different from the standard conservative, much less the Tea Party.

It's really sad that people are so uninformed that the think that socialism and the Nazi party are the same thing. No, I take that back - it's not sad, it's scary.

RealAmericansFirst

It's really sad that people are so uninformed that the think that socialism and the Nazi party are the same thing. No, I take that back - it's not sad, it's scary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its sad, scary and disgusting.

To this day it infuriates me whenever I read some idiot say that Nazism and Communism are the same thing. I just can't comprehend the sheer level of ignorance required to make such a statement. Its mind boggling that people who aren't trolling or who aren't actually mentally handicapped can make such a statement, it really is as it represents a complete misunderstanding of both ideologies, world history, and the very concept of logical reasoning.

so I just read those 25 points. I hate to say it, but I found myself agreeing with a lot of those, such as cumpulsory gymnastics and sports for children, and a state enforces preference for small traders in large department stores.

Kind of a weird list, but very interesting. Too bad it turned out the way it did.

Yeah, they are opposing philosophies. Bush was closer to Facism than Obama is to Communism. Socialism is what we live with each and every day. It is good and not something we should be afraid of. We will never turn into another USSR. We are a Capitalistic Democratic Republic. We are slowly learning to meld the better parts of Capitalism with Socialism to make sure everyone is treated fairly with as little greed as possible. Will this democratic experiment which began in the 18th century succeed?? It's too soon to tell, but we have a huge hurdle to overcome... the hatred of each other and the use of violence in solving issues (which is never a solution). We are about as "Christian" as a rock and put no value on morality, ethics or a life except our own. We need to grow up.

That's pretty naive OhioNIck.

Nazism and Communism have the same underpinnings...tyranny. The difference between them is the same as the difference between a cherry and grape popcicle.

@John, not quite.

First of all it should be noted that Stalinism wasn't, isn't and will never be communism. The basic foundations of communism has groups of people (Communes) electing leaders who represent them in higher level meetings, which had leaders representing them in even higher levels and so on with the top of these selected officials discussing things in the Douma (congress). In a way it's not that different from the US democratic system, though it has a few extra levels in between so that in theory every person has an active role in discussing what happens.

Unfortunately this system became quickly corrupted (and abandoned in practice, though not in name) when Lenin died, Trotski was exiled and Stalin started removing any other person who might be (or become) a political threat to him while civil war in Russia was still raging in the early 1920's, resulting in the tyrannical system that you refer to.

In actual practice large scale experiments in real communism never really happened on scales larger than a few villages. The chain of meetings needed to bring an idea from below, all the way to the top, then to snowball back to all the members for discussion and voting, and then moving those votes back to the top pretty much made making decisions beyond the bare necessities near impossible.

You are talking about a make believe ideology that will not and cannot work in the real world. In truth, these ideologies have nothing to with civil society, but have to do with controlling people through coercive power to work against their own self interest. It works against human nature and against basic, God given free will. In this way, there is very little distinction between any forms of tyranny except in subtleties of methods. Slalin and Hitler are only the end logical conclusions of the same warped desires to control others and fabricate perverted visions of perfect societies. You can't dress up the pigs and tell me they are something else.

@John: I'm not dressing up anything. I'm merely pointing out that the thing that you (and many others) mistakingly refer to as communism is in fact stalinism and has little to do with communist or socialist ideology.

If you wish to have a socialistic example to compare things to I suggest you look at countries like Denmark, France, Sweden & the Netherlands.

mistakingly refer to as communism is in fact stalinism and has little to do with communist or socialist ideology.

I'm not making any mistake, you are, because you are insisting only to reference a make-believe ideology that has no basis in reality of working. What exactly is your point? I'm saying Stalinistic oppression is the end state of someones fantasy to recreate a civil society based on Marxism. It can't work and will never work because it runs counter to human nature. Social democracies and other Marxist constructs are only mid-course on the road to authoritariand and ultimately totalitarian oppression. The destination is as clear as day. In this way, fascism, Marxism, socialism, social democracies, all become indistinguishable except for the methods by which they reach the destination. Don't tell me you haven't noticed some of the early death pangs of socialistic civil society in Europe.

RobertM -congratulations on providing the first really rational discussion on this topic I have ever seen on the web. Relying on facts, not dogma - a new ocncept for most.

Wow - someone who really understands the differences between the political philosophies and where they are really in place. Too many Americans speak very freely about them without knowing much about their histories and why they came about.

Jahn Galt -

Social democracies are not mid-course to anywhere... you have your history backwards. Most are located in Europe. They comprise most of the wealthiest nations with most of the highest standards of living in the world. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, France, Austria, ..etc. They have seen extreme monarchies, messy democracies, fascism, dictators, some saw Stalinism - and now have evolved to the next level - a more highly developed hybrid - the social democracy.

They treasure their rights in a democracy, but understand that each of them is better off if society cares for all of them. They are highly productive in the workplace, some of the most successful exporters of manufactured goods in the world, vote in much higher numbers than Americans, are well educated overall, and are ready to dispute political issues based on broad knowledge and freedom to express their views. They demonstrate and strike to gain equal voice with government and big business. Their murder rates are low, their prisons are small, their health is good.

There are no "death pangs" in those countries that I have seen....please explain what you mean. Strikes are legal, and there is some unhappiness with adjustments in college tuitions (from totally free to $1200/yr) and Social Security (european style - full benefits) starting at age 62 instead of age 60 (many Americans would be pleased to suffer so). National budgets are balanced, fiscal discipline is a cultural norm. If you are referring to the "PIGS" countries - they joined the EU late (except Italy), had weak economies then, and still do. Spain had been a fascist dictatorship before joining. The "PIGS" countries are competing with some of the most successful social democraies ever.

One more thing. Germany has had the concept of many working as one for over a century. In the late 1800's, Otto von Bismark established the social security & healthcare insurance systems as a means of DISCOURAGING socialism -

After Germany was united in 1871 under the direction of Otto von Bismarck, the nation developed a common government structure and social policy. But the fact that united Germany had been formed out of four kingdoms, five grand duchies, twelve duchies, twelve principalities, and three free cities was a crucial factor in the way social welfare was administrated. Although after unification social welfare policy was increasingly formulated on the national level, the social insurance programs implementing national policy were aimed at different social strata and were administered in highly decentralized ways.

The new social welfare system that developed after unification in 1871 used existing decentralized structures to provide an ever increasing range of benefits. Because of this, most social welfare programs in Germany are not administered by state bureaucracies. Instead, except for the period when Germany was ruled by the regime of Adolf Hitler (1933-45) and when the former East Germany (1949-90) established a state-run social welfare program, the organizations implementing social policy have been private voluntary entities, some of which date from the Middle Ages. Thus, Germany has implemented a national social policy through an extensive decentralized and pluralistic network of voluntary agencies.

Germans see their economy as a social market economy, that is, one that combines a capitalist mode of production with the belief that society should protect all its members from economic and social need. Such protection is provided by a system of social insurance to which people contribute according to their incomes with the understanding that they may someday need its assistance. The belief that society is responsible for the well-being of its members is called solidarity, or Solidarität , and is a key concept of German social policy.

Germans have combined the notion of solidarity with federal and decentralized arrangements of power sharing, or Subsidarität , another concept that lies at the heart of German political culture and is characteristic of all German-speaking countries (Scandanavians included). Fundamentally, Subsidarität means building social organizations and society from the bottom up rather than from the top down. As a result of this concept, Germans rely on grassroots social entities whenever possible to provide social services and make use of higher-level institutions only when lower-level ones are found to be inadequate.

Solidarität and Subsidarität have affected the development of a national social policy, but most of all they have shaped its implementation. Government offices at the regional and local levels generally determine and handle cash benefits and allowances established at the national level.

Despite the radically different political regimes in power in Germany since 1871, German social policy has shown a remarkable degree of continuity in organizational arrangements and financing. Change has been largely of an incremental nature, and new programs have conformed to previously existing principles and patterns

Source - US LIbrary of Congress

Social democracies have fared far better during this recession - they pull together, back each other up, keep their bills paid, and have open conversation about it all that is generally civil. No place is perfect. But don't be so quick to judge a system you must not have ever lived in.

Tell that to Greece! If you really believe your statements then go there. I know many Europeans and others that choose America's freedom over any other county yet I know of none that would return.

Just one huge tidbit you missed in your economic drivel. The only reason that Europe has maintained it's lifestyle is that it does that on America's backs. What we need to do is stop handing out charity to those that hate us and take care of ourselves.

@au812: As far as who's paying for who's lifestyle... You are aware that besides china, it's primarily the social-democratic European counties who have been lending money to the US right?

it's primarily the social-democratic European counties who have been lending money to the US right?

I sure am aware of that but are you aware why they have money to lend us?

Isnt it because the USA spends huge dollars on defense so they don't have to?

Furthermore, after WWII and they were all broke, we gave them money. And on that note, isn't it also true that the USA has given more money to other countries in the rest of this world than any other county?

True, the US is spending ridiculous amounts of money on defense true. But not for Europe. Not for the US itself either actually. The amount of waste there is incredible.

As for the money of the Marshall plan. The last of that was paid back with interest in 1971. It wasn't just giving money, it was an investment.

As for giving more money than any other country. That might be true in absolute numbers, as the US is quite large and thus has a lot of people and money.
When looking at %of GDP however, the US isn't doing that great. It's in about 22nd place among the most developed nations with 0.1% of GDP. The top 4 being Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), the Netherlands (0,79%) & Sweden (0,7%).
Also from that most US aid goes to countires in the middle-east, with Isreal (which is hardly 3rd world) getting the single biggest share.