Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[MarchHare]

Unfortunately, this is the mindset that perpetuates most disputes in the world- and disputes of all scales for that matter: "the other side is wrong and they are the ones that need to change."

Except in this specific case that we're currently discussing (and not all cases, granted), one side clearly is fueling the fire of violence-themed political rhetoric much more than the other. You've got your head in the sand and are committing the fallacy of false equivalence if you think both sides are equally guilty of this.

As but one example, during Bush's presidency, no Democratic candidates for senate ever said that "Second Amendment remedies" might be necessary to end what they viewed as an assault on constitutional liberties, yet a Republican senate candidate said exactly that just a few months ago.

I think it would be much wiser to acknowledge that both sides have individuals that have committed some pretty deplorable acts.

Nowhere have I said otherwise.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fotze

Wait just a cotton picking minute. Stimpy is Lanny? If so, great work at keeping the disguise this long.

I doubt it, Lanny never had this much patience. I cant recall Stimpy ever really losing his mind in trying to win an argument. I could be wrong there though.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Are you planning a trip to South Phoenix for work? If not, you probably don't need it.

Damn, no dice.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Locke

Damn, no dice.

Not enough hobos down there for you?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Nowhere have I said otherwise.

sorry, it wasn't meant to be a suggestion to you, as much as everyone that accuses "the other side" of being the problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

The sad thing personally, was that after a really crappy stressfull Christmas, I bought my parents a trip to Arizona so that they could depressurize.

Being old people this freaked them out.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The sad thing personally, was that after a really crappy stressfull Christmas, I bought my parents a trip to Arizona so that they could depressurize.

Being old people this freaked them out.

That's too bad.

We go to Phoenix a couple times a year to see the In-Laws and other family. I've been all over AZ, but mostly we stay in Phoenix in a retirement community that's beautiful and very quiet.

Hope you bought your parents a trip to Phoenix instead of Tuscon. Can't blame them for being upset though.

[CaptainCrunch]

I rented them a nice condo in Phoenix for a couple of weeks, but they say that the atmosphere even there is super tense and glum.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I agree with most of your post but....

Rachel Maddow is a bright spot?

She is no different than the folks over at Fox, except she is as left biased as you can get. I remember she was trying to smear Rand Paul (republican, tea party) during the primaries by suggesting he wanted to get this - repeal the civil rights act. Yeah ....she's a real bright spot..

Well, he did say it was not needed. He suggested that the free market would somehow eliminate prejudice and segregation.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

From Wikipedia page on the Mayterthorpe shooting...



Two prohibited firearms, including a 9mm handgun, both of which require a special license and background check to buy.

Perhaps we should spend another few billion on a better gun registry. That will SURELY stop incidents like the one in Mayerthorpe from happening.

Oh right, people like Roszko don't usually register their guns. So much for the couple billion we spent.

Yes, I am being overly sarcastic. But only because you seem to completely miss the point each and everytime we have this discussion.

The shooter in Arizona was obviously mentally disturbed. People like that shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Which indicates a problem with background checks.

Enacting laws that deal with the mentally ill, or with those with criminal records, even if they don't show up on the background check.....and making sure they can't legally obtain firearms might be a much better idea than your stupid idea that banning guns will somehow solve the problem of gun crime.

For certain those guns he had weren't registered in his name. Just more guns that were smuggled into this country I suppose..see my point? If they weren't here maybe those cops would be alive today.

And nice of you to clip my Japan example out of your post. With your love of guns I personally have a hard time believing your a Canadian..if so you must have been dropped on your head as a child.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I rented them a nice condo in Phoenix for a couple of weeks, but they say that the atmosphere even there is super tense and glum.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I talked to my In-Laws about it yesterday and they are not in the least bit fazed. But then again, their entire day revolves around playing cards and watching the Suns' game. I guess it would be different if you are visiting there opposed to having lived there for years.

I hope they go have a good time. And, that was way sweet of you.

[CaptainCrunch]

Just trying to buy my way out of an extended tour of hell.

This is their first time in Arizona, so they had high expectations in terms of what they were going to do or seem.

But my parents tend to be really sensitive about stuff like this.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Unfortunately, this is the mindset that perpetuates most disputes in the world- and disputes of all scales for that matter: "the other side is wrong and they are the ones that need to change."

While it may be beneficial, in response to your post, to point out the formal and informal ties that many violent protesters have with left-wing political groups, I think it would be much wiser to acknowledge that both sides have individuals that have committed some pretty deplorable acts.

The argument is not historic, that the left is always right.
The argument is not idealogical, that the right wing is more violent.
Those sentiments are NOT being offered.

What is being suggested is that one party finished an 8-year Presidency with an unmitigated disaster. Knowing the steep road back to political legitimacy, that same party is now endorsing a message of fear and hate directed at an innately historic President in an effort to leave voters desolate and willing to latch on to whatever wave they ride in 2012.
Palin potentially fits in with this. Depends how she is perceived in a year.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I agree with most of your post but....

Rachel Maddow is a bright spot?

She is no different than the folks over at Fox, except she is as left biased as you can get. I remember she was trying to smear Rand Paul (republican, tea party) during the primaries by suggesting he wanted to get this - repeal the civil rights act. Yeah ....she's a real bright spot..

I'm not sure what Maddow said, but I know Rand Paul said that the civil rights act interferes with freedom of contract. It is a pure libertarian argument, but Rand isn't against civil rights.

Maddow may have had a fair point, link?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm not sure what Maddow said, but I know Rand Paul said that the civil rights act interferes with freedom of contract. It is a pure libertarian argument, but Rand isn't against civil rights.

Maddow may have had a fair point, link?

I don't have a link handy as I watched it live.

It was an incredibly awkward interview. I believe the initial comment came from his opponent Jack Conway and the msnbc crew was all over it, and kept focusing the interview on Rand Paul wanting to repeal the civil rights act, which was kind of taken out of context.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...tement_on.html

It was so bad that Paul had to issue a statment on the issue which I did find:

“Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Paul’s statement read.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.” the statement concluded.

It was an obvious smear attempt by the msnbc crew, and really had nothing to do with Rand Paul's platform.

[Gozer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2r...e_gdata_player

Maddow & Paul

Rand was dancing around the answer because he knew a soundbite would sink him.
I didnt consider her out of line.

Look up Bill Burton and Megyn Kelly on YouTube - thats hostile media.

[Gozer]

Part of what irritates me is that I love the ideals and enthusiasm of the Tea Party, but they won't recognize who the bad guys are.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Part of what irritates me is that I love the ideals and enthusiasm of the Tea Party, but they won't recognize who the bad guys are.

Who are the bad guys?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I agree with most of your post but....

Rachel Maddow is a bright spot?

She is no different than the folks over at Fox, except she is as left biased as you can get. I remember she was trying to smear Rand Paul (republican, tea party) during the primaries by suggesting he wanted to get this - repeal the civil rights act. Yeah ....she's a real bright spot..

It starts at 3 20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo

[SeeBass]

Rush as classy as ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_807543.html

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Who are the bad guys?

The partisan fear-mongers.

Not for what they support, for what they are tearing down.