Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?
 

When I heard about the rampage, the first thing I did was say a prayer for the families. The second thing I did was wonder how long it would take the liberals to seize upon an opportunity to blame this on conservatives.

Turns out, it didn't take long.

Karl F, on another thread, posted that Sarah Palin had a "crosshair" over her on a map of vulnerable Democrats that had seats that were up for grabs this November. Karl, do you really believe that map is a contributing factor in what happened? Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to support that? Do you really think that Palin had violence on her mind when she used that graphic? Karl, are you similarly upset when Democrats do things like that? Do you really think that Democrats don't use the same language during campaigns?

Further evidence of why you have to have something wrong with your brain to be a part of the liberal movement. When Obama says "we have to fight in battleground states", that's OK. When Palin says the same thing, she's inciting violence.

I watched the coverage on MSNBC just to hear what they were saying, and they kept talking about "right wing vitriol". Look, I agree 100% that it would do us all good if we dialed it back a bit, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone here. But if you listened to MSNBC, you'd think that only conservatives spew vitriol. This is a network that only refers to the tea party as "tea baggers", yet they claim that only conservatives participate in this kind of behavior. And no one on the left, NO ONE, suggests that MSNBC is wrong for pretending that only conservatives behave this way. It's unbelievable. MSNBC can do a segment on how mean Foxnews is for spewing hate, and in the very next segment, they call the tea party "a bunch of tea baggers", and no one on the left sees anything wrong with that.

Bury the dead, and let the cops investigate. If the guy was a member of the Tea Party, since when do we hold an entire group responsible for the actions of a single kook? Are liberals suggesting that we hold all blacks accountable for the actions of the worst apples in the barrel? Or are liberals suggesting that only conservative groups are all responsible for everything that each of them do?

You people literally have no shame, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I truly hate these people (the ones who would blame this tragedy on those with different political opinions), I really do.

Welcome to my ignore list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Took you this long? :rotf2:

Come on now, none of these gems did it for you:
"Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?"
"Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?"
"From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?"
"Liberalism - let all the criminals go, it's not their fault"

The line for me was:
His attempt to correlate Indiana Medicaid denying a baby a transplant, which was due largely to the Republican Governor's budget cuts, with the Obama health care proposal at the time. Then to use that correlation to defend Palin's idiot Death Panel comments.

Like I said in that thread after he complained about my comments regarding his absurdity:
"Why bother? Trying to have a discussion with you is futile and merely results in a long pretentious, condescending post from you droning on about how much you hate liberals. Reading about the same 5 talking points has grown exceptionally boring."

I'm sure the words "typical liberal" or "an expected liberal's reply" will pop up somewhere in his replies here.

guess it's getting tougher and tough to look in the mirror...hey JD...maybe he was just being sarcastic ?....

I thought Jim jumped the shark when he commented on Pelosi's looks. I laughed that an actuary was actually talking about someone else's looks. It was the one of the funniest thing I've heard on here. The SOA meetings have more ungroomed people than any event I've ever been to.

I'm beginning to see Jim's point, some are quite quick to nitpick and even condemn what others say while taking little ownership of what they say, clearly not remembering what they've said and having little recognition of it's impact and even parroting some of the most incendiary rhetoric....

do as I say, not as I do..... lest I will insult you and then "ignore" you....:uhuh:

hey Jim...if they say it , it's "sarcasm"...if you say it...it's "hate speech"...see how it works?

Eben, if you could have taken the time to point out why my opinion on this is without merit, that would have been better. I sincerely enjoy engaging with thoughtful folks who disagree with me...I relish that, because that's how you learn.

I did see your post on the other thread where you said, sarcastically, that you were "shocked" that the shooter was a member of the Tea Party. In my opinion, that was an unreasonable thing for you to say, and here's why...there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the Tea Party supports the use of violence towards those with whom they disagree.

But you took the easy way out and insulted me, without supporting why you think my position is invalid. That says more about you than it does about me.

Hey Johnny D...if you're going to trash me, is it too much to ask that you trash me for things I actually said? I don't remember correlating the Indiand Medicaid and Palin's death panel comments.

So Johnny, if you think my question about Pelosi had no merit, can I assume that you do not think she was lying when she said that defecit reduction has been the mantra of Democrats? You think that was a truthful statement?

What's wrong with asking from whom did Obama inherit the economic mess? If Obama keeps saying again and again that he inherited this mess, what's wrong with asking from whom?

When did I do that?

It must be nice to debate others when you allow yourself to put words in the mouth of the other person that are made up.

Yes, that's precisely how it works, and they genuinely don't see anything wrong with it. Hence the mental disorder thing...

For God's sake, the investigating sheriff in Arizona (who you will be shocked to learn is a Democrat) said on Foxnews Sunday that right-wing hate speech incites this kind of violence. Of course, when the host asked him what evidence there was that this kook was inspired by right-wing propoganda, the guy said it's just his opinion.

I remember during the town hall meetings on healthcare, the labor unions sent goons to make sure that folks didn't get the chance to speak against Obamacare. I didn't see the lefties protesting that.

We all saw footage of the black panthers in Philadelphia standing outside voting booths in military clothes and holding clubs. The Democrats had nothing to say about that.

Allen Grayson (former Democratic congressman from Florida) caled his opponent "Taliban Dan", and only Foxnews spoke against it.

MSNBC claims that Foxnews condones "hate speech", and then calls millions of Americans "tea baggers". No one on the left sees any hypocrisy there. Fortunately, only 14 or 15 people watch it.

Yet when Sarah Palin uses the common political expression "battleground states", the left starts shrieking about hate speech designed to incite violence.

:rotf2:

Different Jim I think.


While I have been repeatedly accused of being right wing on here, I really don't align myself with a wing. I watch the vitriol spittled from both sides and have for the last twenty years while I politically sway left or right abouts the center. I have seen many on the left turn into viscous fools, all the kooks are on the right, just as much as right shouts of the kooks on the left.

Are we really any better of this? Why are we so freikin' divided? We just mire ourselves down so deep and bring us all down.

That's a great question John. We are more polarized in our differences than we were 20 years ago, and I am honest enough to include myself in that "we", I'm as guilty as anyone (although I like to think I list my reasons when I slam someone).

I cannot imagine how it gets any better. I'm part of the conservative movement that believes that small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, strong national defense, right to life, and personal responsibility are the correct ingredients for a better future for our kids. I believe those things to my core, and I see not a shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

People on the left believe differently (in some cases the exact opposite), and just as strongly. How do you bring people together who are so diametrically opposed? I haven't a clue. Part of the problem, I think, is that with the threats of Al Queda and the dire financial situation that local/state/federal gov't is in, more people feel like we're at the edge of a precipace, so our differences really come to the forefront, because we rightly feel a sense of urgency.

For the record, I am a "Casulty" actuary, not a life/health actuary (which is what the SOA governs). We are more handsome as a group, although lamentably, not in my case.

If you didn't say that, then I'll apologize. When I see insults in the first post, I usually just ignore the thread.

Have you been to a Tea Party event? I attended one last year (kind of by accident initially) because I agree with a lot of the principles that the Tea Party was initially founded on. However, the hours I spent there and many of the people I met provided a direct contradiction to your above statement. There was a ton of hate spewed, not by those on the stage, but by many people in the crowd.

The public perception of political groups (well, just about all groups) are defined by the loudest and most extreme in their ranks.

• Democrats are defined by far-left social liberals
• Republicans are defined by far-right religious conservatives
• Pro-choice means you want to slaughter babies
• Pro-life means you'll blow up Planned Parenthood locations
• Being a fisherman means you'll kill anything and everything that comes by
• Being vegetarian means you hug trees
• Don't like Unions? You must hate the little guy
• Part of a Union? "Is it time for you to take a break yet?"

The same has happened to the Tea Party. The group that initially stood for decreased government and fiscal responsibility are now defined by these people:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/...3af5ea.jpg?v=0
because they are the loudest and most extreme of the bunch.


You are probably the most guilty one here for assumptions and then extreme accusations. For instance:
We all know what happens when you assume... and for the record, Pelosi is high up there on my "Politicians You're Most Disgusted By" list.

You should take your own advice. Especially since, putting words in someone else's mouth (or twisting them until they are far removed from the original meaning) and then providing two paragraphs on how your fabrications of what they said is wrong, doesn't count as "trashing me for things I actually said".

Since you don't remember relating Indiana Medicaid denying a baby a transplant and using that to defend Palin:
http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...th-panels.html

that sign is clearly photoshopped...good grief?

I was there...there was no hate spewed till JD showed up and started insulting everyone for being inbred rednecks....

Johnny D..

"The public perception of political groups (well, just about all groups) are defined by the loudest and most extreme in their ranks."

If the "public", and you, wants to define an entire group by the actions of its most extreme members, that's their (and your) problem, and it's stupid. Rational, thoughtful people (and I am arrogant enough to include myself in that group) do not do that.

I have been to many tea party events. Never heard any support of violence. Are there extremists? Yes. Do they speak for everyone? Nope.

"Pro-life means you'll blow up Planned Parenthood locations "

Anyone who think sthat is an idiot, they just are. I'm pro-life, which necessarily means that I condemn the acts of anyone who would bomb planned parenthood. I have seen the lefty media try to lump all of us in with the tiny handful of folks who have killed abortionists, and it's stupid and dishonest.

Johnny, you said you didn't like my question about whether or not Pelosi was a liar or a lunatic, yet you also won't admit that you think she was telling the truth. It's kind of hard to figure out what you're saying, other than you keep telling me I'm wrong...

on the death panels thread...Palin was villified for referring to death panels...then in this case, the gov't denies life-saving treatment to a kid. You say the kid died because of Republican cuts? That may well be true, I never said otherwise. Either way, the gov't made a decision not to help this kid, which to me is equivalent to a death panel. See, you assume that if you show that it was a Republican that caused this kid's death, you are proving me wrong. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. I'm opposed to the govt making those decisions, regardless of the political party affiliation of the politician in question. Party has nothing to do with it. I want doctors and families making those decisions, not the government. Am I going too fast for you?

one of the amusing components of hypocricy is that the hypocrit, who will point to their own informed intelligence, intellectual balance and perspective ....seldom shows the intelligence, intellectual balance and perspective to recognize their own glaring hypocricy.....

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

Line of the week for me:

A colleauge from the right of Congressman Gibbons:
"You can disagree without disagreeable, and thats what Gabby was"

This discussion is pretty interesting. Of course it is from MSNBC, so some will discount it automatically.

Morning Joe

Around 10min, Barnicle had a decent take on it.

so you want to ban certain terms that you don't like in order to foster free expression?....OK...set up the parameters...what is acceptable and what is not?

need to ban "insinuations" of such as well because there is a lot of that going on and it is equally distasteful and somewhat gutless....if you tend to freak out over things like words

we should start a list.....

Oh really? Just like how everyone that doesn't agree exactly with your political ideology is a liberal moron with a mental disease.

And I have seen the righty pro-lifers argue that all life is sacred while also supporting capital punishment. It's hypocritical.

I disagree with just about everything Pelosi says and it continues to amaze me why she gets elected to party leadership positions. The reason your thread about Pelosi was on the list I made above (and also why after today I'll be going back to ignoring your posts) is that 75% of your posts are rants filled with insults, negativity and sensationalist talking points with the purposes of drumming up more hate and trying to piss off the people who don't perfectly align with your ideologies. Then, mix in your common pretentious tone while calling those who don't agree with you idiots.


There's that arrogant prickishness again. If you're opposed to the government making those decisions, then you should start speaking out against Medicaid and Medicare. Unfortunately, if you can't afford your own health care, you won't be able to get the same care as someone that does pay for their own health insurance.

I guess this causes a bit of a predicament... do we remove all government sponsored health care(medicare and medicaid) so that politicians aren't making these decisions, or redistribute wealth so that everyone can get all the health care they need regardless of the costs to the taxpayer?

lots to ban in that post :rotf2:

there must be a program that would simply remove any term deemed unacceptable(which could be submitted to a master list at will, by anyone that found the term offensive) from any post submitted...that would probably fix everything....:gh:

As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."


The#^&awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

No one can sway anyone on these boards. It's a complete waste of energy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm offended by those that refer to"class"...the insinuation is that someone deemed to be without class is a lesser human and probably on a lower rung on the social ladder which is highly offensive particularly to minorities...:uhuh:

oh, and it's sooooo 70's

The basic problem is that you use the term "taking the high road." Unfortunately, many confuse this with taking the moral high ground...thus defending their stance from those who disagree. Getting this group to the table is like negotiating the Panmunjom ceasefire...

The preceding discussion thread about funding pensions has merit (much like the need to convert today's youth from social security to a form of 401K). However, how do we move off center? Do we pick a date, after which the new program is implemented? I say this because the existing groups have contracts that should be kept (lest the tables turn and everyone loses at any point). How to implement and maintain fairness would be a more appreciable diatribe IMHO.

Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the CNN "shock and awe" style of discussion.

How about we change it to "Common Decency".......does that work.

I'm good with that....


however, I just spent a weekend watching the mainstream media, leftwing pundints, democrat politicians and a few here in a coordinated way trying to affix the blame for the massacre in Arizona to people that they disagree with politically...an all time low in my opinion......I'm all for common decency and fairness but these people are not honest brokers in any discussion, I would never suggest that they be limited in what they say nor would I suggest anyone here be limited or be told to self limit as long as they stay within the constraints that the moderators deem acceptable and appropriate, I find the blatant dishonesty far more despicable than some random colorful name calling.....the names can be amusing...the lies are not...

btw...I will be the first to pledge to self-police my rhetoric/comments with respect to common decency if it will result in a happier SB political nation

Johnny D-

"Just like how everyone that doesn't agree exactly with your political ideology is a liberal moron with a mental disease."

Please try to hold me accountable for what I actually say, not your interpretation of what I say. On many posts here, I have stated my position and said "reasonable people can disagree", so I don't besmirch everyone who doesn't agree with me on every issue. There are certain parts of liberal ideology that I do believe you have to have a screw loose to support (the notion that there's no such thing as too much spending, the notion that murderers have the right to live but not unborn babies, the notion that conservative economics caused the subprime mortgage crisis...)

"And I have seen the righty pro-lifers argue that all life is sacred while also supporting capital punishment. It's hypocritical."

First, I do not support capital punishment. However, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being against abortion and pro death penalty. An unborn baby is, by definition, innocent of any wrongdoing. Osama Bin Laden is not. In my opinion, there is a strong case to be made that killing Bin Laden is not morally equivalent to killing an unborn baby. If you cannot see a difference between an unborn baby and Osama Bin Laden, I cannot discuss anything with you.

What's completely absurd, totally devoid of any logic, is the liberal notion that it's OK to kill unborn babies, but wrong to kill a mass-murderer. That is an unsupportable position, it has no rational thought behind it. In any event, how many executions take place in this country? One a week? We slaughter 4,000 babies a day. Just to give you some perspective.

"75% of your posts are rants "

I support almost everything I say, with the logic behind my conclusions.

"filled with insults, negativity "

I plea guilty to that one...I have no more patience for folks, for example, who want to blame conservative ideology for what happened in Arizona. Anyone who would suggest that, deserves to be insulted. And at least, while I insult those, I explain why their position is absurd (as you attempted to do, although poorly IMHO)

As for the Pelosi thread, if she wasn't crazy for saying what she said, and she wasn't lying, then how do you explain what she said? In my opinion, the only 2 possibilities are that she's crazy or a liar. If there is an additional possibility, please enlighten me.

he's having a bad day

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

Let's not forget how JD was so appalled that everyone was jumping on the Fort Hood shooter and calling the "radical Islamic terrorist" what he was.

JD clearly hates women who are taller then himself.:rotf2:

Everyone back in their respective corners :fury:

Have a :gh:

And show your :love:

How would we frame and honest, non-insulting discussion? Not afraid of hurting one's feelings, but more to have a respectful dialogue on a subject?

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

It's impossible. Even topics that have no partisan basis are almost immediately dragged through the sewers of political polarity. I'm quite surprised that one about Unions has made it this long.

kinda like The VIEW..right? the "IGNORE" feature here is like when the two dingbats...OOPS..I mean... ESTEEMED LIBERAL THINKERS...acted indignant and strutted off stage...

the "sewers of political polarity"...that's funny...

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

you guys are in the wrong thread...the pension thread is over there....

we are discussing the "sewers of political polarity"

weird how topics in the Political Threads always descend into partisan political discussions...one of life's mysteries I suppose...

The private sector has made these changes in many different ways. Most companies either cut the pension all together or grandfather it so that any new employee hired after X date is left out. Other private companies, like my wife's actually grandfather vested employees with a pension but after you make over a certain salary, the higher wage earners pay into the pension fund from their salary to subsidize the whole plan (similar to taxing the "rich" to give to the poor) Let’s see a union or public employee make that concession.

As for caliber of people.......the private sector has not had a problem hiring people when they need to and they are not loosing high caliber people due to not offering a pension. I’d be willing to bet that if pensions were rolled into a 401K's we would not see police and teachers fleeing from their jobs. I also think people that are years from retirement (like me) assume that a pension will not be there for them in 30-40 years so it would not make an impact on finding “high caliber” people.