I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

kadeeb

If these nuts are "soaking" up their ideas from their environment, why do they only "soak" up the negatives?  If you soak you soak. That bucket won't hold water.

Medigal

enjoyful:  I must have slept through some news.  What is this about the " brown-shirted child army that Obama was training?"  Was that something on Beck after I decided no more "Beck"?  Also Obama's statement about the "knives and guns" imo can be interpreted as his stating he would just fight his opponents back with stronger "weapons".  Weapons don't always mean guns, or knives in a statement.  The written word can be one of the most powerful of all "weapons".  I don't usually defend Obama lately but this one has me puzzled.  Frankly I think a President should not use such terms but we know Obama is not your "run of the mill" President.  I don't think he will be using such expressions again tho.

crazy4carrots

Usually, angry, mentally unstable people dissatisfied with their lot do not soak up "positives".  They soak up "negatives" which help re-inforce why they're so angry, or fearful.

Medigal

kadeeb: I think they soak up mainly the negatives because their mines dwell in a very sick, negative place.  They seem to rejoice when others join them in their negative feelings.  I think all humans have negative and positive thoughts about things especially political but it becomes dangerous to one's mine to "only" dwell on the negative.  That is why I had to stop watching Beck.  He thinks he is doing good for his country but knowingly or unknowingly, he can incite mentally ill people to do drastic things thinking they are helping their country, imo.  I prefer to make my own decisions on political problems by listening and reading a variety of opinions from people I respect. 

rosemary-b

12 killed in Britian was the worst mass killing there since 1998.Can we say that? AND a Federal Judge was asassinated along with 5 other people and a Congresswoman lies near death. Our culture is a tad more violent than that in England or Canada.IMO Even if all of humanity is just a bunch of violent thugs, that does not make violence here any better. Since when was everybody's doing it an excuse.

My heart is breaking for all of the families affected by this tragedy.

Anonymous

I find it most disingenuous for the local sheriff, who was one of a very small number of people in a position to have been aware of this shooter and his past anti-social behavior, and who was actually in a position to have possibly prevented this person who was known to local law enforcement from getting so close to the congresswoman while carrying a gun, to place blame on the words of politicians and media pundits across the country. 

The sheriff is upset that this guy got his hands on a gun and shot public officials, elderly people and a young child on his watch.  He is looking to deflect blame from himself, when in reality, ALL of the blame is on the shooter. 

crazy4carrots

Well, PatMom, that's one explanation.  Perhaps another one is that this Sheriff has seen, encountered and dealt with many individuals who exhibit bigoted behaviour and voice nasty political rhetoric.  He's in a position of dealing with the worst of the worst, and perhaps he has actually seen a rise in nasty behaviour and his disgust and frustration finally found a voice.

Just another explanation for anyone to consider......

Alpal

It's been 30 mins. and no reply, so I'll ask again. Do those of you on the right agree that all public figures need to be more civil?

Anonymous

OH MY GOSH about this thread!  Would you just agree that crazies are crazies...like the loon that shot Reagan and Brady...PUUULLLLEEEASSSSEEEE!  Like the loon that assassinated John Lennon? 

The Sheriff is still spewing his rhetoric when this should be about an investigation of this nut job having a gun AFTER the school told him not to come back until being evaluated by a shrink saying he would do no harm to himself or others.  Whoever delivered that letter should have put his name in the "cannot buy a gun" hat!  He bought the gun in November.  I wonder what he was spewing in his class...and the loon says the school was unconstitutional.  He's a nut and stop blaming it on heated debates or opinions.  Geez!  Get a freaking grip! 

rosemary-b

Allison

Yes.

While you all may think I am to the left of center some of my views are pretty conservative so I feel that I can Start thing off with my yes. 

Bren-2007

I agree with you Madalyn .. this poor little child was interested in politics and probably went there to learn all that she could.  I imagine she was excited to see and meet a real live congresswoman. 

It breaks my heart too.

Bren

kadeeb

sorry Alpal,

I agree! 

AnnNYC

PatMom, I think another possible explanation for Sheriff Dupnik's statement is that his jurisdiction has been rife with death threats against political figures, and he may have been living (to a far greater extent than others) with the sense that it was only a matter of time before one of these threats became fatal.

For example, Judge John M. Roll -- who was killed in yesterday's shooting in what seems to be completely a case of stopping by the wrong place at the wrong time -- was the target of so many death threats in 2009 that he and his family were given a security detail.  Judge Roll was a conservative, who had been appointed to the Arizona Federal District Court in 1991 by Pres. George H.W. Bush.  In 2009, he ruled that a lawsuit brought by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher could go forward.  That was the impetus for death threats.  Mind you, he hadn't settled the suit, which was ultimately decided in the rancher's favor -- he merely ruled that it had standing to go forward and be decided in a court of law.
[see: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/09/20090709threats0709.html]

Anyway -- my bottom line about Sheriff Dupnik is that it sounds like he's been dealing with an incredible number of threats against political figures, and that's what he was talking about.

pip57

I think we can at least agree that both sides have said inflammatory things in the past.  I would hope that we can look forward and change the dialogue now.

Anonymous

Rep. Giffords wanted more border security.  She also did not vote for Pelosi for Speaker (has this already been posted?).  She voted for John Lewis (I believe).  Does that tell you anything..one of the 19 people that voted AGAINST her.  I believe I heard that it's been 80 years since this type of vote has happened.

pip57

In response to remarks about the Sheriff not being able to take this guy off the streets...do you realize how many people out there are on the fringe?  Most are harmless and will never act this way.  It just takes one.

kadeeb

Shirley, Thumbs UP! 

worldwatcher

I believe that everyone needs to be more civil.

I havn't posted on this thread before because every time I looked in it, the overt hostility turned me off.

WHY should women who are on a forum dealing with a life or death situation be faced with being criticized about ideology? There are many forums dealing with political differences available.

While I'm not a Palin fan, the vitriol that is being thrown at her for this ad that was no worse than ads used by others over and over again caused me to post that map.  The rage that is evident from some over the Tea Party's existence is questionable.  Since when did holding a different opinion become something that can cause the kind of disdain that we see from so many in the media and sadly, in our own government? 

In my opinion, the ones who are doing the most judging need to look to the ones at the top with their questions about civility.  When the President of the US can state that some citizens should "punish our enemies", about other citizens, the system is broken....possibly beyond repair.

Alison, what benefit do you expect for the women in this forum from your demand to "the right" to answer your question, not once but twice ?  

Obama "Punish our enemies"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnnwJ1rgCnM&NR=1

Anonymous

This is from March '90.  Read some of the comments.  I'm sure they'll make you angry, but they will explain EXACTLY what this "crosshairs" is.  Geez!  Another attempt at the LSM to make Sarah look like she's VIOLENT?  And no, I don't visit this site.  I just happened to read on Political about an aide defending Palin and what this meant...it directed you to this site.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2482716/posts  

Palin used surveyor symbols, not crosshairs  

C4P/Examiner ^ | 29 MARCH 2010 | C4P

Posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 9:48:15 PM

by Extremely Extreme Extremist

H/T - Examiner.com and C4P

Alpal

I thought perhaps it was something we could all agree on - seemed like a no brainer to me. Sorry if it sounded like a demand. I rarely demand anything.

pip57

Why do we have to knit pick what everyone has said on either side.  Is there  anybody who does not agree that both sides need to be more thoughtful when they speak?  

AnnNYC

Amen, PiP !

Anonymous

Wow, worldwatcher.  It's a good thing a Latino didn't shoot Rep. Giffords.  Who would be blamed for that?    She was in favor of securing the borders...strongly in favor. 

Bren-2007

PIP .. I think you and Alpal are right .. it is something we can all agree together.  Civility and thoughtfulness on all sides will go a long way.

Bren

Anonymous

I don't regard the comments made about Palin as "knit picking."  They are horrible comments and untrue.  I, at this time, have no idea who I want to run for president.  So, it's not like I'm a Sarah Palin "follower."

Alpal

Surveyor symbols?? How stupid of everyone not to have recognized them. And I guess those round things on the Dem thing that Worldwatcher posted were polka dots! And the guy in WV was just shooting nerf balls. I'm outta here, you all have fun.

Beesie

Shirley, I had to laugh.  I was reading though all these posts and the thought that kept running through my mind was "geez, people, get a grip!"  And then I come to your post and there you are saying the same thing.

The public discourse and political bickering in the U.S. has become vicious.  There are examples on both sides, from politicians, from the media and from individuals.  Everyone needs to grow, get a bit of common sense, and stop this crap.  It's disgusting and yes, it can inflame people and it is potentially dangerous.  But there is no evidence that the shooting was related to this.

Congresswoman Giffords was previously threatened because of her support of some Democratic policies.  That's true.  Over the years, and particularly of late, many members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have been threatened.  But there is no evidence that the shooting was related to this.

Please everybody stop making judgments.  Stop trying to put the blame on actions and people that you don't like - that may have nothing to do with this at all.  Stop using this as an opportunity to lash out at the "other side".  Stop defending indefensible activities - on both sides.  Stop playing the "my side is better than your side" game.  It's stupid. 

We don't know what caused this very sick individual to do what he did.  Was it because Congresswoman Giffords was a Democrat?  We don't know.  Was it because she was Jewish?  We don't know.  Was it because of something specific that she said about some government policy?  We don't know.  Was it because of any particular votes that she's made in Congress?  We don't know. 

What we do know is that we are dealing with an individual who hated government. His own writings show that.  Was Congresswoman Giffords targeted because she was a Congresswoman, someone in politics?  Most likely, yes. But if one of her Republican peers had been the one holding a public event on Saturday morning in Tucson, might he or she have been the target instead?  We don't know - but I think it's quite possible.  Maybe after months of planning, this very sick, deluded individual was ready with his plan to go after someone in government and he happened to see the promotion of Congresswoman Giffords event.  And he found his opportunity.  

Do I know that this is what happened, that the target could just as easily have been a Republican, if a Republican happened to be having a public event yesterday?  No, I don't know that but it's just as feasible as what anyone else here is implying - and maybe it's more feasible, based on the shooter's own writings. My point is that we absolutely don't know if this was a Democrat vs. Republican thing so could everyone please stop turning this discussion political?  What happened was horrible.  But the discussion about it doesn't need to be so ugly. 

Everyone, get a grip!  

kadeeb

I have been wrestling with myself all day about whether or not to tell you guys about this but I think it might explain some things. 

I deal on a monthly basis( monthly because I feel sure this individual is out of medication) with a young man through my work place. He either comes by or calls. He accuses the receptionist of loosing his records or stealing his paper work. He refers to people doing things to him that have never even worked there. He states that no one wants to help him and everyone wants to talk bad about him. No matter how hard you try to convince him or offer to help, he refuses.He is directed to a counselor next door ( clinical psychologist) who just laughs and says, well old "so and so" is out of meds". We have contacted security about him and they take him much more seriously than the good doctor but there is no way to know when and or if he will show up. If I could, I would give you his info so that you could go to his Face Book page. Believe me, it is a neon red flag for the type of thing that happened in Arizona. He is against authority of any and all kinds and his statements are crazier than those of yesterdays shooter. He's had problems since childhood and they're not getting any better. He raves about his parents, police, teachers, preachers, politicians and anyone else he feels has any authority and not just on his face book page, in person and on the phone. Everyone(with the exception of a few who have had to deal with him) dismisses him as a nut. He isn't influenced by anything but his own paranoia. Bottom line ladies, if I disappear from this thread and you hear about a shooting in Alabama, well it's been fun.  

worldwatcher

Kadeeb,

Has any of his behavior prompted a look at him from law enforcement?  It may be that this would be a good time to alert the local LEOs, given the Tucson episode.

I know that a while back there was a man wandering up and down my street, checking out mailboxes and muttering to himself...I was sure he was having some kind of problem, so I dialed 911. 

I had to leave just then so I don't know what may have been done, but I doubt it would hurt to alert the authorities.

There are an awfully lot of folks on the streets that probably should be in some kind of institution.

Anonymous

AnnNYC wrote:

PatMom, I think another possible explanation for Sheriff Dupnik's statement is that his jurisdiction has been rife with death threats against political figures, and he may have been living (to a far greater extent than others) with the sense that it was only a matter of time before one of these threats became fatal.

That explaination would be all the more reason that the Sheriff should refrain from accusing any public figures with inciting the shooter, and instead spend his time and energy making sure that the case against this nut is so air tight with every i dotted and every t crossed that the shooter spends every day of the rest of his life safely away from anyplace that he can do any more harm.

If he is angry and frustrated, the place to express that is in private, not at a nationally televised news conference where he becomes part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.