quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: You DID say....and if O/T history is any indication, will likely be applauded for it.

I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of speaking clinically.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of speaking clinically.

I am. The senior corpsman quarantined the whole ship's company--officers and enlisted about a week after we pulled out of Pusan Korea. No liberty when we got to Subic Bay..

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Well, I could say something like "don't leave 'em wounded, do a kill shot" ....

quote I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of speaking clinically.

So if a bigot inserts "Simon says ..." in front of each and every offensive post, that makes it OK? I'll have to remember that.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: So if a bigot inserts "Simon says ..." in front of each and every offensive post, that makes it OK? I'll have to remember that.

And I thought you might be smarter than a trite, smart ass comment. I guess I thought wrong.

I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question.

Certainly. I am also familiar with a leading or suggestive rhetorical question.

I think that we can settle the argument now. Since the Left is trying to get miles off of this tragedy and trying to piece anything about this psychopath dude to the Right, well I think the truth is out.

NYTimes did a thorough article on the background and behavior of this killer. No surprise to me, but maybe to the Left... Jared Loughner was a W. Bush hater. People that knew Loughner said that his anger would swell at the sight of W. Bush or when somebody discussed about him or even mention the former President's name.

We can now blame it on George W. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011...PTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

Leftist Rhetoric, Political Assassinations, and Race Riots
http://americanvision.org/3...ions-and-race-riots/

quote NPR’s Scott Simon claims that events like the Tucson shootings “Didn’t happen when 63 million people watched Walter Cronkite (1916–2009) every night.” “Uncle Walter,” as he was affectionately called, reported during a time when there were only three major TV news sources—ABC, CBS, and NBC. There were no comparable conservative competitors. Conservatives got their message out through privately published newsletters, small publishing houses like Devin-Adair, the Henry Regnery Co., Western Islands, Caxton Publishers, and Arlington House, and regularly published print media like Human Events, National Review, The Freeman, American Opinion, The Review of the News, and Conservative Digest. To put it plainly, during Cronkite’s era, liberals had a near monopoly on the news. Cronkite was never the objective newsman that most Americans thought despite his honorary title of “the most trusted man in America.” The September-October 1998 issue of Modern Maturity magazine ran a lengthy interview with the former war correspondent and CBS news anchor. In it Cronkite stated, “We ought to be increasing our taxes. We who have it ought to be paying a lot more, but should insist on efficiency in expenditure.” Now to the claim that during Cronkite’s anchorman era events like the Tucson shootings didn’t happen. How quickly we forget. There were the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (1963), his brother Robert Kennedy (1968), and civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968). King was assassinated on April 4th, a number of cities were set ablaze that evening. The National Guard had to be sent out. There were campus riots and bombings and city riots. On August 11, 1965, a routine traffic stop in South Central Los Angeles was the trigger for what became known as the Watts Riots. They lasted six days, leaving 34 dead, over a thousand injured, nearly 4,000 arrested, and hundreds of buildings destroyed. Let’s not forget the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders led by Charles Manson (August of 1969) and the Kent State shootings (May of 1970). Manson was “inspired” by lyrics from a number of Beatles’ songs. Not to be left out, there were the leftist violent revolutionaries led by groups like the Weather Underground and radicals like Abbie Hoffman whose book Revolution for the Hell of It shows the author with a rifle in his hand leaping for joy. Hoffman’s rhetoric about revolution was just a warm-up. In Steal This Book he gave instructions on how to build stink bombs, smoke bombs, sterno bombs, aerosol bombs, pipe bombs, and Molotov Cocktails. Hoffman’s updated version of the Molotov Cocktail consisted of a glass bottle filled with a mixture of gasoline and styrofoam, turning the slushy blend into a poor man’s version of napalm. The flaming gasoline-soaked styrofoam was designed to stick to policemen when it exploded.[1] Helpful drawings on how to make the incendiary devices were included. All of this happened on Cronkite’s watch and the dominance of the liberal media. In Woodstock Nation, Hoffman updated his revolutionary tactics. This time, liberal Random House published his book. Next to publisher’s name on the title page, there is an illustration of a man using dynamite to blow up a house. This same illustration appears in Hoffman’s Steal This Book. The theme of both books is how to blow up the system—literally. Liberals have short and selective memories. “Righteous violence” was rationalized by the front-line New Left leadership in the 1960s: The use of violence was justified, many in the New Left comforted themselves, because theirs was a violence to end all violence, a liberating and righteous violence that would rid the world of a system that deformed and destroyed people. Such glorious ends justified, even ennobled, violent means.[2] Organizations like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) used violent rhetoric almost from their inception in the early 1960s. John Lewis, the very liberal Democrat representative from Georgia, boasted when he addressed the March on Washington in August 1963, “We will march through the South, . . . the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own ‘scorched earth’ policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground—nonviolently. We shall crack the South into a thousand pieces and put them back together in the image of democracy.”[3] You can add to these the 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago where riots led by Leftist radicals were the news. “The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protesters was so great that it eventually made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower. The police were taunted by the protesters with chants of ‘Kill, kill, kill.’ They sprayed demonstrators and bystanders indiscriminately with Mace. The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire event took place live under the T.V. lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd shouting, ‘The whole world is watching.’” Apparently Scott Simon wasn’t. It could have been that he was only 16. But he’s a journalist. He should know this history. Bernardine Dohrn was a founding member of the radical Weatherman group who made the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, told an SDS convention just before she went underground: “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”[4] If you didn’t know, Dohrn is married to Bill Ayers, another former radical who supports Leftist causes and one of the founders of the Weathermen. Ayers denies that he and Barack Obama were ever friends, although some dispute this (see here). Once again, Cronkite was delivering the news everyday in America while these events were taking place. Why did some on the radical left see Manson as a hero? Perhaps because Manson articulated the same rhetoric of violence that spewed forth from the SDS and Weathermen and actually put it into action as a way to bring down “the system.” Manson believed that the Tate-LaBianca murders he orchestrated would start a race war. That Manson foresaw a war between the blacks and the whites was not fantastic. Many people believe that such a war may someday occur. What was fantastic was that he was convinced he could personally start that war himself—that by making it look as if blacks had murdered the seven Caucasian victims he could turn the white community against the black community.[5] Manson follower Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme almost assassinated President Gerald Ford. Walter Cronkite and the liberal media establishment oversaw all of these events. No one today blames the rhetoric of these Leftists for these events, but maybe it’s time that we do.

The hate and violence is from the LEFT. Period. Anyone who can see that is an idiot. Anyone who blames this on the right is LIAR. Period.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Anyone who can see that is an idiot.

??? Are we supposed to agree with that?


Edit: Hint -- Check your semantics.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: ??? Am I supposed to agree with that?

I don't care.

BTW, all the evidence supports what I just said. There is no evidence for violence from the right, especially in the case of the Tucson shooter.

Just in case there's anyone who cares, Gifford was upgraded to serious from critical condition, and had successful surgery to repair bone damage above her eye socket. She seems responsive and apparently smiled at her husband. She still can't talk due to the tracheotomy and device installed in it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id.../health-health_care/

As a fellow motorcyclist I'm really pulling for her and her family. She has been, and hopefully will continue to be, a staunch advocate of motorcycling in this country.

As a side note, not a single one of the thirty one posts fierobear has made in this topic to date have expressed any concern about the victims in this tragic event, have in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with it. All of those 31 posts have been attempts to inject and foster political infighting in this non-political thread. In other words, he's contributed *nothing* to this topic.

Here's hoping for a change to the better...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: As a side note, not a single one of the thirty one posts fierobear has made in this topic to date have expressed any concern about the victims in this tragic event, have in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with it. All of those 31 posts have been attempts to inject and foster political infighting in this non-political thread. In other words, he's contributed *nothing* to this topic.

Well, thank you JazzMan for showing up and playing thread cop. I don't know what we'd do without you.

I guess you somehow failed to notice that this thread had turned political before my first post. It already had before I had a chance to even *read* it for the first time. But I don't expect you to notice things like that.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: As a side note, not a single one of the thirty one posts fierobear has made in this topic to date have expressed any concern about the victims in this tragic event, have in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with it. All of those 31 posts have been attempts to inject and foster political infighting in this non-political thread. In other words, he's contributed *nothing* to this topic.

How does this statement contribute to this thread?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Just in case there's anyone who cares, Gifford was upgraded to serious from critical condition, and had successful surgery to repair bone damage above her eye socket. She seems responsive and apparently smiled at her husband. She still can't talk due to the tracheotomy and device installed in it.

Ultimately, that is all that matters ( and the others that were injured ).

quote Originally posted by avengador1: How does this statement contribute to this thread?

Just another swipe by JazzMan to the people he hates. He even bothered to *count* how many posts I made, but couldn't be bothered to notice that his fellow leftist, Neptune, set the tone by suggesting one of us *must* know the gunman, and all the connotations that carries with it. Or that ryan.hess made sure to mention that Sarah Palin had targets on her website. No, nothing like that fazed him at all, but he knows how many posts I made. Typical JazzMan, skip over the facts that are inconvenient.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-17-2011).]

I'm waiting for the congresswomen's words on Palin's "cross-hair." Meanwhile, Howard Stern ripped Palin a new one on SIRUS radio-too funny.

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 01-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: I'm waiting for the congresswomen's words on Palin's "cross-hair." Meanwhile, Howard Stern ripped Palin a new one on SIRUS radio-too funny.

Think she will comment on the left wing site that had her in the cross hairs also?
She is middle of the road, so she probably ain't buying any of the hate crap that the left is spewing over this.

Warning: NWS

Now let's get the down low from the Daily show with Jon Stewart-it's too funny mocking all morons involved.

http://www.thedailyshow.com...riticism?xrs=eml_tds

Yep some on the left have Gabby and her tragedy all saddled up and will ride her all of the way to the next election.
Talk about heartless!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Well, thank you JazzMan for showing up and playing thread cop. I don't know what we'd do without you. I guess you somehow failed to notice that this thread had turned political before my first post. It already had before I had a chance to even *read* it for the first time. But I don't expect you to notice things like that.

You could have chosen to not contribute to keeping this thread political. Instead you jumped in with both feet. The fact that you have 33 posts in this topic (so far)and have yet to even mention the victims proves your real intent, and that is to promote politics in non-political threads at every chance you can. You sit there just quivering with the anticipation of polluting yet another non-political thread. Why? What are you trying to accomplish? Why keep doing it? Can you stop? Is it pathological? Do you know how to stop? The people here who specifically turned off political threads would expect you to respect their choice, but you ignore that. Even aside from that, it shows a true disrespect to the victims and their families to use this tragedy to keep up your politicizing.

Poorly played, fierobear, poorly played indeed.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: In her own teleprompter words (I thought we're talking about the congresswomen shot in the head and not you?).

I just noticed something. Palin took the first 30-seconds (of her nearly 7:43 video) to mention the tragic shootings/the victims, but spent the remaining 7-minutes rambling about her own agenda. What would've been better spent by Palin saying, "due to the tragic event that took place in AZ by a crazed gunman-I'm removing the "cross-hairs" from my web page." Now in my mind that statement (if she had the "cojones" ) would've been good enough.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You could have chosen to not contribute to keeping this thread political. Instead you jumped in with both feet.

Really? Still no comment on Neptune, ryan.hess, and 6 or 7 other people who commented BEFORE I did. Nothing on that, huh Jazz? The thread was already off course before I made my first post.

quote The fact that you have 33 posts in this topic (so far)and have yet to even mention the victims proves your real intent, and that is to promote politics in non-political threads at every chance you can.

So now you claim to know my intent? After Neptune, one of the people on YOUR side of the political spectrum, suggests that we (on my side) probably know the shooter? No comment on *that*, Jazz? No complaints about HIS disrespect? Of course not.

How about the FACT that you continued to complain about a thread that had gone political despite the fact that you could simply have not clicked on or participated in that thread? Instead, you suggested that Cliff should rewrite the forum software for YOU, instead of hitting the "back button".

quote You sit there just quivering with the anticipation of polluting yet another non-political thread. Why?

Wow. You know how I sit, and that "I'm quivering with anticipation"? Really? Do you have a secret web cam in my room? Sounds a bit pathological. We'll get to that later.

quote What are you trying to accomplish? Why keep doing it? Can you stop?

Simple. People on your side of the political spectrum have been LYING through their teeth about the motives of the shooter, about Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and by extension, ME. That's why. And I'm sick of it. Don't like that? Don't want to read politics? Then...

quote Is it pathological? Do you know how to stop?

...said by you, who can't seem to NOT read a thread of which you don't approve. Instead of hitting the back button on your browser, you continue to complain the thread isn't to your liking, and everyone else must conform to YOUR standard. You're the one who seems to have some kind of pathological issue with this.

quote The people here who specifically turned off political threads would expect you to respect their choice,

...and I'll bet they know how to use their browser to exit a thread they don't approve of. What's your excuse? Or is it pathological for you?

quote but you ignore that.

So, your cohorts can say anything they want about us (conservatives), and we're expected to ignore it? How convenient.

quote Even aside from that, it shows a true disrespect to the victims and their families to use this tragedy to keep up your politicizing.

I have given my respects to the victims in my own way. Somehow, I doubt that they will be injured by an off-topic thread on a relatively obscure car forum.

quote Poorly played, fierobear, poorly played indeed.

When you object to the others who have politicized this - before I did - then you'll have the intellectual capital to spend criticizing me. Until then, you're being a hypocrite.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I've noticed something, too. The media first criticized her for her "crosshairs" inciting the shooting, despite any evidence the shooter had ever seen her web site. Then she "twittered" comments, and they criticized her for "hiding in twitter" or some such nonsense, and not making a video statement. She made her video statement, and now they're criticizing her for "using the tragedy for her benefit". Right. No matter what she does, they criticize her. So what. Screw 'em.

The only "real" point here is that the congress woman "called" Palin on it and now suffers from a gun shot to the head. From this point forward the focus is now on Palin and how stupidly it was to have it on her web page, but as usual Palin sticking her foot in her mouth and rambles on about . Keep in mind Palin was the person who was all upset with somebody using the word, "retarded."

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I've noticed something, too. The media first criticized her for her "crosshairs" inciting the shooting, despite any evidence the shooter had ever seen her web site. Then she "twittered" comments, and they criticized her for "hiding in twitter" or some such nonsense, and not making a video statement. She made her video statement, and now they're criticizing her for "using the tragedy for her benefit". Right. No matter what she does, they criticize her. So what. Screw 'em.

Yup, isn't that the greater point and something that was brought up in Obama's speech. That the constant criticism of everything the "other" side does just for the sake of politicizing everything possible is disheartening, destructive and probably something that helps these sickos with their hate.
I know for some politicians in the opposition it's their job to try and point out faults of the other party and explain to people how they themselves could do a better job but the idea that the other party are all evil and everything they do is wrong is a bit pathetic IMO and the people who suck it all up and spew it out like robots are even more pathetic.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: The only "real" point here is that the congress woman "called" Palin on it and now suffers from a gun shot to the head. From this point forward the focus is now on Palin and how stupidly it was to have it on her web page,

In some people's dreams.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: The only "real" point here is that the congress woman "called" Palin on it and now suffers from a gun shot to the head. From this point forward the focus is now on Palin and how stupidly it was to have it on her web page, but as usual Palin sticking her foot in her mouth and rambles on about . Keep in mind Palin was the person who was all upset with somebody using the word, "retarded."

Wow, Curl. There is NO evidence that the shooter has ever seen Palin's web site. That invalidates your point.

In fact, there is plenty of evidence he wouldn't have ever gone to her web site.

One person said the shooter was a leftist/liberal
http://www.businessinsider....2011-1#ixzz1AUP3tpq2
A woman named Caitie Parker has been tweeting that she went to school with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' alleged shooter Jared Loughner and that he had met Giffords previously.
Also," he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class" and "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

One person said he never watched TV or listened to the radio
http://www.theblaze.com/sto...-to-political-radio/
"He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."

CBS News
http://www.latimes.com/news...0,7766490,full.story
(23rd paragraph)
“Those seeking a coherent philosophy will probably be frustrated”, said Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League. “So far, most of his beliefs appear to be the product of his own mind, primarily,” he said.

Arizona shooter hated George W. Bush, may have been a 9/11 conspiracy theory supporter
http://amerpundit.com/2011/...r-hated-george-bush/
He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Polit...y?id=12582457&page=1
“Though there are no known ties whatsoever between shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner and Sarah Palin or any part of the Tea Party movement, the “crosshairs” became part of the media coverage of the Tucson shootings from the very beginning.”

...so how can it be Palin's fault?

All the evidence is right in front of you. You can believe the truth or bullshit. Your choice.

Oh no Bear look what I found on the internet. Remember now it's on the net so it has to be true.




You don't notice how your attempts to label this idiot as a "leftist/liberal" are equal to the jack asses who are trying to label him as some right wing nutcase??? If you had of watched or listened to Obama's speech you might have heard him call for an end to such acts by BOTH sides.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Wow, Curl. There is NO evidence that the shooter has ever seen Palin's web site. That invalidates your point. All the evidence is right in front of you. You can believe the truth or bullshit. Your choice.

Have you ever heard of a nut case (on a rampage) that didn't use the media, radio, or some type of social internet to influence their decision? Have you ever heard of a political person stupid enough to use cross-hairs and subsequently the person shot had previously warned Palin? This type of behavior is reckless and could incite a lone gunman, but you'd have us to believe that this reckless behavior is acceptable.

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh no Bear look what I found on the internet. Remember now it's on the net so it has to be true.

So you just ignore all the evidence that this guy didn't listen to talk radio, TV news or anything? Of course you do.

quote You don't notice how your attempts to label this idiot as a "leftist/liberal" are equal to the jack asses who are trying to label him as some right wing nutcase??? If you had of watched or listened to Obama's speech you might have heard him call for an end to such acts by BOTH sides.

No, newf, it's not MY attempt to label him anything. I presented the evidence we have so far about his mental state and political ideology (or lack of).

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So you just ignore all the evidence that this guy didn't listen to talk radio, TV news or anything? Of course you do No, newf, it's not MY attempt to label him anything. I presented the evidence we have so far about his mental state and political ideology (or lack of).

I see.... so this is an attempt to present a non biased account of his mental state?

quote One person said the shooter was a leftist/liberal http://www.businessinsider....2011-1#ixzz1AUP3tpq2

Thanks for helping make my point that posting whatever crap you can find on the internet to support your idea without any regard to bias or shred of corroberation makes one look like a mindless drone that is just regurgitating whatever their "side" feeds them.

I admit it can be easy at times to believe some of the information as it can be cleverly disguised as legitimate but one then wonders if people just post it to get a reaction or do they actually believe it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: So you just ignore all the evidence that this guy didn't listen to talk radio, TV news or anything? Of course you do

All the evidence??? This must be like your other arguements, is it? If one person says it, that makes it true.

Instead of demonizing the left for trying to label this clown as a rightwinger why not just say it's wrong for EITHER SIDE to do so, as some on both sides seem to be trying to do. That was the point I was trying to make, the fact that either side feels it necessary to try and do so is pathetic and I don't feel represent the true ideals of either major political organization. The constant stream of partisanship and vitriol from the extremes of both sides could easily fan the flames of hate and anger of mixed up individuals such as this murderer. The fact that the parties then scramble to label such a loser as representing the opposition is frightening IMO.

The constant drone of We're right / They're wrong, Our side is good / They are evil, They are out to destroy everything you hold dear / We are the only ones that can stop them...etc..etc...etc... Is it that hard to believe this kind of garbage would drive some over the edge? Not that I'm saying this murderer was influenced by such things but if by chance he was and for peoples sanity in general it wouldn't be a bad idea IMO to tone it down.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I see.... so this is an attempt to present a non biased account of his mental state?

No, I'm presenting the only information we have so far.

quote Thanks for helping make my point that posting whatever crap you can find on the internet to support your idea without any regard to bias or shred of corroberation makes one look like a mindless drone that is just regurgitating whatever their "side" feeds them. I admit it can be easy at times to believe some of the information as it can be cleverly disguised as legitimate but one then wonders if people just post it to get a reaction or do they actually believe it.

No, I'm posting the only information we have. As far as it being "whatever crap you can find on the internet", the sources were ABC, CBS, The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and Business Insider. The article from TheBlaze was from an ABC TV interview. The American Pundit article's source was the New York Times. The other article was from the L.A. Times.

quote All the evidence??? This must be like your other arguements, is it? If one person says it, that makes it true.

Not one person. See above.

Hey, if you have other information that I've missed, please share it with us.

quote Instead of demonizing the left for trying to label this clown as a rightwinger why not just say it's wrong for EITHER SIDE to do so, as some on both sides seem to be trying to do. That was the point I was trying to make, the fact that either side feels it necessary to try and do so is pathetic and I don't feel represent the true ideals of either major political organization. The constant stream of partisanship and vitriol from the extremes of both sides could easily fan the flames of hate and anger of mixed up individuals such as this murderer. The fact that the parties then scramble to label such a loser as representing the opposition is frightening IMO.

Blah, blah, blah...you don't really care to find out what I mean, do you? I'm not demonizing the left with this, I'm simply pointing out that he WASN'T a "right winger" like some are saying. Period. Nothing else, no need for any further interpretation of what I'm saying. Got it?

quote The constant drone of We're right / They're wrong, Our side is good / They are evil, They are out to destroy everything you hold dear / We are the only ones that can stop them...etc..etc...etc... Is it that hard to believe this kind of garbage would drive some over the edge? Not that I'm saying this murderer was influenced by such things but if by chance he was and for peoples sanity in general it wouldn't be a bad idea IMO to tone it down.

You don't NEED to tell me that, I know. Why not tell that to the people who IMMEDIATELY said the guy was right wing, listened to talk radio, was a fan of Sarah Palin, Tea Party, etc? Do you object to that kind of automatic assumption with no evidence?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: When you object to the others who have politicized this - before I did - then you'll have the intellectual capital to spend criticizing me. Until then, you're being a hypocrite.

So you seem to be saying that you have no choice but to keep your posts in this topic political in nature? That you cannot contribute in any other way? That you cannot change? What drives that choice? Or since it's not apparently a choice with you, what drives you? It's not about intellectual capital (whatever the hell that means), its about respect and about decision-making. You're the one posting what you write. Nobody else is forcing you to, at gunpoint or otherwise. You sit at your keyboard and freely type what ever you want to, and in this thread you only type political and personal attacks. 39 posts so far. You have yet to contribute to this topic in any way.

Let me let you into a little secret: You can choose the high road even if others choose the low road. You *have* a choice, fierobear, you really do. You can choose to post diatribes, rants, attacks against enemies (perceived or otherwise), you can do all of those things. Or, you can man up and choose to behave like an adult and do the right thing.

It's your choice.

Not mine.

Not anyone else that you have named (and blamed for your actions here).

Yours.

Do the right thing, fierobear, show some respect for Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of this horrific tragedy.

Can you do that simple thing? Will you?

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 01-18-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You don't NEED to tell me that, I know. Why not tell that to the people who IMMEDIATELY said the guy was right wing, listened to talk radio, was a fan of Sarah Palin, Tea Party, etc? Do you object to that kind of automatic assumption with no evidence?

I sure do object to that kind of automatic assumption and depending on the evidence one has it's a little suspect to attempt to label a nut like this guy as any general "type" of person especially politically speaking. I keep saying to try and do so is basically is wrong and basically what the President mentioned in his speech at the university but it seems there is some kind of need to label this guy as a follower of some political persuasion maybe because of his target but either way IMO it's the work of a truley sick mind that could have been set off by any number of things. Having said that the diatribe of hate and fear from the extremes of both sides could IMO have a negative effect on anyone and I wish it was toned down.

I guess my point to you was the labelling and finger pointing is happening from both sides but you seem only to be pointing it out from one side as wrong. If you could swallow your pride for a minute and admit it's a problem from anyone who chooses to do so I would have no problem agreeing with you on the matter.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-18-2011).]