The blame game gets even more crazy

Post Reply New Topic

It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit!

You can make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express - CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE.

This weekend we all were horrified to hear the news of the violent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Arizona.
One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement - assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular.

Friends, this is outrageous.

It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit, and they used deception and dishonesty to try and smear all of us and our beliefs.

You know what the truth is? The truth is that the shooter, Jared Loughner is the one responsible for this atrocity. But liberals are trying to place the blame on society for embracing the tea party movement.

We here at the Tea Party Express find that disgusting and revolting.

This isn't a new concept for liberals. Let us harken back to the words of Ronald Reagan when he called out the Left for similar behavior in years past:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

- Ronald Reagan

If Jared Loughner does have a definable political ideology it is that of a far Left anarchist. Loughner is a mentally disturbed young man who sought his ideological fulfillment from the Communist Manifesto - hardly the Bible of the Tea Party movement. He posted videos of flag burning on his YouTube channel - again, antics more consistent with Blame America First liberals, not the tea party movement.

In fact, Loughner's interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date all the way back to 2007 when he confronted her with a question he had, and received an answer he found unacceptable. You read that right - Loughner's interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date back to 2007 - well before the tea party movement had even been launched.

This was all an effort to try and demean us and diminish support for the tea party movement, since the Left could not beat us at the ballot box. Sadly way too many people in the media cooperated with this smear campaign.

The media didn't tell you that the left-wing website, DailyKos, had targeted Congresswoman Giffords, putting a BULLSEYE on her, did they? But that's just what happened.

Instead they tried to blame Gov. Sarah Palin. Friends, their hypocrisy and double standards are appalling.

This kind of media bias is a large part of why our tea party movement exists - because the voices of We The People have not been represented fairly by the news media, and listened to by our elected officials.

Well guess what: to those liberals in the news media and on the political Left who think you can silence us, you are wrong! Your efforts to try and smear us and shut us up will fail.

We have nothing to do with this awful, tragic event in Arizona. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and the victims and families of this massacre.

But we will still fight just as passionately for this country we love, and the vision of our Founding Fathers as outlined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

We're taking our country back through the ballot box and in the public square - through peaceful means. And we will prevail, because our ideas and ideals are stronger than the scare/smear/defame tactics of the leftists we face.

We ask you to please stand with the Tea Party Express and show your support for our efforts.

You can make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express - CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE.

They are behaving more rationally and decently than you are so what does that make you? Get over your irrational hatred of Fox News and Conservatives already, jeeze.

@ sinsboldy

Source please.

Assuming your quote is accurate anyways.

My hatred of fox and conservative's is entirely rational and based on sound evidence. I find US geostratagem (mass killing) in Iraq and the apologists for it beyond the pale.

Don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

How about feeling sorry for the victims of Washington, Big Oil politics and lying smearers like Fox news?? Even O'Reilly admitted Iraq was about oil in one of his interviews with Letterman and then afterwards he said "this wont go on the air". He knows he lied and upto a million Iraqis are dead now. Still as long as US and British interests in the region are safe "who cares!"

He was crazy and a right-winger. You'll lie to yourself if you think he was not in the right just because he is crazy. Clearly, those impairments are not mutually-exclusive.

There's a bunch of videos that show his political view. He is even registered to the republican. At this point you cannot just make things up and claim he wasn't a right wing nut.

In the case of atheism, there is just a statement he made "I won't trust in God". Even the statement shows that he actually believes in God but he won't trust him.

If you think the whole right wing stuff is taken out of context, then show it and prove it or at least explain why you think it is taken out of context, see my post up there? It is easy to show the lack of context of a claim, that you didn't bother doing so, fuels my theory that with, or without context the guy was completely a right-wing nut. Do not escape the question. Do not just claim that it is taken out of context without explaining how. Do not try ignoring the rest of the reality just because he was crazy.


Another thing you are doing is dismiss the effects of Marijuana. Look, I am an anti-drug war guy that wishes for all drugs to be legal and end the pro-alcohol double standard. I know that Marijuana cannot kill you from overdose and is overall much healthier than alcohol. But I also know that high doses of it can increase paranoia, and this guy seemed very paranoid.

I think that overall everything contributed a little. His marijuana abuse, perhaps his own schizophrenia, and the violent speech from the radical US right wing. His lack of trust in religion or God to fix the problems he was 'seeing' in this world probably helped as well. All that sh** piles up and causes things like this. To just call him Schizophrenic and stop the discussion is not productive is it? All Schizophrenic people in the world would probably take offense that you think that condition alone is enough to cause such a shooting spree...

I've been paranoid of getting caught when I've been too high, but I've never been paranoid of wacked out sh** like the government trying to mind control me.

Schizophrenia played the biggest role in this person's insanity and marijuana didn't bring out anything that wasn't already there. It played a negligible role in what lead to this tragedy. And for God's sakes, this guy was plain nuts and politics has nothing to do with this. I don't give a sh** if this guy was far left or far right, he is clearly insane to the point where he lacks the checks and balances to interpret reality clearly.

You're wasting your breath, they are too partisan and pigheaded to face the fact that people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this nutcase's rampage.

Pretty soon, they are going to be claiming that Glenn Beck somehow was magically the shooter (which is impossible because he was in New York at the time).

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/ ... ck-stop-it

Again for all they claim Glenn Beck is crazy, he sure seems to be more rational than certain people here...

Apart from her holding a seat that used to be held by a republican, there really isn't much about her policies to attack. There really isn't much for the liberals to be mad about either. If someone was looking to change the balance of power in congress through assasination, Giffords would would be a piss poor choice because she doesn't hold extreme views that would have a disproportionate influence on the passage of new legislation.

Look at who actually got shot; a blue dog Democrat and a conservative federal judge. Thinking about it, I seem to recall some pretty venomous rhetoric being lobbed at the blue dogs recently, I believe some people may have even called them scum and traitors. Sounds pretty inflammatory to me, maybe we ought to pass a law against that sort of thing...

He was no commie and he was no atheist either. He was anti-establishment and that includes religion. But only reason some people have to think of him as an atheist is that he said "I won't trust in God", it seems it is taken out of context, and the context was related to coins' "In God we trust".

He was a crazy right-winger. The human brain is to blame.


Killing people is illegal. That did not stop him.

CBS News is out with a new poll today that finds Americans strongly rejecting the notion that the political climate played a role in Saturday's attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents say that the nation's "harsh political tone" didn't have anything to do with the shooting rampage, compared with 32 percent who say it did play a role. Not surprisingly, Republicans are more unified in denying any linkage (a 69 to 19 percent margin), but even a plurality of Democrats -- 49 percent -- agree that there was no connection. Among independents, the spread is 56 to 33.

This is somewhat heartening, given that so many commentators on the left -- including, I must say, some of my colleagues here -- have since Saturday been playing up the extreme rhetoric that Sarah Palin and other Tea Party favorites have spouted these past few years, claiming that it all somehow created a climate conducive to Jared Loughner's shooting rampage.

As I wrote on Sunday night, I find this to be a very slippery argument. We know that no connection between Loughner and Tea Party politics has been established, and what we have learned about him strongly suggests that he lacked a recognizable political identity. He looks to be a deranged young man and it's unclear if he was even aware of the political debate/conversation that the rest of us follow every day. There's just no evidence of any connection between Loughner and Palin, the Tea Party and conservative movement.

Thus, the "climate of violence" argument feels to me like a backdoor way for some on the left to attach blame to Palin and the Tea Party anyway. I might be more sympathetic to it if someone could explain how, precisely, it worked in this case: What specific evidence is there that the "climate" was relevant to Loughner's thinking? When was the moment that the tone set by Palin and the Tea Party kicked in and turned his obsession with grammar, literacy and "currency" into something lethal? Where's the evidence that he was even aware of the "climate" in the same way that those of us who watch cable news and read blogs all day are? All I've heard so far is evidence-free, non-quantifiable speculation.

Sure, it's easy to go back and pull together a list of every recent pronouncement from Palin and other conservative leaders that involved some kind of reference to guns or revolution or violence. Juxtaposed with coverage of the Giffords tragedy, this certainly looks damning: The same congresswoman whose district Palin's website once framed in cross hairs has now been shot in the head! But there's absolutely no proof that this is anything more than a horrible coincidence. Political scientist Brendan Nyhan put it best on his blog yesterday:

People have been having a hard time holding two ideas in their head at the same time:

1. What Paul Krugman calls "eliminationist rhetoric" is bad.

2. Contrary to his suggestion, there is no evidence that such rhetoric caused Saturday's events. Even if such evidence is later found, it would not justify the evidence-free claims that have been made in the last 48 hours.

If the CBS poll is accurate, most people aren't having trouble making this distinction -- even if plenty of commentators are.

* Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More: Steve Kornacki

CBS NEWS POLL
For release: Tuesday, January 11, 2011
7:00 am
THE SHOOTINGS IN TUCSON, ARIZONA
January 9-10, 2011
In the wake of the shootings of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson,
Arizona this past weekend, there has been speculation as to whether a heated political
atmosphere might have contributed to the shooting. Most Americans, however, reject the idea
that the political rhetoric of recent political campaigns encouraged the violence.
57% do not think the recent harsh political tone had anything to do with the Arizona shootings,
while 32% think the harsh tone was a factor. Republicans, Democrats, and independents are all
more likely to think that the tone of recent political campaigns was not a factor. Still, Democrats
are more than twice as likely as Republicans to think the harsh political tone could have
contributed to the shootings in Arizona.

Did Harsh Political Tone have Anything to do with Arizona Shootings?

Total Reps Dems Inds
Yes 32% 19% 42% 33%
No 57% 69% 49% 56%


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This poll was conducted by telephone on January 9-10, 2011 among 673 adults nationwide first
interviewed by CBS News December 17-20, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both
standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample
could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release
conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Poll.