This is what happens when rhetoric gets out of control

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by gipper

Okay Forest Gump, your post is most moderate. Congrats! Played it right down the left side missing the target completely...ops...violent rhetoric...

I do agree with only one point. That is that many Americans were unhappy with the PROGRESSIVE W and voted in the SOCIALIST Obama. They did so without ever knowing his Marxist past and socialist intentions...which to anyone paying attention, were clearly visible. Moderates, independents, non-liberal Dems voted in a big way for BO. SUCKERS!

You jump on Palin for the crosshairs thing accepting completely the lib media spin. You got fooled again....

References to violent images and rhetoric are used all the time. But, no sane person thinks this leads people to commit violent acts. If this were true, why are you not condemning Hollywood for the violence they have depicted for decades???

But, if Sarah Palin puts out a crosshairs pic...SCREAM....the sky in falling. You got fooled again...do you see a pattern yet???

Could it be that much of the "fire storm" and "talking points" by the "disgruntled" are actually true? But, moderates being moderates can't see anything. They get push around by whoever has the biggest voice in the media. And, we know who controls most of the media...well do you?

The fire storm you apparently miss is the constant unwarranted and politically motivated attacks by libs and their media against Sarah Palin, Tea Party, Talk Radio, etc....and you got fooled again...

No doubt you thought all the criticism of W was cool, but the attacks on BO are so uncalled for....you got fooled again.

Moderates...will they ever learn?

The BLOOD of millions of unemployed, a bankrupt nation, a destroyed HC system, and all the other damaging consequences...are on the hands of moderates....

ops that damn violent rhetoric again

Bush was a PROGRESSIVE? BWAHAHAHA.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by President Obama

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "when I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath. For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind.... But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

This was definitely aimed towards those on the Left that jumped to conclusions, I hope they take notice.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This was definitely aimed towards those on the Left that jumped to conclusions, I hope they take notice.

BOTH sides were err are trying to blame each other. Fox was all about he's a pot smoking leftist yadda yadda yadda. I agree with the President but you're doing the exact same thing.

[SonicBoom]

Originally Posted by illavbill

Bush was a PROGRESSIVE? BWAHAHAHA.

to the far right he was. Of course, they see everybody as progressive.

[kinggovernor]

Why the Left Lost It
The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.
By DANIEL HENNINGER

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama's own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates' personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.


The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.


The tea party itself got help from history—the arrival of a clarifying event, the sovereign debt crisis of 2010. Simultaneously in the capitals of Europe, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and elsewhere it was revealed that fiscal commitments made across decades, often for liberally inspired social goals, had put all these states into a condition of effective bankruptcy.

This stark reality unnerved many Americans. The tea partiers' fiscal concerns were real. Despite that, a progressive Democratic president and congressional leadership spent 2009 and 2010 passing the biggest economic entitlement since 1965 and driving U.S. spending to 25%, or $3.5 trillion, of the nation's $14 trillion GDP. A public claim of that size hasn't been seen since World War II.

They expected to take losses in November. What they got instead was Armageddon. Suddenly an authentic reform movement, linked to the Republican Party, whose goal simply is to stop the public spending curve, had come to life. This poses a mortal threat to the financial oxygen in the economic ecosystem that the public wing of the Democratic Party has inhabited all these years.

The stakes for the American left in 2012 couldn't possibly be higher. If then, and again in 2014, progressives can't pull toward their candidates some percentage of the independent voters who in November abandoned the Democratic Party, they could be looking in from the outside for as many years as some of them have left to write about politics. A wilderness is a terrible place to be.

Against that grim result, every sentence Messrs. Krugman, Packer, Alter, the Times and the rest have written about Tucson is logical and understandable. What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available. Available this week was a chance to make some independents wonder if the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner are all part of the same dark force.

Who believes this? They do.

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote. "In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

Frank Rich, Oct 17: "Don't expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day—no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they'll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tuesday in the Huffington Post: "Jack's death forced a national bout of self-examination. In 1964, Americans repudiated the forces of right-wing hatred and violence with an historic landslide in the presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. For a while, the advocates of right-wing extremism receded from the public forum. Now they have returned with a vengeance—to the broadcast media and to prominent positions in the political landscape."

This isn't just political calculation. It is foundational belief.

So, yes, Tucson has indeed been revealing. On to 2012.

Henninger: Why the Left Lost It - WSJ.com

[WickedLou9]

You guys do realize that this isn't going anywhere and it will never go anywhere. You are shouting at proverbial walls.

[WickedLou9]

Timely article.

The Tucson shootings: The blame game | The Economist

It is clearly true that American politics have got a lot nastier in recent years. Politicians and their acolytes no longer treat opponents as decent and honourable, if sadly mistaken, public servants. Liberals blame talk radio and Fox News for this, but leftish websites have proved themselves more than capable of dishing out abuse, sometimes laced with violent imagery, to Mrs Palin, bankers and George Bush.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Why the Left Lost It
The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.
By DANIEL HENNINGER

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama's own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates' personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.


The accusation that the tea parties were linked to the Tucson murders is the product of calculation and genuine belief.


The tea party itself got help from history—the arrival of a clarifying event, the sovereign debt crisis of 2010. Simultaneously in the capitals of Europe, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and elsewhere it was revealed that fiscal commitments made across decades, often for liberally inspired social goals, had put all these states into a condition of effective bankruptcy.

This stark reality unnerved many Americans. The tea partiers' fiscal concerns were real. Despite that, a progressive Democratic president and congressional leadership spent 2009 and 2010 passing the biggest economic entitlement since 1965 and driving U.S. spending to 25%, or $3.5 trillion, of the nation's $14 trillion GDP. A public claim of that size hasn't been seen since World War II.

They expected to take losses in November. What they got instead was Armageddon. Suddenly an authentic reform movement, linked to the Republican Party, whose goal simply is to stop the public spending curve, had come to life. This poses a mortal threat to the financial oxygen in the economic ecosystem that the public wing of the Democratic Party has inhabited all these years.

The stakes for the American left in 2012 couldn't possibly be higher. If then, and again in 2014, progressives can't pull toward their candidates some percentage of the independent voters who in November abandoned the Democratic Party, they could be looking in from the outside for as many years as some of them have left to write about politics. A wilderness is a terrible place to be.

Against that grim result, every sentence Messrs. Krugman, Packer, Alter, the Times and the rest have written about Tucson is logical and understandable. What happened in November has to be stopped, by whatever means become available. Available this week was a chance to make some independents wonder if the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Jared Loughner are all part of the same dark force.

Who believes this? They do.

The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote. "In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

Frank Rich, Oct 17: "Don't expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day—no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they'll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tuesday in the Huffington Post: "Jack's death forced a national bout of self-examination. In 1964, Americans repudiated the forces of right-wing hatred and violence with an historic landslide in the presidential election between LBJ and Goldwater. For a while, the advocates of right-wing extremism receded from the public forum. Now they have returned with a vengeance—to the broadcast media and to prominent positions in the political landscape."

This isn't just political calculation. It is foundational belief.

So, yes, Tucson has indeed been revealing. On to 2012.

Henninger: Why the Left Lost It - WSJ.com

More finger pointing. I honestly believed something like this would happen because of all of the stuff being spewed by some right-wing figures. People have been speaking of this worry for a while now. Figures that usually wouldn't be given the time of day have been spewing their straight hatred and violent rhetoric since Obama showed up on the national stage. I don't think this crazy kid was necessarily egged on by the right but stuff like the two people attempting to go shoot up the Tides foundation that literally said what Glenn Beck "informed" them about on their show made them want to go on their rampage. It isn't a far fetched idea to think constant vilification, divisive and violent rhetoric could push crazy people that last step over the edge to go on a killing spree.

[gipper]

OH NO!!!! Oh the humanity!!!!

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by gipper

OH NO!!!! Oh the humanity!!!!

They are clearly contributing to the caustic political climate in this country. They should be tried to treason.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

This was definitely aimed towards those on the Left that jumped to conclusions, I hope they take notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/op...thu1.html?_r=1

He also said that after a senseless tragedy it is natural to try to impose some meaning. Wisely, he did not try. But he was right to warn that any proposals to reduce this kind of bloodshed will remain out of reach if political discourse remains deeply polarized. Two of those essential proposals, we believe, are gun safety laws and improvement to the mental health system, and it was heartening to hear the president bring them up.

...

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people.

I love how the NY Times cites Obama's words saying we need to be careful not to assign blame to a tragedy and that we need to calm the dirty political discourse and then somehow pretends he wasn't referring to them and then uses it to blame Republicans and push for gun control.

Who was it who recently said they don't see bias when reading the NY Times?

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by SonicBoom

to the far right he was. Of course, they see everybody as progressive.

Bush was hardly to the far right. Gimme a break.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/op...thu1.html?_r=1

I love how the NY Times cites Obama's words saying we need to be careful not to assign blame to a tragedy and that we need to calm the dirty political discourse and then somehow pretends he wasn't referring to them and then uses it to blame Republicans and push for gun control.

Who was it who recently said they don't see bias when reading the NY Times?

Wow, that is the worst spin I have ever seen by anyone.


I was expecting some retractions and apologies from the Left, but that obviously isn't going to happen.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Timely article.

The Tucson shootings: The blame game | The Economist

Usually, I like reading The Economist, but this article was a few minutes of life I'll never get back. "In no other decent country could any civilian, let alone a deranged one, legally get his hands on a" pistol of any kind.

The clear implication of this article is that America itself is to blame and is indecent as a whole because it allows its citizens to be armed. If only America were "decent" and did not allow "any civilian" to "legally get his hands on" guns, perhaps the incident would have never occurred.

Yeah, right.

I found this article on RCP much more enlightening, even if I did not agree with everything it has to say:

By David Paul Kuhn


Philip Roth wrote that these murders "transport" the victims out of the "longed-for American pastoral" and "into the fury, the violence, and the desperation of the counterpastoral--into the indigenous American berserk."

Americans are not a uniquely violent people. We suffer crime rates that are similar to those of other wealthy nations. But American violence is uniquely deadly.

Harvard's David Hemenway and UCLA doctorial student Erin Richardson studied 23 wealthy nations. The United States had one-third the total population but accounted for eight in 10 firearm deaths.

"Everyday the United States has lots more accidents with guns, murders with guns. Thus it's not crazy that we have these massacres," said Hemenway, who directs the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. "Every country has crazy people; we just give them easy access to firearms."

This is the armed American berserk. He murdered 32 at Virginia Tech in 2007. He killed five at a Pennsylvania Amish school the year before. He killed at Columbine in Colorado, and the myriad school shootings that echoed it. Older Americans recollect tragedies of earlier eras, the Austin rifleman who killed more than a dozen in 1966.

We met the same killer Saturday in Arizona. Six dead. A dozen others shot. The apparent target, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, fights for her life in a hospital bed.

Political assassinations are uniquely jarring. A singular nobody strikes down a powerful somebody. They confine democracy. More security follows and with it, a higher wall between elected representatives and citizens.

The Arizona shooting reminds us of a half-century of political assassins. Most of these men lacked any coherent political motive--recall the shooter of Bobby Kennedy, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. We still debate Lee Harvey Oswald's sanity and cause.
"Can there be any American of our century who, having failed to gain stature while he was alive, now haunts us more?" Norman Mailer wrote of Oswald. Some version of Oswald's ghost forever haunts us: the lone-disturbed gunman we now see in Jared Loughner.

Sociologists fail to explain these gunmen, while political pundits foolishly try. In a nation so large, one crazed man changes American politics. It's inexplicable and yet familiar. We've watched this American berserk in films from "Taxi Driver" to "In the Line of Fire."

But we rarely consider the hard question: what is uniquely American about him?

"We don't seem to have more crime, when you look at the crime victimization rates compared to high-income countries, except for gun crime," Harvard's Hemenway said.

RealClearPolitics analyzed the most recent United Nation's data to better understand American violence. The assault rate in Scotland, England, Australia and Germany is more than twice the US-assault rate, at times far more. Yet the US-murder rate is at least four times the rate of these developed nations. America's murder rate ranks 53 among 153 nations. No other developed nation ranks within the top half. The comparison between assault and murder rates is rough; an assault is not always reported or discovered. Both rates are, however, based on criminal justice sources from 2003 to 2008.

And the comparison, for all its imperfections, captures an important fact: Americans are not exceptional for their violence but exceptional for their extreme violence--murder.

American violence has known far worse days. In 2008, the national homicide rate reached its lowest level since 1965. But there are still about 12,000 gun related murders annually. Guns are involved in two-thirds of American homicides. The US firearm-murder rate ranks among third-world countries. It's about ten times the rate of Western European nations like Germany.

But guns are not the entire story. People kill people, as the gun lobby line goes. All Swiss able-bodied young men are required to have a government-issued rifle at home. Switzerland has no standing army, only a militia. It has known firearm tragedy; a gunman killed 14 people there in 2001. Yet the Swiss homicide rate remains significantly below England's and roughly equivalent to Germany's, two nations with far fewer guns per capita. The US murder rate is about seven times that of Switzerland, despite broadly comparable gun ownership and recreational gun culture.

Swiss public arms are, however, largely rifles. It has a small population (equal to New York City's). It's homogenous, stable and has a robust social safety net. It also appears to generally struggle with violence less than the United States. The Swiss assault rate is half the US rate.

Experts agree, regardless, that guns don't solely explain the American homicide rate. But they disagree over what else does. Some experts note that this nation was born in revolution. Yet France's revolution was far more violent. America's violent past is surpassed by the history of other developed nations (see Germany). The cowboy psyche is uniquely American, but Argentina and Australia have similar history and lore. We have a vast wealth gap. But destitution is not destiny. Poverty has increased with the recession, even as crime has declined.

What we do have is a Second Amendment. Guns represented the last recourse of American democracy. Many Americans hold tightly to that original belief. Democrats have learned the hard way that gun control is a losing issue in American politics.

Loughner used a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a high ammunition magazine, enabling him to fire about 30 bullets in seconds. That magazine was illegal for a period until 2004. There will be discussion, perhaps public policy, concerning troubled individuals access to guns. There was after Virginia Tech. But that's likely the limit of viable policy recourse. Public support for gun control is at its lowest point in decades. Even the Columbine massacre, according to Gallup, only led to a fleeting uptick in support for stricter gun laws.
There is an unspoken willingness to tolerate our share of murders.

American hyper-capitalism makes a similar tradeoff. We subscribe to social Darwinism to a degree unseen in Western Europe. It's one reason our economy is the fittest. But it also explains why the wealthiest nation in the world has a weaker social safety net than other developed countries. The conservative equation of freedom: lower taxes and fewer regulations on guns, equals more freedom.

Liberals adhere to their own zealous formulation of American freedom. The left has won more civil rights for the mentally ill, but those rights will sometimes risk the public's welfare. It's this most-American value that Jonathan Franzen explores, within the ordinariness of middle class daily life, in his recent novel "Freedom."

The National Rifle Association has long understood that guns are best defended as tools of that value. It ran a multi-million dollar ad campaign to defeat Al Gore in the 2000 election. NRA billboards read: "Vote Freedom!"

As Franzen wrote in his novel, "The personality susceptible to the dream of limitless freedom is a personality also prone, should the dream ever sour, to misanthropy and rage." The Arizona tragedy is not an inevitable consequence of freedom. But the nation has accepted its American berserks as one of the prices of that freedom.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Usually, I like reading The Economist, but this article was a few minutes of life I'll never get back. "In no other decent country could any civilian, let alone a deranged one, legally get his hands on a" pistol of any kind.

The clear implication of this article is that America itself is to blame and is indecent as a whole because it allows its citizens to be armed. If only America were "decent" and did not allow "any civilian" to "legally get his hands on" guns, perhaps the incident would have never occurred.

Yeah, right.

I found this article on RCP much more enlightening, even if I did not agree with everything it has to say:

yeah the first part of it was good, but then it sort of went off on an anti-gun tangent.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I found this article on RCP much more enlightening, even if I did not agree with everything it has to say:

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

yeah the first part of it was good, but then it sort of went off on an anti-gun tangent.

I personally didn't like the article at all. I have studied crime a lot and people who write articles about crime like this love to use statistics, but they don't know what they are looking at. It is very tricky to compare crime statistics between nations. People who don't know how shouldn't write professional articles doing so. Comparing the murder rate with a country like England is very difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this.

The US has two major forms of crime statistics. The UCR (Uniform Crime Reports) and the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey). The UCR is compiled by the FBI. All local police precincts in the nation are required to submit information to the FBI regarding each crime that is reported. The FBI then creates a database compilation each year. This has a lot of pros and cons. The pro is that each year the same standards are upheld and all reported crimes (regardless of conviction) are counted. The bad is that many crimes are underreported to police. Enter the NCVS. The NCVS is a survey of "random" Americans and basically asks if they have been the victim of a crime within the past six months. The problem with the NCVS is that the survey is time consuming and is typically issued to people with permanent residences and has difficulty surveying teenagers and youths (where most crime is committed). The people who respond to the NCVS do not make up a fair representation of American crime and the people filling out the form typically don't know the legal definitions of what they are responding to. The upside of the NCVS is that it gives a better assessment of underreported crimes. The downside is the accuracy is questionable. For example, I know a bunch of girls in college who claim they were raped. They each have a sob story about being raped. One girl shared her story with me. She was on vacation with a group of friends, she shared a hotel room with a dude. They both got drunk. He went to bed. She got naked and got on top him and started to fuck him. She woke up the next day, regretted her decision and said he raped her. They were both drunk. She initiated the sexual encounter. But because he was the male and she regretted her decision she thought she was raped because of all the date rape type discussion that goes on in the media and in schools. He was supposed to say "no" despite her taking her clothes off and jumping on top of him because she was inebriated. I told her by her own words it sounds like he has a better case for her raping him because he regretted the incident as well. He was drunk and she took advantage of him. She told me off so I told her that getting drunk and sleeping with someone she regrets isn't rape, it's called being a drunken idiot. She never spoke to me again... But, if she were polled for the NCVS her incident would get chalked up as a rape.

Back on topic, the UK also uses two similar methods of determining crime in their country as well. They have crime reports statistics and a survey. The UK is fairly socialist, bans guns, cctv cameras all over the place and wants to show decreased crime for the overbearing government their citizens must put up with in the name of less crime. For a while they made their reported crime statistics difficult to access because the survey provided better numbers for the media. They also like to play games with their terminology such as manslaughter and murder definitions. Things that would be clearly listed as murder in America are considered manslaughter in England, despite the fact that they used to be considered murder there as well. Thus when they are compared to other nations in Europe or to the US they have managed to reduce their counts and rates as they consistently bend their classifications. They have also changed the way their statistics are tabulated at least two times in the past decade, thus making it difficult to keep track of trends.

What the article also ignores and what is essential when dealing with issues of any crime in relation to regulation is before and after statistics. Gun regulation didn't seem to help the UK homicide rate. People like to say certain states or countries have lower murder rates. What you need to watch out for is people advocating a position and not talking about the rates BEFORE and AFTER increased regulation. Look at all the states and see how the numbers changed AFTER regulation to see if it helped. The statistics show that gun regulations do not have a measurable impact on crime... Interestingly something that does have a measurable impact on crime is something liberals want repealed, enforcement of drug laws. I am not saying I advocate enforcing drug laws, I am just saying if you really want to lower crime rates strict drug enforcement will help more than any gun regulation. England has seen increases in crime over the past decade as they have become more and more rigid with regulations. The US has seen a decline in overall crime by comparison. The reason our crime rates have been going down is because we incarcerate more people for lesser offenses (such as drug offenses). People in jail cannot commit a civilian crime. People who commit more serious crimes are also more likely to commit less series offenses.

In 1997 the UK banned handguns. Their homicide rates (from the first chart I can find)
1987-1.19
1989-1.03
1992-1.14
1995-1.30
-----------
1998-1.25
2000-1.49
2003-1.49
After the firearm ban went into effect people started getting stabbed a lot more frequently. It got to the point where there were people calling for a ban of knives in the country because of the upswing in knife violence. Apparently they didn't learn their lesson the first time...

By comparison the US homicide rates (from the same chart).
1987-8.3
1989-8.7
1992-9.3
1995-8.2
1998-6.3
2000-5.5
2003-5.7

What matters most in regards to crime is socio-economic issues. The article touched on it when discussing Switzerland by stating they are a homogeneous population. There's a rifle in basically every house in that country and their crime rate is low. That isn't a fluke. The reason it is so is because gun regulations don't really effect crime. All crime (including murder) is effected by other factors.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by gipper

You jump on Palin for the crosshairs thing accepting completely the lib media spin. You got fooled again....

I commented on it because it was irresponsible then as it is now.

Originally Posted by gipper

References to violent images and rhetoric are used all the time. But, no sane person thinks this leads people to commit violent acts.

Most sane people are able to distinguish right from wrong. Insane people, not so much. "Madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push."

Originally Posted by gipper

If this were true, why are you not condemning Hollywood for the violence they have depicted for decades???

Because I do not have the time to type out a 5,000 word thesis about how violence in our pop culture fuels the carnal instincts of our own will toward evil.

Originally Posted by gipper

Could it be that much of the "fire storm" and "talking points" by the "disgruntled" are actually true? But, moderates being moderates can't see anything. They get push around by whoever has the biggest voice in the media. And, we know who controls most of the media...well do you?

The fire storm you apparently miss is the constant unwarranted and politically motivated attacks by libs and their media against Sarah Palin, Tea Party, Talk Radio, etc....and you got fooled again...

So you're putting rhetoric above everything else out there. Again, you're no better than any liberal you condemn for whatever reason you say. It's fine calling all politicians out on ideological bullshit. In your world, you have it one way and reality doesn't work like that.

Sarah Palin gets called out because she says stupid things, all the time. If a politician or unfortunately, a commentator, says something stupid, they should be held accountable and called out for it. If she didn't stick her foot in her mouth every time she opened it, she wouldn't be nearly as popular. She's cashed in as the right wing ditz, and it has brainwashed alot of disenchanted folk who are fearful of where the conservative movement's place in this country is at the moment, and it will undoubtably cost the Republicans any shot at a legitimate chance for contending in 2012 if she remains such a beacon to your base.

Originally Posted by gipper

No doubt you thought all the criticism of W was cool, but the attacks on BO are so uncalled for....you got fooled again.

Bush deserved some criticism he got, just as Obama deserves some he gets. The world isn't as black and white as you claim.

Originally Posted by gipper

The BLOOD of millions of unemployed, a bankrupt nation, a destroyed HC system, and all the other damaging consequences...are on the hands of moderates....

Keep passing the buck. Your intentions, which I think are a complete sham in this place, are to alienate everyone who doesn't think like you. You know what that is? A monarchy. Don't tread on me motherfucker.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Wow, that is the worst spin I have ever seen by anyone.


I was expecting some retractions and apologies from the Left, but that obviously isn't going to happen.

Where is your outrage at what Palin said?

Originally Posted by article

Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' comment overshadows a calibrated message

By Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 12, 2011; 1:30 PM

Sarah Palin's statement Wednesday in response to the Tucson shootings, in which she has found herself at the center of a debate over civility in political discourse, was crafted as both a defense of her own actions and a strike against her critics - but reaction to the statement was dominated by a fresh controversy over her use of the phrase "blood libel."

With the exception of those words, the former Alaska governor's statement was remarkable for its careful calibration - replete with references to "the greatness of our country" and other rhetoric likely to resonate with her base. It was also notable that Palin, known for her often-controversial impromptu tweets, waited four days after the shootings and then released a professionally produced, polished seven-minute video in which she read from a script.

Palin spoke of the "enduring strength of our Republic," described the Constitution as a "sacred charter of liberty" and referred to the "genius" of the founding fathers. "America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week," she said. "We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy."

In Palin's version of events, her controversial actions represented common cause with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who a few days before being critically wounded in the mass shooting had read the First Amendment on the House floor.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin said in the statement. "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

She went on to say: "Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

It is not at all clear that Palin intended to use the term "blood libel" in its full historical context. The phrase refers to a centuries-old anti-Semitic slander - the false charge that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals - that has been used as an excuse for persecution. The phrase was first used in connection with response to the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal and has been picked up by others on the right.

While Palin did not explain her decision to use such historically fraught imagery, it would be recognized by religious voters, including the social conservatives who constitute such an important part of her following.

Palin has come under criticism because a map on her Web site during the midterm elections showed districts of congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat marked with cross hairs. Giffords, whose district was one of those 20, had publicly complained that this was an invitation to violence.

There is no evidence at this point that the suspected gunman, Jared Loughner, was influenced by Palin or any other political figure.

Tim Crawford, the treasurer for Palin's political action committee, said Palin is "her own best spokesperson and she wanted to talk about this."

"The reason we did the video was we wanted the statement in total out there. We wanted the video to be seen in its entirety," he said.



Palin's statement comes as President Obama is headed to Tucson to speak at a service for the victims, and guarantees that her perspective will be part of the story line of the day.

With the exception of the phrase "blood libel," its careful timing and deliberate language also represent a departure from her previous attention-getting Facebook posts and tweets, many of which were reflexive spasms to even small criticisms.

On Thanksgiving, for instance, as most of the nation was still sleepily digesting turkey dinners, she issued an angry blast at the media. It was an apparent reaction to the fact that she herself had been ridiculed for a slip of the tongue in which she referred to North Korea as South Korea.

"The one-word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us," Palin wrote. "If the media had bothered to actually listen to all of my remarks on Glenn Beck's radio show, they would have noticed that I refer to South Korea as our ally throughout, that I corrected myself seconds after my slip-of-the-tongue, and that I made it abundantly clear that pressure should be put on China to restrict energy exports to the North Korean regime."

Those kinds of outbursts could destroy a presidential campaign, and stand as a stark contrast to the statement that Palin released Wednesday.

The new level of political professionalism to her approach - if that indeed is what this represents - also might not be merely a coincidence in its timing.

Republican operatives report that Palin has been calling around in recent weeks to seek advice not only on whether but how she should run for president in 2012. This statement might suggest she is not only seeking that counsel, but taking it as well.

Really? No complaints about this but Obama somehow has done something wrong as usual?

[gipper]

Originally Posted by Salty Dog

I commented on it because it was irresponsible then as it is now.



Most sane people are able to distinguish right from wrong. Insane people, not so much. "Madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push."



Because I do not have the time to type out a 5,000 word thesis about how violence in our pop culture fuels the carnal instincts of our own will toward evil.



So you're putting rhetoric above everything else out there. Again, you're no better than any liberal you condemn for whatever reason you say. It's fine calling all politicians out on ideological bullshit. In your world, you have it one way and reality doesn't work like that.

Sarah Palin gets called out because she says stupid things, all the time. If a politician or unfortunately, a commentator, says something stupid, they should be held accountable and called out for it. If she didn't stick her foot in her mouth every time she opened it, she wouldn't be nearly as popular. She's cashed in as the right wing ditz, and it has brainwashed alot of disenchanted folk who are fearful of where the conservative movement's place in this country is at the moment, and it will undoubtably cost the Republicans any shot at a legitimate chance for contending in 2012 if she remains such a beacon to your base.



Bush deserved some criticism he got, just as Obama deserves some he gets. The world isn't as black and white as you claim.



Keep passing the buck. Your intentions, which I think are a complete sham in this place, are to alienate everyone who doesn't think like you. You know what that is? A monarchy. Don't tread on me motherfucker.

Did you just call me an M Fer? Not nice lil' dog.

Lets see now...back to your post....

Okay, Palin is "irresponsible" for responding the incessant attacks on her by your friends on the Left for something she had nothing to do with. Can't you see how wrong that is? She had to respond and did so appropriately. But, you being a moderate will always side with those making the most noise...

BO and W deserve criticism...so what? That is what I said. Only BO is not getting the criticism. The media are his cheerleader...how is that black and white?

I pass the buck really? I make my views well known in every post, while you try to hide yours with your high and mighty...I am a moderate...so I swing with the wind...

I do give you a tinsy bit of credit...you see Palin cashing in on her fame and condemn her for it, well okay...but you would never do the same to anyone on the Left.

You need a 5,000 word thesis to explain the impact of violence in movies. Really? You miss the point...as usual. You think Palin's use of crosshairs is wrong, but Hollywood's use of violence needs a 5,000 word explanation. Do you see the inconsistency there?

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Where is your outrage at what Palin said?

Most intelligent people just ignore what Palin says.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Really? No complaints about this but Obama somehow has done something wrong as usual?

I didn't read KG's post, but Palin isn't at the same level as Obama. Is it wise to compare the two?