Daily KOS has a "TARGET LIST"

Rana said:
I thought threatening a person with violence is a crime?
Click to expand...

It is.

"A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief."

Adding to your rant :D : it's just ludicrous to say the left is keeping this in the news, making unfound accusations, etc. MASS MURDER IS A BIG DEAL! It doesn't matter who did it to whom, people are going to be looking for motives until all the facts are out. The same thing happened with Columbine, VA Tech, and any other tragedy.

Of course politics are in the equation. Wake up people, a politician was targeted and almost killed. If this were Columbine, we'd be talking about bullies along with craziness. IMO this particular tragedy is a sore point with the right, not only because of rhetoric but because they are generally big proponents of guns. We know there's going to be a wave of legislation curbing guns, probably going nowhere, but the right will get all steamed about their 2nd Amendment rights, as usual.

Does anybody really think Congress isn't going to be doing some major soul-searching after this tragedy? Geez Louise!

Rant over. :D
 
Yurt said:
maybe this is why some people think you're a troll



you went around blaming palin for this and flat out said she incited the guy, you said that a couple of days ago and now you're either lying or furiously back peddling without admitting you're were a partisan jerk trying to score political points when this came out

an apology is in order if you've changed your mind
Click to expand...

Oh, grow up and stop expecting apologies from people with different opinions from yours. This is a forum for opinions. You weren't personally insulted.
 
Dixie said:
I have a friend who is currently going through hell with her 21-year-old son... there is NOTHING she can do from a legal standpoint, the cops have been no help, she has literally NO legal recourse or power to do ANYTHING. That's just how it is, it doesn't matter how much she would love to help, doesn't matter she wants to help.. Once you have reached adulthood, your parents don't have any legal control whatsoever. In fact, he recently tore her house all to hell, and she called the police... when they arrived, they asked her if he lived there? She told them he did, and they told her, there was nothing they could do, it was his house too.

So, as much as you might think it's a cop out, and there are things that can be done, actually DOING things, is much more difficult. Perhaps this shouldn't be the case, but currently, it is the case.
Click to expand...

What about 72-hour involuntary commitment?
 
christiefan915 said:
Oh, grow up and stop expecting apologies from people with different opinions from yours. This is a forum for opinions. You weren't personally insulted.
Click to expand...

i never said he owed ME an apology....he owes the victims apologies for politicizing this, especially given he had zero evidence...and you talk about my reading comprehension...

:palm:

do you agree with him that palin should be indicted for incitement to murder?
 
Yurt said:
if the right were as good as the left in making soundbites to make their opponents look bad, they could have a field day with obama

punish our enemies, bring a gun etc....
Click to expand...

The right's been having a field day with Obama for years, who are you trying to kid?
 
Yurt said:
i never said he owed ME an apology....he owes the victims apologies for politicizing this, especially given he had zero evidence...and you talk about my reading comprehension...
:palm:
Click to expand...

You didn't mention the word "victims" in your post and I'm not a mind reader.

do you agree with him that palin should be indicted for incitement to murder?
Click to expand...

No. But if public stupidity, like public drunkenness was a crime, she'd be serving a life sentence. :D
 
christiefan915 said:
You didn't mention the word "victims" in your post and I'm not a mind reader.



No. But if public stupidity, like public drunkenness was a crime, she'd be serving a life sentence. :D
Click to expand...

i didn't mention ME either, yet you tried to be a mind reader and ASSUME i was talking about me when the context is clear he owes them an apology, i never once talked about me

lol as to the last
 
Onceler said:
Yeah - the poor right...they have no idea what to do with soundbytes when it comes to campaigns. Like babes in the woods, that party...
Click to expand...
The right knows what to do, they just don't have the msm sucking their dicks like the lefties....its makes a world of difference to have th media in your corner.
 
bravo said:
And you would be her cellmate...
Click to expand...

Still running from this question, fathead?

Let's get down to brass tacks...

Do you or don't you approve of the following comments:

"Rep Gabrielle Giffords' 2010 Congressional opponent held a June event that encouraged participants to "Get On Target For Victory In November. Help Remove Gabrielle For Office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

Sarah Palin posted this ad on her facebook page and tweeted, “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Pls see my Facebook page.”

"Controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this weekend that she wants residents of her state "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's plan to reduce global warming "because we need to fight back."

Asked about the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, Bachmann told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
Edit/Delete Message
 
bravo said:
The right knows what to do, they just don't have the msm sucking their dicks like the lefties....its makes a world of difference to have th media in your corner.
Click to expand...

Yet boneheads like you tout that Faux has great market share and leads in the biggest demographic group. This put it into the mainstream. Conservapedia calls it mainstream.

Yep, it's evident to us that Faux sucks righty junk.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Mainstream_media
 
christiefan915 said:
Still running from this question, fathead?

Let's get down to brass tacks...

Do you or don't you approve of the following comments:

"Rep Gabrielle Giffords' 2010 Congressional opponent held a June event that encouraged participants to "Get On Target For Victory In November. Help Remove Gabrielle For Office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
Click to expand...

Definitely questionable. Holding campaign events to fire off an M16 is acceptable by itself, but should not mention the opponent in my opinion.

Sarah Palin posted this ad on her facebook page and tweeted, “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Pls see my Facebook page.”
Click to expand...

One of the most quoted Palin comments. The above is nothing different than the decades of comments we get from politicians. Nothing about the above suggests we should go out and kill people. It is no different than Obama quoting the untouchables or calling opponents 'the enemy'.

"Controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this weekend that she wants residents of her state "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's plan to reduce global warming "because we need to fight back."
Click to expand...

Again, the above is simply rhetoric. Faux outrage over it is pathetic.

Asked about the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, Bachmann told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."
Edit/Delete Message
Click to expand...

again... rhetoric. If you want to ban all politicians from such rhetoric, lead the charge.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yet boneheads like you tout that Faux has great market share and leads in the biggest demographic group. This put it into the mainstream. Conservapedia calls it mainstream.

Yep, it's evident to us that Faux sucks righty junk.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Mainstream_media
Click to expand...

Yes, Fox is to the right. Congrats. You uncovered a great mystery. Next you will be telling us that CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and CNN lean to varying degrees to the left.
 
Superfreak said:
Definitely questionable. Holding campaign events to fire off an M16 is acceptable by itself, but should not mention the opponent in my opinion.



One of the most quoted Palin comments. The above is nothing different than the decades of comments we get from politicians. Nothing about the above suggests we should go out and kill people. It is no different than Obama quoting the untouchables or calling opponents 'the enemy'.



Again, the above is simply rhetoric. Faux outrage over it is pathetic.



again... rhetoric. If you want to ban all politicians from such rhetoric, lead the charge.
Click to expand...

I think saying you will "fight" is the first thing any aspiring politician is taught. I will fight for your rights (insert group here) middle class, farmers, teachers etc. as an example.

While it is conceivable a disturbed individual might take it as a call to literal fistacuffs I think most know it is just political rhetoric.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, Fox is to the right. Congrats. You uncovered a great mystery. Next you will be telling us that CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and CNN lean to varying degrees to the left.
Click to expand...

It's about whiners complaining they don't get a fair shake from the MSM. I don't want to hear it, because Faux is mainstream and slants right.

I can't comment on cable news because I don't watch it. But as far as network news, I just don't see the editorializing, name-calling, conspiracy-theorizing, adjective-laden comments, etc. as I've seen on Faux.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Definitely questionable. Holding campaign events to fire off an M16 is acceptable by itself, but should not mention the opponent in my opinion.



One of the most quoted Palin comments. The above is nothing different than the decades of comments we get from politicians. Nothing about the above suggests we should go out and kill people. It is no different than Obama quoting the untouchables or calling opponents 'the enemy'.



Again, the above is simply rhetoric. Faux outrage over it is pathetic.



again... rhetoric. If you want to ban all politicians from such rhetoric, lead the charge.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer, now I want to hear from bravo.
 
cawacko said:
I think saying you will "fight" is the first thing any aspiring politician is taught. I will fight for your rights (insert group here) middle class, farmers, teachers etc. as an example.

While it is conceivable a disturbed individual might take it as a call to literal fistacuffs I think most know it is just political rhetoric.
Click to expand...

This is why it is so laughable to suggest a disturbed individual might react badly to political rhetoric. A mentally disturbed person MIGHT react badly to ANYTHING. A lamp post might be watching them, a dog might tell them what to do, they believe everyone is out to get them, etc...

Unless we diagnose every crazy person correctly and lock them in padded rooms, there is always going to be a chance they go off. You could ask them if they would like some ice cream and BAM... you have a sugar cone up your ass.

That said, I would dearly love to see the political discourse in this country return to the civility of the Reagan/O'Neil days. They butted heads almost non-stop, but they had a mutual respect for one another and handled things in a professional manner.
 
christiefan915 said:
It's about whiners complaining they don't get a fair shake from the MSM. I don't want to hear it, because Faux is mainstream and slants right.

I can't comment on cable news because I don't watch it. But as far as network news, I just don't see the editorializing, name-calling, conspiracy-theorizing, adjective-laden comments, etc. as I've seen on Faux.
Click to expand...

While Fox is certainly slanted, it is one against many slanted to the left. Personally I think CNN is closest to the middle, but even it is tilted a bit.

We the people are responsible for this turn of events. We the people watch the op-ed shows. We revel in 'our sides' host railing on the opponent. We watch 'their sides' host so that we can bitch about them afterward.... and when I say "We", I really mean all you dopes, because I gave up watching news programming on TV. I refuse to be a part of their game any more.
 
Superfreak said:
This is why it is so laughable to suggest a disturbed individual might react badly to political rhetoric. A mentally disturbed person MIGHT react badly to ANYTHING. A lamp post might be watching them, a dog might tell them what to do, they believe everyone is out to get them, etc...

Unless we diagnose every crazy person correctly and lock them in padded rooms, there is always going to be a chance they go off. You could ask them if they would like some ice cream and BAM... you have a sugar cone up your ass.

That said, I would dearly love to see the political discourse in this country return to the civility of the Reagan/O'Neil days. They butted heads almost non-stop, but they had a mutual respect for one another and handled things in a professional manner.
Click to expand...

I agree. And unless I missed it I haven't seen anything being reported for what this guys thinking or thought process was for committing this act yet there is so much talk like we know.

What do we know so far? He met her in 2007 and didn't like her response to his question and he became (somewhat) obsessed with her? All this parsing between a bullseye and a scope could have had zero effect on this. Until we get a response from him it is just all speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top