RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Paul Krugman writes: "When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)

Climate of Hate

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

10 January 11

Petition: Congressional Action on Political Violence Advocacy

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton's election in 1992 - an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

go to original article

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+124 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 11:23
Paul, this is not hate. This is anger against tyranny which is not the same thing.

Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?
 
 
-62 # Karl Schmitt 2011-01-10 12:02
But wait - this was an elected official from valid elections. How does that equate to tyranny? Just because you have differing opionions about policy, politics, does not make the government "tyrantt" - in fact tyranny is the assination of elected officials.
 
 
+209 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 12:43
Parliament was elected. George Washington and the boys still viewed it as tyranny because Parliament took taxes but did not listen to the concerns of the people. Remember when Congress passed TARP while 90% of the voters said not to do so?

If the representative government does not represent the people, than we are back to taxation without representation.

I had this ancestor named Josiah Bartlett who said taxation without representation was good reason to fire the government. You may remember him; he signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of the state of New Hampshire.
 
 
-68 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:16
Parliament was elected, but not by the Americans. Our Congress is, at least in theory, elected by Americans. The original colonists had no way to vote for the people taxing them. We do and can vote them out if we don't like their results.

Twist yourself in rhetorical pretzels as much as you want, but your basic premise is still false.
 
 
+69 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 13:48
@Texas Aggie:

"Parliament was elected, but not by the Americans."

At the time prior to 1785, there were no Americans... there were Colonists, who were subjects of the British Empire. Thus, Parliament could not possibly have been elected by Americans because there weren't any.
 
 
+1 # glenn 2011-01-10 14:29
it appears that your own tyranny won't allow you to recognize the native "americans" how about hypocrisy is that on anyone's agenda.
 
 
+54 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:58
Quoting glenn:
it appears that your own tyranny won't allow you to recognize the native "americans" how about hypocrisy is that on anyone's agenda.


The Native Americans were not Americans either... they were each individual nations... the Creek, the Cherokee, the Apache... the list goes on and on. Not one of them called themselves Americans. Words have power. Use them wisely, please.
 
 
+31 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:28
I almost can't believe what I'm reading here! The colonists weren't Americans. The Americans, which WERE the many indigienous tribes, were being invaded by a people who didn't have any actual right to be here, and most of these were murdered in the subsequent genocide. Yes Craig, by all mean use words wisely. The ONLY Americans when the colonies existed were the indigenous peoples already here who we were already persecuting. None of this country morally belonged to any of us. Our ancestors stole it. Get your facts straight and your words accurate.
 
 
+10 # ER444 2011-01-11 04:56
Heh Daniel, save your breath. Michael Rivero is is a dangerous conservative radio host like Limbaugh. Google him. He has obviously orchestrated this farce on RSN. Go to the top and place your comments directly under his first comment in order to stay on top of the page. Red is green, green is red. Push the button.
 
 
-6 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-11 15:37
Quoting Daniel Fletcher:
I almost can't believe what I'm reading here! The colonists weren't Americans. The Americans, which WERE the many indigienous tribes, were being invaded by a people who didn't have any actual right to be here, and most of these were murdered in the subsequent genocide. Yes Craig, by all mean use words wisely. The ONLY Americans when the colonies existed were the indigenous peoples already here who we were already persecuting. None of this country morally belonged to any of us. Our ancestors stole it. Get your facts straight and your words accurate.


I agree with your second to last sentence...

But you go off the rails with the last one. Re-read what I wrote: "Not one of them called themselves Americans."

I did get my facts straight and my words accurate. Pity that your haste blinded you to that.
 
 
-12 # Mark Stouffer 2011-01-12 00:41
Quoting Daniel Fletcher:
the many indigienous tribes, were being invaded by a people who didn't have any actual right to be here


Who granted the indigenous people the "right" to be here? How did that person or committee deny the rights of the colonists to be here? Was it the Clovis Man or other early occupants of this land mass? Did native Americans believe in rights? We know they believed in slaves. Did native Americans teach the concept of inalienable rights to the Founding Fathers? Is that what they teach you in school these days?
 
 
-7 # Mark Stouffer 2011-01-12 00:46
Quoting Daniel Fletcher:
None of this country morally belonged to any of us.


My point is that you are using a concepts of rights which was discovered during the foundation of this nation and did not exist before it. Native Americans did not believe in the rights of tribes they conquered either. If we granted them rights that they did not believe in, and failed to form this nation, there would be no rights on this Earth for us to argue about.
 
 
-5 # Mark Stouffer 2011-01-12 13:51
Quoting Mark Stouffer:
Quoting Daniel Fletcher:
None of this country morally belonged to any of us.


If we granted them rights that they did not believe in, and failed to form this nation, there would be no rights on this Earth for us to argue about.


And by this I mean other than the "Divine Right of Kings" or it's Oriental manifestations.

The Divine Right of Kings is exactly what Mr. Krugmen and his philosophical ilk pine for, only now it might be called the Divine Right of the People. It is the concept that majority rule can override the rights of any individual's right to happiness, to pursue his or her own life, or to exist.
 
 
+16 # Dena 2011-01-11 15:23
The native Americans did not call themselves American, but that doesn't change the fact that they were the indigenous peoples of this piece of land that trusted us and we took advantage of that trust to steal their land away from them.
 
 
+17 # Fred Sokolow 2011-01-10 13:33
Tarp began under Bush, Obama continued it. Are you saying both parties represent tyranny? We are as represented as we want to be; if more people voted, our representatives would be more responsible for our demands...votin g, not guns, is the answer. You can fire the govt. every 2 or 4 years, with the ballot. Not with guns.
 
 
+65 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:42
Quoting Fred Sokolow:
Tarp began under Bush, Obama continued it. Are you saying both parties represent tyranny? We are as represented as we want to be; if more people voted, our representatives would be more responsible for our demands...voting, not guns, is the answer. You can fire the govt. every 2 or 4 years, with the ballot. Not with guns.


I am saying that both parties are, like your left and right hands, two parts of the same body, pursuing the same goals. Vote for "hope" and "change" and you get, as you correctly note, MORE OF THE SAME. What does that suggest to you about your opiate, voting?
 
 
-22 # Robert Griffin 2011-01-10 15:35
Actually when you vote for "hope" and "change" you get LESS OF THE SAME. I remember when folks said that Reagan would be no different from Carter; there was a BIG difference. Likewise there is a BIG difference between Obama and GWB; thus the anger of the Tea Party and of the Republicans.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
 
 
-8 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:34
There WAS a big difference between Carter and Reagan! Carter was inept and Reagan was criminal! There IS a big difference between Bush and Obama. We went from criminal to criminally inept! So in the first place: inept to criminal. The second place: criminal to criminally inept. Get it? Those are big differences alright although I suppose the outcome looks pretty darn similar.
 
 
+73 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:07
"Are you saying both parties represent tyranny?"
YES
 
 
-7 # Tommie 2011-01-10 16:01
I really, really wish that were true.
 
 
+140 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:41
Fire yes. Fire a gun and kill innocents is not the same. Fox news is the biggest purveyor of violence and stupidity on the news.
 
 
+116 # robertsgt40 2011-01-10 14:22
Rivero is correct. When your elected officials don't represent you, they represent someone else. Those folks have deeper pockets. Follow da money. It's the same people at the switch that resulted in the first revolution. The moneychangers.
 
 
+65 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:09
You are absolutely correct, and the oldest and most powerful of the money changer families is the Rothschild family.
 
 
+4 # FatCharley 2011-01-12 04:43
The Rothschild family is venerable, though it does not date anywhere near as far back as the "inventors of international banking" (which began its rise in what is now Italy in the Middle Ages (roughly the 11th-14th C.) a period of vigorous development on virtually all commercial and intellectual fronts including stunning architecture (the Masons, yes).
 
 
+2 # Mark Stouffer 2011-01-12 00:51
Quoting robertsgt40:
It's the same people at the switch that resulted in the first revolution. The moneychangers.


Without "moneychangers" , or bankers, we would have no loans. We would go back to a time when usury fees were illegal, a time before the car, the train, the television, the internet, the plane, electricity, inexpensive clothing, plentiful food, a time before capitalism.
 
 
-47 # ER444 2011-01-10 16:53
Heh Mike, I considerd making another intelligent comment, but considering you have ordered all your sick friends to attack this site, I have decided not to waste my time. OK, you have 128 votes, lets see if I can catch you. Red is green, green is red, neat game !!!
 
 
-18 # ER444 2011-01-10 20:22
Heh Miko, America needs politicians that put America first, second, and third. By God that is original WHAT A FUN GAME Red is green, green is red, push the button.
 
 
-2 # Suzy 2011-01-12 08:43
It was George Bush who passed TARP, and the republicans. It was necessary and beneficial for the country.
 
 
+6 # CECILE 2011-01-12 09:31
Quoting Suzy:
It was George Bush who passed TARP, and the republicans. It was necessary and beneficial for the country.

Except that the First TARP package was passed with absolutely NO OVERSIGHT. and the Tarped banks used that money to BUY SMALLER BANKS that had not been tarped, causing even more concentration of monies in the hands of the richest. Since they used that money to buy smaller banks and reward their greedy and inept CEOs, there is still no money available to give loans to small American businesses.
 
 
+46 # root 2011-01-10 12:49
So, just because they were elected, that gives her the right to force me to purchase your health insurance for you? Out of curiosity, what should I call that then if I can't call it tyranny?
 
 
+34 # Fred Sokolow 2011-01-10 13:35
Call it a health plan. The majority of Americans in every poll are for single payer, much more liberal than Obamacare. We are also required to insure cars. These things are made law by our legal representative. Vote them out,if you disagree with them, but no violence.
 
 
+41 # root 2011-01-10 14:22
I have never seen a poll ask the majority of Americans any question. You should always look closely at the numbers. Polls only ask around 1000 people, and then try to extrapolate the results to the other 349,999,000 people. That is an impossible task. I don't fall for it, it's a shame you do.

You are only required to purchase car insurance if you have a vehicle where the law requires it to be insured. If I make a personal decision to not buy a vehicle, then I do not need to buy car insurance. I am not given that luxury here. Either buy health insurance, or face monetary penalties and/or jail time.

Again, what should I call that if it is not tyrannical behavior?
 
 
+11 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:39
You can decide not to own a car, but you can't decide not to need a doctor when you get sick. Not everyone needs a car. Everyone needs healthcare and sooner or later will get it and of course you'll pay for it if not insured.
I know, life is a tyranny. Doing everything right and we're still mortal. We're still going to die some day. We've all been completely helpless at one point and will be completely helpless again. Yep. Life is full of tyranny. Grow up and deal with it.
 
 
-20 # root 2011-01-11 09:26
I have health insurance. I pay a lot of money for it. I don't have any extra money to pay for yours as well. If you are sick, and you don't have health insurance, why are you intent on making that my problem as well?

I imagine the more that others attempt to enforce their will upon others, the more events like the one in Tuscon will occur.

Perhaps a plan could be setup where only those that want to contribute could do so with their own money. However, sticking your grubby little paws into other people's pockets expecting them to pay for what programs you want, and then having the gall to tell them to just deal with it is a large part of the problem today and will only sow more hate towards each other.

Again, you pay for yourself and be responsible for yourself in this world, and I will do the same. Don't ask me for anything, and I will in turn extend the same respect to you. Agreed?
 
 
+12 # A.T. 2011-01-11 15:01
Please see my comment above. The reason you spend so much on your health insurance is because it reflects the cost of paying for those who don't have it--but it's SO expensive because it's being done in the most disorganized, ineffective way. We spend MUCH more than any other country in the world on health care, yet get LESS, because EVERY THIRD DOLLAR goes to the greedy, for-profit insurance companies' profits. Learn about it!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
+11 # A.T. 2011-01-11 14:57
What the short-sighted people don't understand is that we're ALREADY paying for those who DON'T have health insurance--yes, NOW! The cost of paying-for an uninsured person's expensive emergency room care costs about $1,000, which is tacked onto the cost of the policy of each and every family who DOES buy insurance in America. If everyone had preventive and early intervention care, it would eliminate much more expensive treatment that's often too late to be effective, anyway. If everyone had decent, basic medical care, he government could negotiate the prices involved in providing it. Why in the world would anyone fight for the right to be DENIED health care because of a pre-existing condition, for example? Are we going to SUPPORT the right of insurance companies to make obscene profits on us by DENYING us life-saving care for the sole reason it would lessen their company profits? If you are buying that load of c--p sold to you by politicians who've been paid-off by the insurance company lobbyists--that hogwash that says people really don't WANT decent, affordable health care, then it's obvious you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, sorry.
 
 
+55 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:44
Quoting Fred Sokolow:
Call it a health plan. The majority of Americans in every poll are for single payer, much more liberal than Obamacare. We are also required to insure cars. These things are made law by our legal representative. Vote them out,if you disagree with them, but no violence.


I didn't vote for it, why should I have to pay for it? Come to think of it, I didn't vote for the war in Afghanistan or Iraq... why are my kids (who were minors when the war began and thus had NO CHOICE) on the line for being turned into ground beef?

This is tyranny... it might be tyranny of the majority, but as parents used to say "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?"
 
 
-9 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-11 14:53
Quoting Craig Hodder:

I didn't vote for it, why should I have to pay for it?


Exactly!

It took me years to figure it out, but I did. :)

The problem is that we are being FORCED to pay for SOMEONE ELSE, whether it's for a so-called "need" or "want".

People say everyone NEEDS healthcare. Doesn't everyone need shelter? and food?

How about clean drinking water?

How about clothing?

How about a car so they can get to work?

And a refrigerator, stove etc because they must eat?

And daycare because they have kids and have to go to work?

The list can go on & on. There are lots of "needs" we all have.

But why do I have to pay for someone else? Why can't I give extra money I have to someone I want to give it to? Why not to my poor uncle who has leukemia, or my autistic niece?

Who decides my money should not go to them, but instead to a stranger?
 
 
+3 # LizR 2011-01-12 02:37
Or you could pay a proper price to the people in the third world who are slaving away on starvation wages to manufacture your clothes, food etc. Why should they have to pay for your and my subsidised and unsustainable lifestyle? Same logic...
 
 
+24 # Tommie 2011-01-10 16:11
I can choose whether or not to drive a car. I can't Choose whether or not to have a body. While health care is what we need, this is not the answer. This, like most everything else designed by our gov't of late, is designed to move money. Nothing more. And like the snake oil salesman from years past, they know what "ails us".
 
 
+11 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:41
Quoting Tommie:
I can choose whether or not to drive a car. I can't Choose whether or not to have a body. While health care is what we need, this is not the answer. This, like most everything else designed by our gov't of late, is designed to move money. Nothing more. And like the snake oil salesman from years past, they know what "ails us".

So it's the government then and not the big money that buys them. Hmmm... Let's just turn it over to big business since we can't trust government? Are you crazy, by the way?
 
 
-4 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 22:57
Fred:
The USA is not a democracy, so the will of the majority is irrelevant. Elected officials are not allowed to do whatever they please. Elected officials MUST operate within the authority of the constitution. If the people want the constitution changed to mandate health insurance, then that is the way to go.

Over 90% of EVERYTHING the federal government does is illegal because there is no authority in the US constitution for it. When criminals (members of congress who vote for illegal legislation)ini tiate violence (IRS collection efforts) against the contributing members of society, they are the evil aggressors. Did you sleep through high school civics class or something?
 
 
+79 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:45
I call it representative Democracy. Do you support that America spends the most money on health care and is a third world country in terms of quality of health. The difference goes in the pockets of the insurance companies that fund the politicians. We have the finest government that money can buy!
 
 
+43 # root 2011-01-10 14:33
Although, I don't have stats on it, I would also think that the majority of money goes into the insurance companies pockets. Do we need changes to our health care system? Yes, however not at the expense of others. And most certainly not under the threat of monetary penalties and/or jail time if one does not comply.

True, we do have the finest government that lobbyist money can buy.
 
 
+12 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 19:44
Problem is, most Americans don't realize that healthcare WAS very affordable for almost everyone - even the poor because private physicians & clinics could give discounted rates for them.

That was the case UNTIL our government, via both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress, got involved in the 70s with that whole HMO business, FORCING Americans into managed care.

That's when healthcare costs began to increase and have since skyrocketed, making decent healthcare out of reach for even the middle class unless they have expensive insurance.

Because of our Congress, healthcare costs are no enormous... leaving Americans DEPENDENT on government intervention.

Just one other way our government has taken away our liberties.
 
 
+11 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:50
Once again, you're blaming government for caving into big business and corporate tyranny. Why are we even talking about this and not talking about public campaign financing and getting the special interests out of Washington?
 
 
+5 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-11 14:24
Of course I blame the government.

And part of the reason they deserve the blame is because of public campaign financing and special interests. :)

Not to mention that our entire voting system is CORRUPT. So it's not like we can *really* vote them out of office. Maybe a bit, but only to some extent.

It's kinda like that whole delusion of freedom of the press. Sure, the press is free to print all sorts of madness... but only on certain topics, and only to the extent the powerful elite allow it.
 
 
+2 # FatCharley 2011-01-12 04:56
Wait ... health care costs rise because HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES are (all too frequently) for-profit businesses! They have to keep paying out healthy dividends, build new facilities (expand), add young, healthy new members. But - um - they also have to compete! Cut corners! Is the lowest bidder my best bet for a heart operation?
 
 
-2 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-15 12:04
It is NOT true that healthcare costs rise because insurance companies are for-profit.

In a true free market, for-profit climate, insurance companies have to compete with not only each other, but with every other type of healthcare coverage/plan/program.

Whichever companies are most beneficial to consumers are the ones consumers will choose to go to. The ones that do not please the customer - whether it be by low prices, great service, or any other benefits - would soon not have enough customers to stay in business.

That's what true competition does. It forces every business to MEET THE NEEDS of its customer base. If it doesn't, the company fails.

The problem we have is that our govt gets involved and takes away the competition.

Healthcare costs skyrocketed after our govt FORCED Americans into managed care back in the 70s. That removed the competition, giving HMOs a monopoly that the govt could then control.

http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html
 
 
+7 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:47
Quoting root:
Although, I don't have stats on it, I would also think that the majority of money goes into the insurance companies pockets. Do we need changes to our health care system? Yes, however not at the expense of others. And most certainly not under the threat of monetary penalties and/or jail time if one does not comply.

True, we do have the finest government that lobbyist money can buy.

Bravo! Fabulous argument for universal health care! Yahoo! Seriously! Let's just put the health insurance industry out of business once and for all. These middle men contribute nothing but cost. We don't need them. Screw the lobbyists! Forget monetary penalties and all that! Nationalize health care! Bravo to you.
 
 
-8 # root 2011-01-11 11:49
It is a fabulous argument for you to be able to work directly with your doctor and negotiate the rate of his services whether individually or as some form of collective group without the interference of middlemen.

A nationalized health industry will only introduce more bureaucratic middlemen who will further drive up the costs and furthermore, dictate what levels of coverage are and what they should cost thereby depriving you of any choice in the matter.

I don't care if you want others to decide what is best for you in your personal affairs; I am just asking that you stop thinking that because you like something, you should be able to enforce that ideal upon others.

It is called mutual respect, and as long as you refuse to provide it to others, then expect others to repeat Tuscon. That is a stark reality of life, push hard enough and others start pushing back, and if you don't like what they are pushing back with, then you shouldn't have started pushing to begin with.
 
 
+7 # FatCharley 2011-01-12 05:18
The French register the greatest satisfaction with their healthcare system ("socialized medicine"). The doctor DOES make housecalls and there is no extra charge.

I live in Switzerland. The system here is similar to the US. EXCEPT that universal healthcare coverage is mandated. If you can't afford it, basic coverage will be provided. The entire population is taken into account to achieve the most optimum health outcomes.

Interestingly, in Zurich (and also Basel, I believe) we have voted for some years, now, to dispense heroin to registered addicts. This has really paid off in terms of lives and health and a drop in petty crime.
 
 
+2 # CECILE 2011-01-12 10:14
Quoting FatCharley:
The French register the greatest satisfaction with their healthcare system ("socialized medicine"). The doctor DOES make housecalls and there is no extra charge.

I live in Switzerland. The system here is similar to the US. EXCEPT that universal healthcare coverage is mandated. If you can't afford it, basic coverage will be provided. The entire population is taken into account to achieve the most optimum health outcomes.

Interestingly, in Zurich (and also Basel, I believe) we have voted for some years, now, to dispense heroin to registered addicts. This has really paid off in terms of lives and health and a drop in petty crime.

That is correct. Doctors in France DO make house calls for free. France is not exactly "socialized healthcare" as Americans understand "Socialized" (which is not at all) Universal Coverage is mandated, but if you wish, for a surcharge, you will get better than "basic" HealthCare. (private room, Television/radi o, better menus are extra, but the quality of CARE itself is the same. You will still get top notch care, just no frills. And the doctor dictates when you are pushed out of the door, not the insurance company. The Insurance companies are less powerful because their premiums are much less than what is taken out in the US. Research is budgeted, not granted.
 
 
-2 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-11 14:29
It's not that health insurance companies are necessarily "bad".

Problem is when you allow them in bed with govt, they do what any human may be tempted to do for their own benefit: jack up those prices & follow their greed into megaprofits.

If there was a true free market in health care - including insurance companies - the consumers (we the people) would decide which companies are worth dealing with and just how much they are worth. And by virtue of OUR choices, we would decide which companies are serving consumers well enough to actually stay in business & profit!

Instead our govt gives power & privilege to some, putting competitors out of business and taking the choice away from consumers. That leaves insurance companies with the power to do what they want, including things like denying coverage, telling us what we can & cannot do, charging outrageous prices for things we want/need etc.
 
 
+31 # tribeseeker 2011-01-10 16:33
(sadly, though, governments that can be bought are never in support of the people they pretend to serve.)
 
 
-1 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:02
The problem is that we don't insist that elected officials abide by the constitution. If we did, then there would be few favors for politicians to sell to the special interest groups.

Follow the US constitution and nearly major every problem facing the country would go away.
 
 
+11 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:52
Quoting Tidmore:
The problem is that we don't insist that elected officials abide by the constitution. If we did, then there would be few favors for politicians to sell to the special interest groups.

Follow the US constitution and nearly major every problem facing the country would go away.

Simplistic bull. The Constitution doesn't have any language in it about corporations and the corruption of the international conglomerates that virtually own us. The Constitution lays down a wonderful foundation...AN D THAT'S ALL. It does not substitute for lawmaking and it was never intended to.
 
 
+3 # giraffe 2011-01-11 15:06
Quoting cabotool:
I call it representative Democracy. Do you support that America spends the most money on health care and is a third world country in terms of quality of health. The difference goes in the pockets of the insurance companies that fund the politicians. We have the finest government that money can buy!


All hope of getting big $$ out of our government when the United States Supreme Court decided corporations could contribute big $$ to campaigns --

They gave my LIBERTY away to big $$ - without knowing WHO those corporations are - or from what country that money comes.

"When men like John Boehner and women like Sarah Palin tell you that they are shocked and saddened by what has occurred you may well assume that they are indeed. They inspired the rampage, and they are now confronted by what they have wrought." (Marc Ash)

That beautiful little girl, Christina Greene, died for what? War within our country.

I believe Palin is a terrorist.

What part of UNITED (doesn't Boner understand) STATES?
 
 
+90 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:47
Is it tyranny that I have to pay for your war machine, for your interstates, for the safety of your consumer products? If you think that using taxes to pay for your medical care is tyranny, what do you call forcing me to pay for your war profiteers?
 
 
+37 # root 2011-01-10 14:30
I am just as much anti-war as I am anti-ObamaCare. I see no reason why we should be in Afghanistan, nor did I ever support the Iraq war. Just as I see no reason to pay for your health insurance or be forced to purchase my own under threat of monetary penalties and/or jail time.

What did I say that led you to automatically assume I was pro-war?

That is right, nothing. There is neither an R nor D next to my name.
 
 
+40 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:45
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Is it tyranny that I have to pay for your war machine, for your interstates, for the safety of your consumer products? If you think that using taxes to pay for your medical care is tyranny, what do you call forcing me to pay for your war profiteers?


The exact same tyranny. Now, what can anyone do about it, since both parties have shown no interest in stopping the wars, the looting, the debt... and so on? Vote some more? Good luck!
 
 
-27 # Phil Bowler 2011-01-10 16:12
Quoting Craig Hodder:
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Is it tyranny that I have to pay for your war machine, for your interstates, for the safety of your consumer products? If you think that using taxes to pay for your medical care is tyranny, what do you call forcing me to pay for your war profiteers?


The exact same tyranny. Now, what can anyone do about it, since both parties have shown no interest in stopping the wars, the looting, the debt... and so on? Vote some more? Good luck!


Sounds like you're ready to move to another country. Wherever you land, I hope you find peace and tranquility.
 
 
+14 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:34
Perhaps the same message should have been given to our Founding Fathers:

"Hey, you don't like British control, well, then, move out of the British-control led colonies!"

If they had left instead of fight against the tyranny, there would be no America today!
 
 
-6 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:05
So you believe that the average American is simply too stupid to understand that the problem is that the US constitution isn't being followed? You may be correct, but I will continue trying to educate the masses.
 
 
+6 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:59
Quoting Tidmore:
So you believe that the average American is simply too stupid to understand that the problem is that the US constitution isn't being followed? You may be correct, but I will continue trying to educate the masses.

Finish your education first. Then educate the masses. Oh, and Glen Beck U. doesn't count. Just thought I'd let you know.
 
 
+2 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:58
My educated and capable sons, did renounce their citizenship and move to a better country. Why? Because, after very thorough consideration and research, they concluded that this country was an unfit place to raise my grandchildren in. They're doing fine by the way...better than they could have hoped to here. Me? Now why would I leave a ring side seat to this unfolding fiasco?
 
 
+1 # CECILE 2011-01-12 10:19
Quoting Phil Bowler:
Quoting Craig Hodder:
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Is it tyranny that I have to pay for your war machine, for your interstates, for the safety of your consumer products? If you think that using taxes to pay for your medical care is tyranny, what do you call forcing me to pay for your war profiteers?


The exact same tyranny. Now, what can anyone do about it, since both parties have shown no interest in stopping the wars, the looting, the debt... and so on? Vote some more? Good luck!


Sounds like you're ready to move to another country. Wherever you land, I hope you find peace and tranquility.

Peace and Tranquility may be hard to find, since the US is prone to invade everyone.
 
 
+7 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 03:55
Oh, okay Craig. You should only have to pay for yourself, not for anyone else. Pay for your own roads then. Pay for your own law enforcement then. Pay for your own fire protection. Pay for private education only. Don't even think of buying anything that is subsidized in any manner. I'm sure you can now and will always be able to pay for everything yourself. You don't need a society to live in then. You can do it all on your own.
Good luck! Ta-ta now!
 
 
+3 # ewkeane 2011-01-10 22:37
It would be alot better for the nation at large if the state of texas would force the uil resource under their feet onto domestic markets that it could help us get the costs down. Shipping in oil from overseas costs money, and the consumer pays that cost. Do look into it, Aggie, and urge your state rep to adopt such a policy.
 
 
+1 # CECILE 2011-01-12 10:16
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Is it tyranny that I have to pay for your war machine, for your interstates, for the safety of your consumer products? If you think that using taxes to pay for your medical care is tyranny, what do you call forcing me to pay for your war profiteers?

AMEN to that!
 
 
+5 # truffelhunt 2011-01-11 02:00
Quoting root:
So, just because they were elected, that gives her the right to force me to purchase your health insurance for you? Out of curiosity, what should I call that then if I can't call it tyranny?


Nothing, nothing at all excuses the assassination of an elected politician. John F Kennedy, the almost successful attempt on Ronald Reagan, Lincoln, someone else, and now this. In addition to the other 6 people murdered at Arizona.

What is it about you Americans?

I'm from UK
 
 
-2 # Jon 2011-01-11 05:00
Quote:
Nothing, nothing at all excuses the assassination of an elected politician. John F Kennedy, the almost successful attempt on Ronald Reagan, Lincoln, someone else, and now this. In addition to the other 6 people murdered at Arizona.

What is it about you Americans?

I'm from UK
Benito Mussolini, the almost successful attempt on Adolf Hitler, someone else, and now...

Sometimes it's for the better, and sweeping generalizations cast down from a faux moralist's high horse don't mean much. The problem is that it's rarely the ones who deserve it that get assassinated because "rational" people adhere to the mythology you're preaching while "irrational" people just kill who they want. If one judges entirely by the results of that bargain, it's no wonder the world is run by violent, bigoted lunatics.

And what's special about politicians? They get exceptional compensation for shafting us, and while not specific to the current situation, I place more value on the life of my garbage collector, and would feel far more sympathetic in the event of his demise.

Millionaire Congressmen merit no sympathy.
 
 
+3 # FatCharley 2011-01-12 05:28
A millionaire congressperson may have inherited her assets. Or she may have founded a business and earned them. The quantity of her assets is not the issue. It is her understanding of the lives and needs of her constituents with far fewer such assets and her response to them.
 
 
+3 # CECILE 2011-01-12 09:51
Quoting root:
So, just because they were elected, that gives her the right to force me to purchase your health insurance for you? Out of curiosity, what should I call that then if I can't call it tyranny?

Call it paying for your health care services, doing the right thing, paying for your own expenses, not being a freeloader....
Some States force you to buy insurance before you can drive a car. What is so different: You are consumming, or will eventually consume Health Care Services. I see nothing wrong in making YOU TOO pay for it, instead of me. Before the Healthcare Bill, the indigent (and the illegals) were taken care of as well, but my hospital charged me $5.00 for one (1) aspirin so they could afford to give free healthcare to those who couldn't (or wouldn't).
If the Constitution stands in the way, augment the FICA tax to include Healthcare services. Is FICA unconstitutiona l too?
The same people who scream "anticonstituti onal to force me to buy insurance" are the same ones who decry the potential wastefulness of single payer. (Which it isn't: Look at France, a socialist country who according the World Health Organization has the best Health Care System in the world, with 84% satisfaction, and at half the price.We rank 37. I think there is room for improvement)
 
 
-51 # ER444 2011-01-10 14:09
Of course you are right Karl. I don't know who Michael Rivero is, but it looks like we have some visitors from the right wing here. That is a very good thing! Preaching to the choir is sometimes boring. Dear Michael, sorry to tell you this, but that is how Democracy works. In 2008 the Democrats won BIG and did their job (well partially anyway, I would have liked to see much more) by enacting legislation that the MAJORITY of AMERICANS wanted. One of those things was supposed to be creating a system where all citizens can purchase health insurance. The passed legislation was a compromise at best, but better than nothing and a start. This was not tyranny, it was democracy in action. Now the Reps are in control of the House, the Dems of the Senate and the White House. That is is called the "Balance of Power". It makes compromise essential in order to get anything done at all. Your calling the present government tyrants because they represent people with ideas other than yours is the same kind of dangerous vitriol that Sarah Palin practices and motivates wackos to kill innocent people including judges, elected officials and little girls. STOP THIS NOW !!! It is unamerican and Godless
 
 
+54 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:27
@Er444:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Tyranny does not require a single body... another name for Democracy is the tyranny of the mob. Even assuming that a majority holds an opinion does not make that opinion valid, correct, or even "good." If 51% of the population decided to murder the other 49%, would you appeal to numbers as you do here and say that it's ok, because that's how Democracy works? Or would you then recognize the logical fallacy called appeal to numbers for what it is, a smokescreen designed to deflect any real critical thought?
 
 
+11 # Robert Griffin 2011-01-10 15:43
Thus the importance of the ACLU
 
 
-24 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 16:13
----
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
----

Rubbish. The "wolves" and "sheep" have already previously agreed murder is criminal - it's called having ground rules aka a constitution.
 
 
+37 # St. Jimmy 2011-01-10 18:11
And what happens when the "wolves" decide that they don't need to recognize said constitution?
 
 
-4 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:14
That is why the second amendment to the US constitution exists.
 
 
-4 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-11 15:46
Quoting Anti-fascist:
Rubbish. The "wolves" and "sheep" have already previously agreed murder is criminal - it's called having ground rules aka a constitution.


Yeah, and at one time the wolves agreed tha the sheep were not wolves and therefore could be enslaved. Your naievete is showing.
 
 
+30 # Ryan 2011-01-10 19:31
As a quick note Mike Rivero is a talk show host on RBN, his web site is whatreallyhappe ned.com. I found this site through his. My largest problem with your comment is your use of the word "democracy", we do NOT live in a democracy but a republic. These words are not interchangeable , as a Republic the government has no authority to enact the healthcare law, I don't care if 99.9% of the public wanted national healthcare. A republic is dictated by law and law only not majority rule. I have always likened a democracy as 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. This is not a right or left wing issue, it's all about your freedom, this is supposed to be a free country and we have all become slaves, as more people figure this out you will see more violence like this, and I don't want to see that. I hope we as a country can reverse the course of this detached and dictatorial government peacefully although it seems more and more unlikely.
 
 
+2 # ewkeane 2011-01-10 22:41
Well said, Ryan.
 
 
+3 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 04:06
Sorry Ryan. I've gone over this so many times. Yes, a Republic is synonymous with being a democracy. This parsing is just a smoke screen. My reading of the Oxford American College Dictionary disagrees with you. You have interesting things to say, but this parsing isn't helping.
 
 
-2 # ER444 2011-01-11 06:59
That is provocative discourse and the same kind of talk that incites nuts to kill little girls at super market ralleys. You guys are wacko !!! Heh Mike, red is green, green is red, push the button.
 
 
+1 # Lestrad 2011-01-11 14:16
Excuse me, but whoever is scripting this meme is not doing its homework. "Democracy" and "Republic" are not mutually exclusive, and they do not refer to political systems.

What the authors of this are really saying is that murder is justifiable under some circumstances. Murder is not justifiable under any political system - whether committed by some some poor idiot who swallows hate speech or by those in control of the state.
 
 
-7 # Patricia 2011-01-10 14:40
You missed the point Karl. The tyranny comes from the right wing in their vitrolic against liberals/progre ssives. The right wing resorts to verbal violence because they support greed, the wealthy and are against the poor. They have nothing worthwhile to offer.
 
 
+47 # Lola 2011-01-10 16:34
Which "valid" election are you talking about? The elections held in 2000 and again in 2004 were not "valid"
 
 
-20 # ER444 2011-01-10 16:49
Red is green... green is red... wow this more fun than in kindergarden.
 
 
-2 # Dee 2011-01-10 23:33
Thank you Karl.
 
 
-111 # Richard Hudak 2011-01-10 12:05
We're all still Americans is the point, Michael. You have a strange way to conceptualize tyranny.
 
 
-59 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:52
Richard, the fact that so many people disagree with you may indicate that many of them are, in fact, NOT Americans. Not really. Just sort of "technical Americans" because of where they were born. I doubt that they could pass the exams that naturalized citizens are required to pass.

I sometimes have a very difficult time listening to people like Michael and trying to rationalize their viewpoints with what America stands for. The two things just are totally incongruent.
 
 
+34 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 17:23
You are judging quite radically those Americans who are patriotic dissenters.

I wonder, would you have so judged Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all those patriotic revolutionaries who dissented against British tyranny?

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

This is not to say I would ever agree with mindless shooting of innocents, as with this Arizona shooting.
 
 
-113 # Ellen Stein 2011-01-10 12:34
What "tyranny" do you feel you've been subject to? That is just outright hyperbolic crap!
 
 
+90 # root 2011-01-10 13:22
1. Forced purchase of health insurance under threat of monetary penalties and/or jail
2. TSA grabbing my junk
3. Patriot Act
4. Warrantless wiretapping
5. The President's Asassination program

Just a few for brevities sake

Again I will ask one simple question. If I am not to consider the above as fitting the definition of tyranny, then what should I call it? To me, it fits or is at the very least, synonymous with tyrannical behavior.
 
 
-38 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:47
The solution is voting, not killing people. If you don't like it, get out the votes to change it. I agree with you with all your enumerated points except #1.
 
 
+67 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:16
Vote?! On Their machines?! Yeah, right.
 
 
+2 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:55
So why are you upset NOW?? Where were you when Bush instituted those programs?

And by the way, the threat of monetary penalties and/or jail for not buying medical insurance are Republican talking points. Like most Republican talking points they are at variance with reality (a lie). They don't exist in reality. Look it up.
 
 
+60 # mauiguy 2011-01-10 13:23
Tyranny, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with left or right or up or down or whatever they decide to call it this week.
The tyranny lies in the fact that the government presumes to provide services at the point of a gun.
If I decide to opt out of whatever cutsie program you think will save the world, I will have my assets stripped by force and if I resist that I will have my freedom and possibly my life taken as well. That's tyranny my dear.
The initiation of force against innocent people to extort life and property is immoral and criminal.
The kid was a nut job but his anger against oppression and extortion isn't at all surprising.
 
 
-4 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:50
I don't call representative Democraxy tyranny.

I call incitement to murder, accessory to murder. Those who promote murder belong in jail. Just because they incite and then claim that they did not intend the result is a lie.
 
 
+30 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:21
"I call incitement to murder, accessory to murder."
Pretty much the same words used by the British during the early acts of the American Revolution.
While i do Not condone the young man's actions, i believe he harbors many of the feelings of frustration and anger, many Americans have with government, especially after the "Obama betrayal".
 
 
-4 # Lestrad 2011-01-11 14:17
Of course you condone his actions.
 
 
+2 # giraffe 2011-01-12 10:21
When Rush talks or Palin posts on a Web Site (etc) they are trying to CONVEY a message. When they say vote for X because she did this and believes in that etc -it is quite different than sending a message with KILL the other candidate. So what part of the obvious is so difficult to understand? It is the delivery of the Becks, Palins, etc who try to make a point against the opposition including "kill" or "load em up and reload" including statements that denigrade the opposition instead of pumping up their own candidate.

Gun laws won't change much but inciting riots, terror, kill, etc with the words they made clear their intentions are to get "rid" of the opposition by any means. Words are powerful - directly or subliminally.

Boner's agenda to get rid of Obama in 2012 instead of "fixing" things in the House that can help "we the people" is another terrorist act. We the people don't expect the House to get rid of a President unless the President should be impeached.

Besides if I said anything to the opposition in my lawsuit as Palin posted on her Web Site -- I'd be in jail.
 
 
+1 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:21
Okay, so every knowledgeable person knows that our involvement in Iraq is illegal and BO and many members of congress support it, so are you calling for them all to be put in jail?
 
 
+4 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 04:13
Quoting Tidmore:
Okay, so every knowledgeable person knows that our involvement in Iraq is illegal and BO and many members of congress support it, so are you calling for them all to be put in jail?

Yes...yes, as a matter of fact, that would be a great idea! Nothing like the rule of law, eh?
 
 
+38 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:59
I have decided to opt out of the war machine. Does that mean that I can cut my taxes in half since the War Department (original name for it) uses up half the budget for the US? I would also like to opt out of paying taxes to cover the subsidies that coal and oil companies are getting. That really cuts my tax burden to nothing. Are you ok with that?
 
 
+49 # cbmc 2011-01-10 14:24
I'm more than OK with that.
More like it's about freakin time for people to stand up for what they believe in and stop being complacent accessories in the crimes committed by our so called leaders.
Please do us all a favor and stop being complicit in murder and extortion.
 
 
-31 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 16:15
it's about freakin time for people to stand up for what they believe in and stop being complacent accessories in the crimes committed by our so called leaders.
-------

And start shooting congresswomen, I suppose? Afterall, you know they're "guilty" already, so why stop?
 
 
+13 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:22
Sounds good to me. Where do i sign?
 
 
+36 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 15:26
Quoting Texas Aggie:
I have decided to opt out of the war machine. Does that mean that I can cut my taxes in half since the War Department (original name for it) uses up half the budget for the US? I would also like to opt out of paying taxes to cover the subsidies that coal and oil companies are getting. That really cuts my tax burden to nothing. Are you ok with that?



Yes. Government has no business in these activities... and taking money by force for illegal activities or legislated charity is, by any definition, tyranny. So what now? Vote some more? How's that working for you?
 
 
+6 # ewkeane 2011-01-10 23:25
Messr Hodder makes a valid point. Since money rules the day, it would seem that those who have the most money get the most votes. With the middle class money being edged out by corporations, it seems like we will all become corporatists if we like it or not.
 
 
+3 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:23
Yes I am. You are on very firm legal ground, however congress and the president etc. have no regard whatsoever for the law, so you had better be prepared to defend yourself against their aggression.
 
 
0 # FatCharley 2011-01-12 05:45
Actually, there are/were venerable peace organizations, which offer/offered advice on the non-payment of specific military-relate d taxes.

I recall this from the period of the Vietnam war.
 
 
-34 # ER444 2011-01-10 16:46
You see, once again proof that a group of right wing wing nuts have invaded this forum. Halleluyah !!!
 
 
-2 # ER444 2011-01-11 05:36
See what did I tell you, I have lots of red points. Red is green, green is red. Push the button !!
 
 
-208 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 12:54
Mr Michael Rivero is a conspiracy peddler and so is personally responsible for feeding the rising tide of vitriol, paranoia and fear.

Mr Rivero runs a website which daily feeds his audience claims that the Holocaust never happened, that there is a World Jewish conspiracy, that liberal democracy is tyranny, that the elections are fixed, that the government intends to corral 'dissenters' into FEMA camps, that 911 was 'an inside job', that Israel runs the USA, that Congress is "Israel's whore" etc. And more.

Mr Rivero peddles genuine neo-nazi propaganda whilst denouncing American democrats (Rep or Dem) as fascists and representatives of a global conspiracy.

Mr Rivero publishes far-right propaganda: including Willis Carto's anti-semitic screeds, the racist rants of homicidal Curt Maynard; he supports Holocaust Denial and repeats known lies about Ariel Sharon, claiming "we the Jews control America".

Mr Rivero is an anti-semitic, far-right holocaust denier whom daily peddles Hitlerite World Jewish Conspiracy. Mr Rivero is himself part of the problem.

See for yourself, type his name in google.....(Mik e Rivero, WRH)
 
 
+128 # Paul Taylor 2011-01-10 13:26
Michael Rivero does cover a lot of territory. Go to his website and you'll find more truth in a day than in all mainstream media in a year.
 
 
+29 # Ryan 2011-01-10 19:41
Amazing, One of my biggest arguments with Mike Rivero is he pushed for Obama to be elected, to call him far right couldn't be farther from the truth. If you people want the violence to stop, QUIT ELECTING politicians from the Republican or Democratic parties. It's very simple they all WORK for the same interests and it's NOT you. As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you aint in it" You must come to terms with this, you are all running out of time!!!!!!!
 
 
+26 # Fishguy 2011-01-10 13:06
Right on, but get back to goings on - Roll was the target, more than one shoter, close encounter with a 9MM to the head with minimal damage?

And another involved party dead in Cheney nuke deal dead......

Your a great man
 
 
+13 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:12
I would take you more seriously if when tyranny actually threatened us under the Cheney/Bush regime, you had spoken up loudly. I notice that you have no problem with allowing Wall St. to buy up Congress because of the United Citizens decision. I notice you have no problem with the original SC decision to stop vote counting because it looked like Bush would lose. I notice you have no problem with people like Blackwater being given authority to "police" citizens. I notice that the Ledbetter SC decision didn't bother you in the least. If you want to talk about tyranny, then look to the right wing. Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 in response to the previous eight years of tyranny. They lost because they didn't do enough to reverse it.
 
 
+9 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:52
Right on. Go Freedom and Democracy.
 
 
+25 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 17:25
Many of us DID speak out during the Bush dictatorship as well.

Obama, Bush -- both the Ds & Rs have the same goal. Obama is just next in the line of Bush/Clinton dynasty since they couldn't get Hillary in there.

It's those darned elites who don't want to release their throttle-hold of power.
 
 
+44 # Richard Karch 2011-01-10 13:27
I think you are all missing the point. Right, left what's the difference? This guy was a mental case who legally bought a gun and did his damage. The thing to remember is that Ronald
Reagan emptied the mental hospitals and we see the result with mental cases drifting around without any guidance or care. If we truly cared, we would provide these individuals with a safe haven to get rehabilitated and protect the rest of us. .
 
 
+7 # ewkeane 2011-01-10 23:29
america could not have a super duper military force and care for abandoned people who cant control themselves.
Now that we have a super duper military force, dont you feel much better?
Well?
 
 
-50 # Fred Sokolow 2011-01-10 13:31
This is exactly the kind of overheated rhetoric we need to stop! There's no "tyranny" here, Obamaand Geffords were elected legally and nobody has broken any laws or done anything outside the American system of government. Grow up and start speaking with reason and thought.
 
 
+43 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:28
Quoting Fred Sokolow:
Obamaand Geffords were elected legally and nobody has broken any laws or done anything outside the American system of government. Grow up and start speaking with reason and thought.


Well, other than prosecuting an undeclared war for more than 60 days (which violates the War Powers Act)... or other than torture (which violates the Geneva Convention, to which we are signatories)... no, nothing illegal. :)
 
 
+5 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 23:36
Fred you are 100% incorrect.

You would be hard pressed to find much legal that the president and congress does.

Remember, every "law" enacted by congress is void if it is not authorized by the US constitution.
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 04:20
Quoting Tidmore:
Fred you are 100% incorrect.

You would be hard pressed to find much legal that the president and congress does.

Remember, every "law" enacted by congress is void if it is not authorized by the US constitution.

Completely absurd. The Constitution wasn't written to cover everything, and it wasn't written by men who were sufficiently clairvoyant to be able to see the future. Corporations didn't exist when the Constitution was written and that American law must grow and expand beyond the confines of the Constitution was presumed upon at it's inception. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from making laws over matters the Constitution is silent on.
 
 
-12 # cabotool 2011-01-10 13:39
It IS hate. You only have to listen to Beck and company. My ancestor was a captain in the Revolutionary Army of the USA. I think that if he had known what right wing extremists and hate mongers would do with America, he would have not fought to establish where we are now.
 
 
+34 # Anton 2011-01-10 13:39
It seems that many people can't see that the government of our country has so insinuated itself into every facet of our lives, increasing tensions where they didn't used to exist, that things are beginning to boil over. Some people crack, and this comes as a surprise? Only two paths are possible for the future. 1. A police state, or totalitarianism , or 2. Complete collapse into civil disorder. Of course, both, with #2 leading to #1 is the most logical outcome for the near term.
Quoting Michael Rivero:
Paul, this is not hate. This is anger against tyranny which is not the same thing.

Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?
 
 
+29 # Tommie 2011-01-10 16:00
I agree with Michael and raise it one step further. The representatives of the United States are blatantly not representing the voice of the American citizens. In my opinion, this is tantamount to declaring war on the American public. In war there are victims; witness Pakistan, etc.(the pipeline territories), and the large loss of civilian lives, many of them children. This may or may not have been the act of a crazed lunatic. But he is one pissed-off-for- very-good-reaso ns American. Soldier.
 
 
-34 # Lee Black 2011-01-10 16:05
Michael Rivero,

Are you saying our current government is a tyranny? If so, what is your evidence?
 
 
+1 # ewkeane 2011-01-10 23:43
A tyranny is dispotic rule by one, a dictatorship.
In this land, we elect a new dictator every four years. The great modern dictator was FDR. The democratic party has alot to answer for by putting this current dictator in power.
 
 
0 # Lestrad 2011-01-11 14:21
And the Republican Party for putting the previous one in power?
 
 
-1 # ewkeane 2011-01-11 16:54
No. They must answer for the first american dictator, one of their own
Abraham Lincoln.
 
 
-39 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 16:25
From Mr Rivero's website:

He links to this page, and adds instruction to his readers:

-------------
Jan 10 11:18
Arizona shooting - Climate of Hate
Tags:

* ASSASSINATION

Webmaster's Commentary:

Wow! Someone does NOT like the comment I posted! Kindly correct that for me! :)

-----------------
 
 
-9 # David Summers 2011-01-10 20:07
Michael, what do you mean "we"?
 
 
+14 # sectiverdian 2011-01-10 20:16
This article is calculated to fortify the dual-party paradigm and nothing more.
 
 
-7 # Patricia Chang 2011-01-11 03:30
This is the act of a paranoid schizophrenic, whose delusions were fueled by Right Wing vitriol, and calls to violence. Obviously, you belong in the 18th Century. If I have to constantly live my life in fear of gunslingers, then being a British subject might not be so bad. The NRA has blood on its hands and so does the Far Right. Killing a nine year old girl is not an action against tyranny. Shame on you!
 
 
0 # Jackson 2011-01-11 10:57
Check this recent report by FAIR that shows how O'Reilly, Beck and others on Faux News inflame their supporters by calling - they say they are only joking - for the decapitation and murder of people with whom they disagree politically. http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/11/10/fox-news-the-no-1-name-in-murder-fantasies/

The Faux News crowd claims that both sides engage in violent speech. Can anyone name any similar "jokes" or comments made about decapitating opponents by those not on Fox News' side?
 
 
0 # ER444 2011-01-11 11:59
Heh, we are making progress here, red is green, green is red, come on everybody push the button !!!
 
 
0 # Malik 2011-01-11 12:42
Quoting Michael Rivero:
Paul, this is not hate. This is anger against tyranny which is not the same thing.

Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?

The UK of today has a lower percentage of extreme rightwing nut jobs in the population than does the US

If i lived in the UK i wouldn't have to worry about becoming destitute if i had a catastrophic illness

The diversity of opinions and quality of journalism is better.

Public transportation is much better in the UK -- one isn't practically forccd to get a private vehicle in order to get around
Just a few random examples of why there are worse things than being a citizen of the UK.
 
 
0 # whatREALLYhappened 2011-01-11 18:13
I'll tell you one thing: at least the host of THIS blog is brave enough to allow comments from everyone, as opposed to Mike Rivero who only allows comments from sycophants who pay for the privilege.
 
 
0 # Mark Stouffer 2011-01-12 00:32
Quoting Michael Rivero:
Paul, this is not hate. This is anger against tyranny which is not the same thing.

Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?


Krugmen is a loyalist, no doubt about it. As long as his man is in office, there should be no limit to the power to "do good" to us, and no valid voice of opposition. The only thing saving us from insanity is the internet.

The Reichstag is burning and Krugmen will write the decree. Look forward to an Obamadiktate.
 
 
0 # Tory Trash 2011-01-12 11:40
Tyranny? I still don't feel it, see it or understand where it is in our country. Karl is right. Tyranny is a word often used by those drumming up hate and pistol loading. To me, Fox "News" flies in the face of the 1st Amendment. A "free press" doesn't mean free to scream "fire" in a crowded theater.
 
 
0 # V 2011-01-14 10:41
"Clearly, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the importance of Tucson is that it has put a light on the elephant in the room; the desire of a determined ultra right wing faction that has chelated itself onto more moderate Republican elements to violently overthrow the government of the United States. Just replay Congressman Brown's (R-GA) remarks about the "tyranny" of the government a couple of days ago. We're not talking about a straight line from little Miss Green and crazy Jared what's his name drawn by Sarah Palin. We're not talking about a citizen's civil rights to own guns or the rights of sportsmen or those of people who want to defend their homes...we're talking about armed revolution. Tucson should be the canary in the coal mine and we should get the hell out of the hole before it blows. That means we need to wake up and act now. This thing can get out of control."

We've all heard "pundints" [sic], friends and acquaintances calmly parrot the statement that the Tucson shooting had nothing to do with anything. Neville Chamberlain is an archetype and we seem determined to rehydrate it like children who believe that the blanket will protect them against the monster in the room.
 
 
+45 # PhilO 2011-01-10 11:39
The GOP has labeled the shooter as a "leftist lunatic". I don't think anyone would argue that he's not a lunatic, but a "leftist"?!!! It seems to me that EVERYTHING ascribed to him so far has been "rightist"! Although the 'right is usually wrong' (well, except for providing tax breaks to the richest 1% of "Americans" and making sure everyone can instantly buy a semiautomatic handgun), I think we should label this nut job the "wrongest rightist"!
 
 
+123 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 11:58
Jared's YouTube page lists the Communist Manifesto as a "Favorite" book. That is hardly the sort of book conservatives see as a "favorite."
 
 
-29 # goodsensecynic 2011-01-10 12:49
And why would you believe anything this fellow has to say? He was pretty plainly delusional.

And, even if it was a "favorite," what makes you think he UNDERSTOOD a word of Marx & Engels' manifesto (which called, by the way, for such un-American reforms as universal suffrage [that means the right to vote], free trade unions, a free press and so on).

By the way, I understand that he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf and, for all I know, he may have read the Bible from cover to cover. Who knows? Maybe they were "favorites" too. So what?
 
 
-1 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 04:28
Quoting goodsensecynic:
And why would you believe anything this fellow has to say? He was pretty plainly delusional.

And, even if it was a "favorite," what makes you think he UNDERSTOOD a word of Marx & Engels' manifesto (which called, by the way, for such un-American reforms as universal suffrage [that means the right to vote], free trade unions, a free press and so on).

By the way, I understand that he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf and, for all I know, he may have read the Bible from cover to cover. Who knows? Maybe they were "favorites" too. So what?


So what indeed! It means virtually nothing and any dolt who wants to say that this proves he was a leftist or something is an idiot. I've read the Koran precisely because I wanted to understand Islam better. Does that make me a Muslim? Fat chance of that!
 
 
-24 # Nannagal 2011-01-10 13:00
He also listed Mein Kampt, Hitler's manifesto.....t he favorite of white supremacists and other variety of extreme conservative twisted thought.
 
 
-26 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:05
I assume that you are suggesting the Ms. Giffords is a right wing Republican. Otherwise, why would a leftist bother to try to assassinate her?

Twist yourself in mental pretzels as much as you want, but the fact remains that if this guy were a leftist, he would have shot Jan Brewer, not Ms. Giffords. As for your "proof" that he was a left winger because he read the Communist Manifesto, he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf. Now turn yourself into another pretzel trying to claim that Hitler was also a leftist.
 
 
+32 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:08
Quoting Texas Aggie:
I assume that you are suggesting the Ms. Giffords is a right wing Republican. Otherwise, why would a leftist bother to try to assassinate her?


Yes, because no one EVER kills anyone for any reason other than left-versus-rig ht... never happens for ANY other reason.

And let's not forget that she didn't die... it is possible that she was not the target, that the actual target was one of the people that actually died, and that she was simply a casualty rather than a target.
 
 
+10 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:33
Sorry, Ms. Giffords is a "blue dog" Democrat, in other words, a Republican disguised as a Democrat.
 
 
-1 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-11 04:29
Quoting Texas Aggie:
I assume that you are suggesting the Ms. Giffords is a right wing Republican. Otherwise, why would a leftist bother to try to assassinate her?

Twist yourself in mental pretzels as much as you want, but the fact remains that if this guy were a leftist, he would have shot Jan Brewer, not Ms. Giffords. As for your "proof" that he was a left winger because he read the Communist Manifesto, he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf. Now turn yourself into another pretzel trying to claim that Hitler was also a leftist.

Don't worry Texas Aggie. They probably will! They're just that stupid!
 
 
0 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:31
Well, Mein Kampf isn't exactly left! Also, he joined an extreme right wing web site. I'd say, the boy leans right, at the very least.
 
 
+12 # Tommie 2011-01-10 16:06
I think Through the Looking Glass being in the same listing says more than Communist Manifesto.
 
 
-5 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 22:13
The Communist Manifesto is not, and never was, a book.
 
 
+3 # mostly_harmless 2011-01-10 23:46
Quoting Anti-fascist:
The Communist Manifesto is not, and never was, a book.

Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it was first published in 1848 in German. It was the manifesto of the Communist League, defining a platform of action and a series of policy positions to distinguish "communists" from other types of socialist organizations.
 
 
+1 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:00
We will always have nut jobs out there who can find a way to get a gun or another weapon. We need to shut down Faux news so they can't activate the nut jobs.
 
 
-13 # maddy 2011-01-10 11:57
Let us go back to Palin and her conection with the Alaska Independent Party inwhich her husband belonged and she was on you tube praising the party's will to break from the lower states. Then here it is being threatened in Arizona since she has become the most outspoken person of the Tea Party. She knows how to stir up a mob to gun point, and the right kind of people seem to be behind her. We call the shooter incompetent, but what about the Palin, Beck type of promoting violience, the KKK, the fascist acting , gun toting Tea Partiers, are they not incompetant to deliberatly entice people to kill??
 
 
+177 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 12:07
Like most Americans I am shocked and saddened by the shooting in Arizona. But what really sickens and disgusts me are all the apparatchiks shamelessly exploiting this tragedy for whatever political agenda they serve. The GOP wants to blame the Democrats; the Democrats blame the Tea Party, the ADL is blaming anti-Semites, the gun-grabbers are absolutely orgasmic they have another bloody shirt to wave, and the kooks are saying chemtrails and HAARP are to blame.

So here is a suggestion.

Let's take the Republicans who want to blame the Democrats, the Democrats who want to blame Republicans, the ADL, the gun grabbers and the nuts and lock them in a steel cage. Each one gets a chainsaw. WE sell tickets and donate the money to the families in Arizona. Whichever political operative comes out of the cage with the most body parts still intact, we all agree to blame whoever they say to blame for this tragedy.

Then we can get back to last Friday's Massachusetts State Supreme Court Decision regarding fraudulent foreclosures, which unlike the Arizona tragedy, actually does impact all of our lives.
 
 
-33 # Stumper 2011-01-10 12:43
And your solution will result in what? The answer to violence is more violenc? At what point does it end? I would advocate a similar sequence with the cage, but without the chainsaw. Let it be known that they can get out, but only but cooperating and then see what happens.
 
 
-19 # genierae 2011-01-10 15:11
Great idea, Stumper. I am an independent who has watched the political scene for many years, and it is plain to see that Republicans are much more prone to violent rhetoric, and this is NOT assigning blame, its simply a fact. There was a recent study done in England that showed brain differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservative brains were wired for fear; liberal brains were wired for courage. This should not come as a surprise because the vast majority of fear-mongers in this country are Republicans, while Democrats are much more prone to optimism. Fear + anger = violence. Paul Krugman better watch his back.
 
 
+18 # tribeseeker 2011-01-10 16:01
(..er...actuall y, it's Shame + Anger = Rage, manifesting as Violence)
...and blind optimism in the face of tyranny is just as dangerous violence. The actual distortion comes from separating Left from Right. Step out of the "bi-polar" extremism to try and glimpse a new reality principle please.
 
 
-7 # genierae 2011-01-10 18:34
You're leaving out fear? If we were fearless, we would not commit violence. We either operate from fear or we operate from love. So when fear is present, it is our base of operation. In order to get to violence from fear, anger must be present, but shame is not necessary. Fear + anger = violence. Simple.

I don't recall using the word "blind" to describe the optimism of Democrats. True optimism sees very well that being a good, decent human being, who is compassionate and loving, is the highest goal that we can attain, and fear has nothing to do with that.

This world is going through a transformation in consciousness, and this is causing current polarity. We are being purposely separated, so I guess we need to make sure that we end up in the right group, huh? Best of luck to you and your reality principle.
 
 
-116 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 13:15
Mr Rivero says "what really sickens and disgusts me are all the apparatchiks shamelessly exploiting this tragedy for whatever political agenda they serve. "
-

That's odd seeing as Mr Rivero has himself shamelessly exploited the event for political ends at his own website, publishing a whole string of stories about the incident and its ramifications.

Mr Rivero claims that the shooting is "A staged incident to distract the media."

Mr Rivero also claims it is "fake terror" perpetrated by the government itself so as to allow it to introduce "emergency measures".

Fake terror, Mr Rivero? A dead child says otherwise. Shame on you.
 
 
+39 # mick dingo 2011-01-10 15:55
dead children dont say anything. not even the ones in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam,....... ...etc. your beloved government does perpetuate terror on its citizens. wake up.
 
 
-110 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 13:15
And what are you doing here commenting Mr Rivero if not exploiting this event for your own (wacko) political agenda? Why have you directed your audience to come and post here in your support?

Why don't you tell people here about the Holocaust not happening? Or how Al Qaida "don't exist" and how Dick Cheney did 911? How the government wants to put the people in FEMA camps? How 'the Jews rule America"? How Hitler was "right"?

You are part of the problem, Mr Rivero, not the solution.
 
 
+39 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:09
Quoting Anti-fascist:
Why don't you tell people here about the Holocaust not happening? Or how Al Qaida "don't exist" and how Dick Cheney did 911? How the government wants to put the people in FEMA camps? How 'the Jews rule America"? How Hitler was "right"?


And which of those things have anything to do with the event in Arizona?

I guess we could also discuss flat earth, but I personally don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand... do you?
 
 
-44 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 14:52
Other than these are positions that Mr. Rivero has supported and which speak to his mindset?

It is a typical right wing debate tactic to try to pretend that evidence against them is irrelevant. As is obvious to everyone, the comments of anti-fascist were about Mr. Rivero, not the event in AZ and trying to evade the evidence that Mr. Rivero is more than a few bricks shy of a load is not at all honest, Mr. Hodder.
 
 
+32 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 15:02
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Other than these are positions that Mr. Rivero has supported and which speak to his mindset?

It is a typical right wing debate tactic to try to pretend that evidence against them is irrelevant. As is obvious to everyone, the comments of anti-fascist were about Mr. Rivero, not the event in AZ and trying to evade the evidence that Mr. Rivero is more than a few bricks shy of a load is not at all honest, Mr. Hodder.


Speaking of honest, you didn't answer my question. What, specifically, does the HOLOCAUST have to do with the events in Arizona that we are discussing? Was this 22 year old a grand-son of one of the Nazi War Crimninals?

Or are you engaging the logical fallacy of argument by ad hominem? Are you really trying to say that anyone that holds an opinion on something NOT germane to the discussion at hand that you disagree with AUTOMATICALLY means that their opinions on the subject at hand are incorrect?

So by your logic, since I am not very well gifted in Astrophyics, I should not comment on sculpture?

Try again please, but this time let's be logical...
 
 
-43 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 16:02
The relevance of this is that even though Mr Rivero is here posturing, he otherwise is involved in the very practice of deploying eliminationist rhetoric, and promoting wacko conspiracy theories addled with anti-semitism. Mr Rivero has in fact many ties to organised, genuine fascism - he works as a proagandist for the far-right. He is part of the problem.

Evidence for this includes his promotion of Holocaust Denial. Who does he use to promote Holocaust denial? Ernst Zundel, a known supporter of neo-nazi and skinhead groups in Austria/Germany etc.

Furthermore, Rivero heavily promotes Willis Carto, head of Liberty Lobby, publisher of the Holocaust denying IHR and TheBarnesReview . Mr Rivero promotes much of Willis Carto's output, notwithstanding that Willis Carto holds Holocaust denying meetings including, for example, a former SS Kommando from the Einstazgruppen - the mobile killing units deployed to exterminate Jews following Nazi invasion of Russia.

These people are the real deal - genuine Nazis. And Mr Rivero promotes them. He is being wholly disingenuous when he criticises "fascism". What fascism? Liberal democracy? Sure.
 
 
+13 # JoJOOS 2011-01-10 16:44
Nonsense--spell it correctly--HOLL OWCAUST
Both parties are the same--they just take turns almost every 8 years--A cycle pattern.
Ever wondered--how candidates from both parties are chosen and has the last say?
Gifford is Jewish---If your Jewish--more of a chance of getting Chosen.
Sure Cure Feds--2X4 Term limits max. Weed out free loaders.
 
 
+16 # Spartacus Jones 2011-01-10 13:31
I'd pay to see that.

sj
 
 
-13 # Robert Griffin 2011-01-10 15:53
Regarding the ADL (with whom I RARELY agree), I heard on NPR that the _FBI_ is investigating connections with a White Supremacist group with strong and outspoken anti-Semitic leanings.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
 
 
-2 # whatREALLYhappened 2011-01-11 16:54
Michael Rivero publishes a useful website with links to many stories that help expose the truth about government malfeasance. The area where the site takes a steep nosedive is where Rivero adds his take on things. Then it turns to pure idiocy.
 
 
+54 # Shelteringwing 2011-01-10 12:08
Fighting Tyranny is the right thing to do, one boring determined quiet step at a time. The heroes keep working through difficult complex issues which do not titilate or inflame. It is right to seek truth. We have a right to the truth so that we can respond effectively, but spewing hatred just circulates hatred, and death. If we wish to be in a perpetual state of violent conflict then keep it up and history will be sad for what might have been if we could only have turned a corner. Check out HuffPo article on Muslims serving as human shields for Copts Christmas celebration. There is evidence of good overtaking the tsunami of hate. Notice these things. Advance these events. It matters.
 
 
+2 # Robert Griffin 2011-01-10 15:57
Thanks for the note about Muslims serving as human shields for Copts Christmas celebration.
 
 
+24 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-01-10 12:17
FINALLY! Someone from the mainstream media with the cajones to tell it like everyone knows it is. I'm glad to hear someone calling out the "both sides do it" BS.

Rightwingers loved government when Bush was president, and called anyone who disagreed with Bush's trampling of the constitution liberal traitors, but when rightwingers lose a presidential election, they hate government again, and they're the world's sorest losers. So don't give me this "this isn't hate, it's anger against tyranny" crock of doodle doo. It's typical and predictable precisely because it's a fundamental element of the rightwing psyche. How much more proof do you need? We've had at least 20 years of proof.
 
 
-112 # Danny 2011-01-10 12:19
Sorry Michael -- your perspective is naive. Thought processes such as yours are exactly the problem.

Portiz -- of course Repubs will spin this to meet their needs.

I too have been expecting this since the '08 election.
 
 
+122 # Friday 2011-01-10 12:43
Michael's perspective is hardly naive. he is intelligent, writes cogently and has sound thought processes.

Connect the dot's yourself rather than call names.

Anyone who throws the blanket of "...exactly the problem." rather than specifically point out valid counter debate, most likely really has no true clue of what's going on in their own home.

The Massachusets court decision is FAR more important than this single tragedy - the foreclosure crisis is a multiple tragedy affecting greater numbers of people in every state, every city, every town.
 
 
-57 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:24
Whether or not the Massachusetts court decision affects more or fewer people is totally irrelevant. The important fact is that the right wing has decided that assassination is an appropriate means of getting power. They do the wink-wink of calling for the death of their opponents and then "just can't understand why anyone would take them seriously" when something like this happens.

Rivero trying to justify this as a normal reaction to tyranny when it is something that was bound to happen given enough encouragement by the right wing from Beck to Palin to Boehner to Angle to Limbaugh and many others amounts to duplicity. To claim that he writes cogently and has sound thought processes when it is obvious that nothing of the sort has occurred raises questions about your own thought processes.
 
 
+176 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 12:49
I want a clarification of your comment. You say that demanding the government to represent the people and a willingness to fire them if they fail to do so is the problem?

We have had a decade of the government, both Democrat and Republican controlled, that bows and scrapes to Wall Street. No terrorist, even with an atomic bomb, could have caused more damage to the lives of ordinary Americans than Wall Street has in the years since the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Millions are homeless. Millions more on food stamps. High-paying jobs have been sent to foreign nations by Federal tax credits. Wall Street got caught selling fraudulent mortgage-backed -securities, and with the help of the Federal Government is dropping the losses on the American people. That is not capitalism or even socialism; that is fascism.

Should we not all stand up and oppose fascism?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." -- The Declaration of Independence.
 
 
-33 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:05
Yes. Throw off the government but don't kill our elected representatives as a way to do the throwing.

Shut down the media sources of the vitriol.
 
 
-34 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 14:20
Exactly. And that's what voting is all about. Thomas Jefferson on several occasions noted the necessity of an informed public, but instead we have people taking their cues from Fox and people like them. After all, in a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve - Alexis de Tocqueville

When we lose the right to vote, as the SC did to us in 2000 and as occurred in Ohio in 2004, then you can talk about opposing fascism, but as long as votes exist, calling our government tyrannical is indicative of ignorance. And justifying assassination is the beginning of a fascist dictatorship.
 
 
+29 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:40
Those in power have Stolen our votes!!! What they can't buy and pay for, they simply use Their machines to rig!!!
 
 
+72 # fredboy 2011-01-10 12:30
I am reminded of the day I sat in English class in 1963 and the principal announced the shooting death of President Kennedy. The Republican kids in the class cheered--the rotten bastards cheered. Prompting me to get up and walk out of school that day--and never forget.

What we are seeing is a demented mindset, viciously selfish. I saw them devour one another in Manassass, Virginia, jealous of one another's wealth and homes. There is not semblance of honor or caring or good among these people. It is as if a sullen evil is on the land, infecting our nation to the bone.
 
 
+4 # Tidmore 2011-01-11 00:13
By today's standards, JKF would be labeled a far right wing extremist.
 
 
+14 # mack rose 2011-01-10 12:39
I lived in Dallas, Texas during the early sixties. The extreme rhetoric that I heard from the freedom forum and the john birchers sounded very much like the emotional hype that I recently heard coming out of arizona. I was not at all surprised by the terrible tragety that just occured there.
 
 
-86 # Ken Carman 2011-01-10 12:39
Re: "Paul, this is not hate. This is anger against tyranny which is not the same thing. Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?"

You're idea of "tyranny," Sir, seems to be as skewed as a 12 year old who simple did not get what he wanted in 2010. I'm sure you got some of what you wanted in 2012. But still it's "tyranny?" Got the tax breaks for the rich, despite those of us who objected, though what I think was a bad "compromise." But "tyranny?" No. No "tyranny" there. Health care went from not even the possibility of single payer, to no possibility of gov option, to a big give away to insurance companies. I don't like it. But "tyranny?" If any of this were tyranny it really would have been "shoved down our throats," not altered: no change, no compromise.

However there is potential "tyranny" here. The tyranny of those who want to shove what they want down everyone else's throats what they demand, and if they must at the end of a gun. A group, apparently, you are a proud member of. A group that, at best, excuses murder by justifying it with bogus claims of "tyranny."
 
 
+63 # Friday 2011-01-10 13:16
Tyranny exists for us all when our dollar bill is worth 2 cents because of the Federal Reserve, tyranny exists when we are subjected to molestation and unjust search and seizure at the airport. Tyranny exists when there are sick and homeless children while Wall street dines on truffles.

If you believe anyone got what they wanted in 2010 besides corporate America and Wall Street, then you sir are the 12 year old with the skewed perspective.
 
 
-37 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:09
The cure for tyranny is to vote. Not to promote killing with hateful speech. If you don't like the way your elected representative votes... find out who is financing his campaign and vote with your wallet.
 
 
+18 # tribeseeker 2011-01-10 14:56
...d'er...the very fact that you CAN vote with your wallet says enough.
 
 
+1 # Tidmore 2011-01-11 00:16
Voting with your wallet is the best way. It's freedom, man!
 
 
-10 # othermother 2011-01-10 19:39
I agree with you, Cabotool. When I clicked 'thumbs up' the site converted it to 'thumbs down'.
I think we have to take our 'ratings'with a pound of salt.
 
 
+3 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:58
I've also voted one way and it shows up the opposite.

That's because others are voting at the same time! :)
 
 
+108 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 13:31
Name-calling is not a persuasive argument.

Do you really thing the nation is being managed well?

I suppose if you are a banker chowing down on one of those Wall Street $150 burgers life looks pretty good, but for the rest of us out here, the nation is clearly in decline. Is patriotism to be measured by standing silently as the nation implodes from greed and corruption?

The reason we have a First Amendment is a recognition that loyal citizens have a right and a duty to point out where the government is making mistakes.

Supporting government when it is wrong is not the duty of a citizen but that of a slave.
 
 
-50 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 14:24
So your answer is to shoot people you don't like. If you feel so strongly about tyranny, in our democracy, such as it is, then get good people to run and vote for them.
 
 
+4 # Tidmore 2011-01-11 00:18
The USA is not a democracy, its is a republic.

Geez!
 
 
-35 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 17:11
Namecalling not persuasive, Mr Rivero?

Funny, but here's what you posted one Christmas Eve:

---------
How Much Blood Can a Bloodsucker Suck?

How much blood can a bloodsucker suck? Several trillion pints, er dollars, obviously.

Using the greatest scam in history, Holocaust™ Reparations which will continue to be sucked from Germany and others till the Sun burns out. The 2nd and 3rd generation Holocaust™ grifters are already making a move, putting out PR releases stating that they are needing professional 'help' to deal with the trauma...

Then there will always be money needed to keep Holocaust™ Land theme parks up and running and all those other sites deemed holy by the greatest bunch of frauds and con artists ever to walk the Earth.
---------------------

Not a Holocaust denier? Not a purveyor of hateful rhetoric? Not an anti-semite? Oh yeah, sure he's not.
 
 
+15 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:51
Why does this keep coming back to the Holocaust??

That happened over 50 years ago, and we have seen many horrible atrocities since then. Millions upon millions have been killed in wars, massacres, catastrophes, and famine etc. Hundreds if not thousands are dying all over the world every month, in present times.

The Holocaust is not relevant here.

The fact that you keep name-calling & bringing up one event from 50+ years ago lends credence to the notion that you don't have any facts to back up your arguments against what others here are saying.
 
 
+12 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 13:52
@Ken:

"I'm sure you got some of what you wanted in 2012."

I'm checking my calendar, but it's 01/10/2010... How did anyone get what they wanted (past tense) in 2012? Are you a time traveler? :)
 
 
-29 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:08
Look at all the negatives on reasonable posts. Someone has set things up to pack the list with liars and fools as the source.
 
 
-1 # othermother 2011-01-11 16:29
I checked with RSN site management after clicking thumbs-up once appeared to generate 5 thumbs-downs. Apparently we have visitors, that's all. Some may even have opposable thumbs, as well as opposing views. But I was told that they appear to be targeting certain articles, like Krugman's.
 
 
+138 # Barbara 2011-01-10 12:40
I'm with Michael...our elected officials...are you kidding me?? They respond to Lobby $$ PERIOD. This is done at the expense of ordinary citizens with ZERO access to policy makers. Push people and they will push back
 
 
-55 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:28
So vote them out!!! That it can be done is the opposite of tyranny. Instead you swallow the fiction that the tea party corporate sponsors (Dick Armey, the Koch brothers, many others) feed you about "values" and "death panels" and "higher taxes" and all the rest of it and put the very people you complain about in office.
 
 
+68 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 13:53
@Aggie: "Vote them out?"

Seriously? Consider the obvious example, Obama... we voted out Bush because Obama promised "hope" and "change" and "transparency" and an end to so many other things...

And we are still living with those things today. How great it was that we got to VOTE! It did SOOOOOO much.
 
 
-8 # Sam 2011-01-10 14:55
I feel like I need to point out that we didn't "vote out" Bush. He wasn't allowed to even run that term since he had served the two consecutive terms prior. Although I don't doubt that if he had been able to, he would have lost.

The terrible and debilitating policies that he implemented during his eight years will take at least another eight years to undo. Expecting such a large change in just two years is unrealistic and I firmly believe that no GOP candidate would have been able to get our butts out of this mess any better than Obama has so far.
 
 
+26 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 15:03
Quoting Sam:
I feel like I need to point out that we didn't "vote out" Bush. He wasn't allowed to even run that term since he had served the two consecutive terms prior.


Fair enough. Mea Culpa, that was a bad example using Bush. However, the policies of torture and state secrets and prosecuting illegal wars have NOT changed, and they could have changed literally overnight... They would not have taken eight years to correct for.
 
 
-1 # Lestrad 2011-01-11 14:28
Quoting Sam:
I feel like I need to point out that we didn't "vote out" Bush.


No, and we didn't vote him in either.
 
 
+37 # tribeseeker 2011-01-10 14:58
(in case you haven't noticed, the voting process is the USA is broken beyond repair.) It's frightening to me that you still believe in voting, or that voting really made any change in the paradigm that we live in.
 
 
-19 # Robert Griffin 2011-01-10 16:04
As broken as the process is, the results can make an ENORMOUS change. Those of us (perhaps a majority) who believe voting (can and) should make a difference are working to repair this broken system.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
 
 
-5 # dajson 2011-01-10 19:46
Voting is the only real solution so consider how these evils feed on the apathy of the non-voter. I take that back, I used to not vote, and it wasn't because of apathy, it was because of discust. But then George W. Bush came along, and I realized how responsible my non-voting was for contributing to that. I will now be at the ballot for every election and primary for the rest of my life.
 
 
+14 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:54
If you really think our voting system is truthful and accurate... check out Black Box Voting (a non-partisan group).

Elections in America are incredibly corrupt, and become more so all the time.

And that's not even getting into the 2-party system. How "just and fair" is it that candidates can only really compete if they are a member of one those 2 parties? (who are really working towards the same end goal anyway).

So much for freedom of choice!
 
 
+62 # goodsensecynic 2011-01-10 12:43
Although I am not a psychiatrist, it seems to me that the alleged shooter displayed characteristic symptoms of mental illness, perhaps paranoid schizophrenia.

As such, I suggest that any apparent ideology - right or left - was a product of mental instability, and not a thoughtful political commitment, however unconventional.

Whatever his inner demons, they cannot be attributed to any text, political or otherwise. To treat him as a manifestation of a "sick society" might be emotionally satisfying, but it is not empirically credible.

Thinking in this way, moreover, soon makes it sensible to blame J. D. Salinger for the acts of John Hinckley Jr. against President Reagan, David Mark Chapman against John Lennon and (who knows?) maybe "heavy metal" for teen suicides and Elvis for 1950s juvenile delinquency.

From there, it is a quick, long stride down the greasy slope to censorship.

Despise Sarah Palin (or Karl Marx) as some people do, surely the current toxic political atmosphere in the USA has its origns elsewhere and is no excuse for shredding the noblest of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States ... the 1st.
 
 
-42 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 13:30
Yelling "Fire" in a theatre when there is none is not protected speech. Calling (wink, wink) for the assassination of elected leaders isn't protected speech either.
 
 
+40 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:13
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Yelling "Fire" in a theatre when there is none is not protected speech. Calling (wink, wink) for the assassination of elected leaders isn't protected speech either.


Out of curiosity, why not? Do you suggest that we arrest and put on trial every schoolchild who says "I'm gonna kill you for that," because obviously they really are inciting violence?

If not, I don't see anything but a hypocritical double standard, that what you agree with can be 'protected speech,' while what you disagree with is not.

Speech is either free or it is not. It cannot be "free with limitations."

I'd rather punish people who DO something, not those who SPEAK. How about you?
 
 
-22 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 15:05
So in other words you agree that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to lie about their products (Nike Corp), that the SC was wrong when it ruled that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there was none is not protected, that it would be perfectly fine for one of your kid's teachers to tell them that you needed to be killed because of your political leanings?

To claim that a school kid yelling "I'm going to kill you" is the equivalent of a candidate calling for voters to exercise their second amendment rights or that voters should be armed and dangerous is indicative either of duplicity or stupidity.
 
 
+16 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 19:50
Sure, give corporations their 1st Amendment rights, even to lie.

So long as consumers have the EQUAL right to sue them, and they are allowed the FULL consequences of their lies.

Let's see just how long they would stay in business once word got around that they are liars!
 
 
0 # ewkeane 2011-01-15 20:35
Here in fascist america corporations are the government (the business of america is business), the "supreme court" is what it is, and all the more reason to keep your children out of public school.
i doubt that any pol would call for open, bloody rebellion. its bad for business.
 
 
+17 # robhood 2011-01-10 15:45
Thomas Pain called for violence against the crown. Would you have censored Thomas Pain?
 
 
+6 # Davol 2011-01-10 12:47
I've heard the SaraPAC, (Sara Palins political action committe) had a picture of either Congresswomnan Giffords' face with crosshairs or it was her district 9 with crosshairs. They probably finally took that down. Maybe some journalist can get Ms. "second-amaendm ent sollutions" Sharron Angle's opinion on the shooting.
 
 
+23 # goodsensecynic 2011-01-10 13:17
The image appeared in last Summer. It was the representative' s district (more or less) that was, I believe, one of a number of allegedly vulnerable Democratic seats to be "targeted" for a Republican victory in the 2010 election.

Among the most disingenuous statements I've read arising from this tragedy came from a Palin staffer, who said that the crosshairs were the same as many to be found on maps, and that no one in Palin's company (much less Sarah herself) imagined that anyone would mistake it for a gun-sight. In the alternative, I suggest that Ms. Palin's slogan, "Don't retreat, reload," tells us all we need to know about this woman.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but Ms. Palin seems to think she is among the select few who can fool all of the people all of the time. Of course, to her, people include only "real" Americans ...
 
 
-6 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:12
Anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is a certified fool and looser.
 
 
-18 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:11
prosecut the inciters for murder
 
 
+81 # Lokis 2011-01-10 12:49
sorry to see anyone hurt - but after the endless wars - the destruction of the economy - enabled by the established elected officals and their sychophantic minions the chickens are coming home to roost. What we all need remains a thinking press who are not mouth pieces of the government. Reaping the whirlwind begins at home.
 
 
+66 # Barbara Humphrey 2011-01-10 12:51
I can't help but also associate the rising tide of violence with the worsening of economic conditions. I can't help but make connections to the 1930s, and that the rising tide of facism in Italy and Nazism in Germany had an economic basis. The number of people without jobs and fearful about the future, with too much time on their hands to listing to TV and radio hate talk, is growing. I, too, was not surprised when I heard about the events in Tucson and expect more of the same.
 
 
+29 # DaveM 2011-01-10 12:59
I do not think this an appropriate time to start pointing fingers. We might offer some consideration to those who had dealings with this "lone nut" in the past. There was the Army that refused to take him after he failed a drug test. There was the school that threw him out and refused to let him back without a letter from a doctor stating that he was not a danger to self and others. There was even at least one Wal-Mart clerk who refused to sell him ammunition.

These people did what they could to stop this guy from escalating, and even though they did not succeed, we might want to offer them some consideration as representative of the true spirit of America.

As to our current crop of malcontents, I don't like them any more than anyone else. But they are hardly new. Some of you may recall The Order and its reign of terror in the Pacific Northwest. Some may recall when Ronald Reagan was shot.

Who did we blame for their activities? Only the hands that held the guns and pulled the triggers. As is only right.

Collective blame, in the end, would have us believe that we are all guilty. A foolish notion.
 
 
-35 # Fred Sokolow 2011-01-10 13:38
sorry but there's no disputing the violent, gun-oriented language on the far right, and it's the tea party element that seems to be ruling the GOP right now. You can't ignore gunsights, targets, people bringing guns to rallies, 2nd amendment references, a constant drumbeat inciting to gun violence. Ignore it and you are an accomplice to it.
 
 
+26 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 15:22
Quoting Fred Sokolow:
Ignore it and you are an accomplice to it.


True statement. But the same is true of people who didn't stop the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" rhetoric... or those who allow our children to march off to a war that is illegal.
 
 
-11 # othermother 2011-01-10 19:31
Thanks for your comment, Fred. While looking for Palin's website to leave a reproof on (it was taken down temporarily, apparently) I checked out 'Conservatives for Palin' and read 'Salt in a Wound', in which the author laments liberal nastiness at a time of national tragedy. I left a response and checked back several hours later. 3 THUMBS DOWN AND ONE REPLY

Briefly, I noted that it didn't take a 'sick mind' to see the crosshairs as part of a gunsight rather than a theodolite. Media and computer games enforce the association. I added that violent removal of a representative was bound to elicit conspiracy theories, and that the possibility of an accomplice encourages them. Foreign terror groups regularly exploit mentally ill people as assassins, and nothing prevents a homegrown hate group from using the tactic. I suggested two questions were important, even to pious people (the author of the essay identifies herself as such)- 1/ how to repair the fractured political process if representatives /candidates and constituents must fear to meet publicly and 2/ should November's loser be barred from running because he must not seem to profit from the violence?
 
 
+5 # othermother 2011-01-10 19:34
visiting 'Salt on a Wound', continued.

The one reply picked up a minor point I'd made - it's a mistake to call Loughner left wing. It then went on to ignore the rest and said this: The Democrats have launched an all out attack against Sarah Palin and tea partiers. The charge is being an accomplice to murder. There is no justification or evidence to support this claim.
The charge is obscene. It must be fully and completely exposed as being the grossest form of political opportunism, likely pushed by Democratic operatives working for the President.
 
 
-26 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:14
We ARE all guilty if we don't do our best to shut down the hate mongers, their staff and the companies that finance the hateful talk.
 
 
+12 # Davol 2011-01-10 14:49
I still delete emails from the Bradey Campaign to ban guns, which has been going strong since the Reagan assassination. He was the other guy who got shot.
 
 
+5 # Davol 2011-01-10 14:59
I looked at allt he youtube videos this guy had when I heard about this yesterday. Most are just his words about "currency", which might be a synonym for "vocabulary". He goes on about people needing to be literate, but sounds like he's kind of out there. The Mien Kampf and Communist Manifesto are being singled out from a long list of other books he considers significant like Aesops Fables, Farienhiet 151, and Brave New World. There's a goulish video of him with a mask burning an American flag. Watch them go after flag burners now, (another form of uniquely American free speach if you ask me.) I see a guy who thinks he's the guy on that movie called "V for Vendetta". I hated that movie and couldn't sympathise with the asshole of a protagonist who tortures just to make a point. He talks about mind control, but he doesn't see himself as the one being controlled, he's the controller. He's showing us all how easy it is to singlehandedly control the future of this country, and we are all now part of his ego-obsessed experiment in mind control.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-13 02:57
I have considered the school and the Army, and also the parents, and wondered why there wasn't better communication. Fortunately no one can force psychiatric treatment on someone in the US unless a crime has been committed or a court order is issued. But it's clear that purely negative acts, though right, were not sufficient to prevent Loughner's violence. We've seen this before, unfortunately. Many people knew something was wrong, but this didn't lead to effective intervention.
 
 
+13 # Saladin 2011-01-10 13:00
What a short memory the left has. By golly, I see a map!

http://www.illinoisloop.org/stopthehate/
 
 
+53 # Saladin 2011-01-10 13:38
I just wanted to point out the extreme double standards occurring here. I despise violence of any kind and this shooting was the action of a deeply disturbed person as can be seen here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/10/2011-01-10_chilling_shrine_in_madmans_yard.html
But as Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
No matter why this happened the destruction of free speech is the worst possible response.
 
 
+89 # mick dingo 2011-01-10 13:04
M. Rivero is correct. this guy was clearly not representing any kind of political agenda other than his own. too many rats jumping at a chance to use this for their own ends. anyone who ascribes to right or left is a damn fool, and will be ultimately eaten alive by both. this is the worst kind of political commentary. the guy who wrote this article is obviously a total brainwashed hack/shill. good job Mike. longtime WRH.COM reader.
 
 
-45 # Victoria Pierce 2011-01-10 14:43
Rivero is not correct. Loughner did have a political agenda.
Alleged Giffords Shooter Shares Currency Plot Obsession with Anti-Abortion Killer
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/8/21576/68127
 
 
-10 # Joey Morelli 2011-01-10 13:12
Put me in the latter category, too. Angry Townhalls, Birther Lies, Crosshairs on Political Opponents, it's gone too far. Like AIG, like Chase, no one wants to take responsibility. My brother, Greg, was so moved, he went to the Vigil for Gabby. As fate would have it, he stepped up to the microphone to speak from the heart. I guess Fox News doesn't know how to handle speaking from the heart, so they cut abruptly away from Greg as he got to his point: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-abruptly-cuts-away-from-giffords-vigil-as-mourner-says-‘and-i-say-to-you-sarah-palin’/
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-13 03:06
It appears that Ms Palin's supporters want to protect her from hearing anything that might be critical of her, and that Fox News' idea of reducing the temperature of discussion is to cut off comment.
 
 
+45 # j r 2011-01-10 13:17
I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen every day, what with our 'elected representatives ' completely ignoring the American people and working only to make rich people richer.
 
 
-18 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:16
And with people like Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle promoting killing as the cure for political problems.
 
 
+17 # tribeseeker 2011-01-10 16:25
(supporting and prolonging two illegal wars doesn't set such a great example either, huh?)
 
 
+20 # Errol jones 2011-01-10 13:21
China must be laughing
 
 
-5 # Ron Myers 2011-01-10 13:22
it seems that this all just proves the point. Americans have become an angry inconsiderate lunatic bunch of raving idiots!
We are doomed to more violence and our problems will go unsolved because the American value of compromise is dead.
 
 
-3 # cabotool 2011-01-10 14:17
YES
 
 
-10 # oysterboy 2011-01-10 13:31
The right (which these days means the extremist pro-fascists of the Repug party) are completely responsible for this. It is their corporate masters who saturate the airwaves and propagandize the ignorant with hate-filled rhetoric across 90% of this country. Krugman is right: it was only a matter of time before one of the right's sheep followed up on the corporate-media 's anti-progressiv e liberalism screed. An answer: more education, less Faux news.
 
 
-12 # Joefromla 2011-01-10 13:39
to common sense cynic
No one here is advocating censorship. Where did you get that idea? I reserve the right to criticize hate speech. In fact I think it's our duty to criticize hate speech. Where was your indignation when people threatened violence against the government ?
 
 
+21 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 15:23
Quoting Joefromla:
to common sense cynic
No one here is advocating censorship. Where did you get that idea? I reserve the right to criticize hate speech. In fact I think it's our duty to criticize hate speech. Where was your indignation when people threatened violence against the government ?


Criticize, yes. Stop, no.

And given that all governments are an expression of violence against their people and other people... why is violence against government necessarily wrong?
 
 
-35 # granny 2011-01-10 13:41
It as both predictable and inspiring that folks in Tucson gathered in vigil and brought flowers and candles. But it would be more commendable if they would rise up and support reasonable laws to control and monitor the purchase and use of semi-automatic handguns.

What are you thinking about, Madame Governor and Mister Senator? Are you proud of yourself and your gun-toting followers, Sarah Palin? What are you going to do when the next case is argued before your court, Mr. Chief Justice? How are you going to conduct yourself, Mr. Beck, Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh?

Are you ready, Mr. Speaker, to moderate your own HELL NO commentary and urge your followers like the “gentle lady” from Minnesota to get over their anger, stop the hateful and inflammatory rhetoric, and get to work on the needs and interests of the country, not just their own (and your) re-elections?

Otherwise, all of you, please stop the pious words, the hypocritical expressions of sympathy, the shallow references to the Constitution. They only add insult to injury.
 
 
-7 # othermother 2011-01-11 02:49
Thank you for calling for control of handguns, against the chorus of thumbs.
 
 
+2 # Joefromla 2011-01-10 13:44
I don't blame Sarah Palin for the shooting in Arizona, I blame her for intemperate rhetoric which stops just short of advocating violence.
 
 
-57 # Don Thomann 2011-01-10 13:44
Mr. Rivero and his allies seem to forget that "we the people" INCLUDES a large percentage of Americans who agree with and support this current administration' s attempts to address the underlying causes of inequality and injustice at work in the nation. All sides of this debate MUST come to terms with that reality. Like it nor not they must accept, that until their point of view becomes the ONLY prevailing point of view, they cannot force their "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" on the rest of us.
 
 
+46 # mick dingo 2011-01-10 14:13
like when the president spoke of "punishing" his enemies? get it through your thick skulls..... politicians dont care about you. why is that so hard to understand?
 
 
+43 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:18
Quoting Don Thomann:
Mr. Rivero and his allies seem to forget that "we the people" INCLUDES a large percentage of Americans who agree with and support this current administration's attempts to address the underlying causes of inequality and injustice at work in the nation.


While I am not an "ally" of Mr. Rivero, I must reply to this. This is an argument by appeal to numbers... a logical fallacy, and it highlights the very real danger of democracy... If a "large percentage" of the population believe that they are the "master race," and that the others should be killed off... is it ok, since they are a "large percentage?" How about if that large percentage beceomes the majority? Obviously, the idea that a large percentage supporting an evil idea making it valid and somehow "addresses inequality" is wrong.

The tyranny of the majority is to be feared... not promoted. Liberty requires us to leave well enough alone, not come up with ever more invasive and indeed unjust decisions!
 
 
+58 # Timothy54 2011-01-10 13:53
How is an ad hominem attack on blogger Michael Rivero anything but (1) the politics of hate and (2) a willingness to support tyranny?

Yes, I was surprised by the violence in Tuscon. No, political rhetoric didn't cause it. It's grandiose to imagine that you can persuade people to murder - and throw away their own lives in the process - by your words.
 
 
-26 # Texas Aggie 2011-01-10 15:15
Why were you surprised? AZ has an active gun culture and the loosest laws regarding acquiring weapons. It is the homeland of a bunch of supremacist groups from the Minutemen to even worse. The right wing media from Limbaugh to Beck to O'Reilly to Palin and numerous others has been calling for people to "exercise their 2nd amendment rights," to "reload," to "cut off their heads," etc. One of Beck's fans, who flat out stated that it was Beck's commentary that convinced him to do what he was planning, was intercepted with a carload of weapons going to do practically the same thing. Eventually something like this had to happen.
 
 
+16 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 19:20
On researching the most dramatic gun violence in modern days, you will note that many of those tragedies occur in either gun-free zones (think schools, think Virginia Tech etc) or regions with the strictest gun-control laws.

On the other hand, in regions where gun ownership is more open, common and less restricted, there is much less violence. Makes sense - who wants to go on a gun rampage knowing that everyone around you might be packing?

Human beings have always been prone to violence throughout history. Denying that, or blocking one type of weapon (guns), will not change that.

Bullies are much less inclined to attack someone they know can fight back.

(I am not a gun owner myself, but I understand the logic)
 
 
-8 # othermother 2011-01-10 20:06
There's a flaw in your argument about the presence of arms as a restraint: think about the phenomenon of 'suicide by cop'.
 
 
+4 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 21:07
No argument is "flawless".

But two valid points remain:

1) Humans are prone to violence. Not *every* human, but it is part of human nature.

2) People are much more likely to restrain their violent behavior if they will get caught/receive violence back.

Note that "much more likely" does not mean "Never". There will always be an occasional mentally ill person, or someone so bent on violence the prospect of their own death or destruction will not discourage them.

But those same people are the ones who will not let something written on a piece of paper (the law) stand in their way, either!
 
 
+4 # othermother 2011-01-11 02:46
Thank you, TSO, for responding with something more discursive than a thumb.
 
 
+60 # Sailmexico 2011-01-10 14:02
I'm just a country boy and not too educated, but I know how to find my way in a blizzard. These days it's blowing bullshit and easy to lose your bearings. Who gained the most from the tragic actions of a 22 year old, mentally unstable kid in Tuscon? Whoever it is that's tightening the noose around America's neck. I suspect the same bunch who have coached other unstable young men into acts of violence, only this time the weapon wasn't fake. They're trying to pry our fingers loose from the lifeline we've got stretched from the barn to the house - the Bill of Rights. And if they do, we're lost.
 
 
-2 # othermother 2011-01-11 16:54
The Bill of Rights is always under threat.

We don't yet know who will 'gain the most' from Loughner's actions.

Latest information suggests that Loughner wasn't coached by anyone, though this was something I thought possible while there was suspicion that he had an accomplice.

What is becoming clear is that he disrupted classes, frightened his classmates and worried his friends, but his school dealt with him by suspending him and telling him to get a certificate that his head was on straight if he wanted to come back.

He lived with his parents. Where the hell were they? Just present in body but otherwise out to lunch?

What a pity it is that his friend Tierny didn't answer that 2 a.m. call. Maybe he could have been stopped.

Marginalising the sick has cost us dear.
 
 
+34 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:04
I've been expecting something like this (but not this) for a while now, but it has nothing to do with the false left-right paradigm... Left vs. Right is just Pro Wrestling without the sweat.
 
 
+15 # Lou 2011-01-10 14:34
Climate of Hate?

Nope.

There are many layers to a political shooting but at base, down at the bottom where these events often originate there is absolutely NO hate at all.

There is cold calculation. Now there may be many political objectives to this shooting one may be this could be Obama's OKC. You know the tragic event one of Obama's aids said Obama needed to reconnect with the people.

Am I saying Obama or the aid was involved? not at all, not at all.
 
 
+14 # nemo 2011-01-10 14:37
Whats wrong with the older generations?
Obviously we hold a political party resposible for one nut case. And every Christian should be held responsible and heckeled because of westburough baptist, and every Jew should be assailed for what the zionists due. And every person that works at a bank should be treated like they are the douche bag bankers who have helped destroy the economy. If every one above 35 is hell bent on liberal or concervative mcCarthyism maybe you should do us all a favor and go back and re evaluate the decisions you've made during your lives.
 
 
-1 # othermother 2011-01-11 16:56
Gas, Nemo, is not the exclusive property of old farts.
 
 
-14 # historywriter 2011-01-10 14:44
The first thing that came to mind when I heard the story was the photograph of armed men at Obama rallies. Of signs that included words like kill and death and similar provocative phrases. This guy was mentally unstable, but he was responding to the rhetoric of hatred that has submerged our country in filth especially in the last 2 years after a black president was elected.
Of course this sort of thing can help tip someone like this guy over the edge, and he would go over in the direction where he's hearing all of this crap directed--towar d the Democrats, liberals, the administration. There's no question that most of it's from the right. All you have to do is sit down and add up the mad rhetoric from the right and from the left (giving weight to things like urging the killing of someone, for example). Someone needs to do it and stop this crap that the anger is "balanced."
 
 
-14 # Henry Jackson 2011-01-10 14:48
The American Revolution was in reaction to Lord Mansfield's 1772 ruling that there was no such thing as a "Chattel Slave" under English law.
slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!
40% of the colonists DID NOT support the Revolution and were dispossed and exiled to Canada.
Dissident Presbyterian Scots Irish etc. supported the Revolution because they were denied full citizenship for not being Anglican AND because George the third kept his treaty promise of 1760 to bar white settlement past the Appalachians.(t hey wanted free land)
This nation was born in the original sin of human slavery and genocide of what we call American Indians.
As to the hate of calling government "Tyranny" because you disagree-rememb er Lincoln's Words"If you do acheive your Confederacy,wha t happens the first time the majority votes for something a minority doesn't wish to accept?"
He portrayed the Balkanization and inevitable self destruction that would result.
Canada didn't revolt and has resisted our aggression six times,or is Canada now subject to "Tyranny"
 
 
+18 # Craig Hodder 2011-01-10 14:56
[quote name="Henry Jackson"]The American Revolution was in reaction to Lord Mansfield's 1772 ruling that there was no such thing as a "Chattel Slave" under English law.
slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!quote]

Actually, they rebelled so that they could keep their MONEY. They realized that the only way to not give up their money (since they had no voice in Parliament and were being brutalized by Lord North) was to rebel. Thus, they rebelled, and their debts to the crown (and Bank of England) were elminated... then they could get back to the task of making money for themselves.
 
 
+5 # ThePatriotMuckraker 2011-01-10 16:50
"The American Revolution was in reaction to Lord Mansfield's 1772 ruling. . ."

IF your reference is correct, you still cannot use one "ruling" as the sole justification/m otivation for the American revolution. There are better, less PC agenda driven, examples. Besides your criticism of the founders is intentionally unfair, by applying your socially constructed morality to these men who were, to some degree, a product of their time. None of these men have been documented mistreating their slaves, in fact the opposite. Furthermore, you can dispense with Lincoln quotes since he did not really care for the slaves. Even the shill Noam Chomsky argues quite correctly that slaves in the south were usually treated better than factory slaves in the industrial north.

"slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!"

More propaganda, and factually incorrect.

"This nation was born in the original sin of human slavery and genocide of what we call American Indians."

I'm sorry but this nation was founded on political systems and ideals of Greeks, Romans and the renaissance.
 
 
-2 # Lestrad 2011-01-11 14:37
Quoting ThePatriotMuckraker:

I'm sorry but this nation was founded on political systems and ideals of Greeks, Romans and the renaissance.


The Greek and Roman elites all had slaves, as did the "Founding Fathers." Of course they set up the US system to protect their wealth and the existing social order of domination. They just wanted to do the dominating themselves. But do you blame them? Wouldn't you do the same in their place?
 
 
+44 # Tidmore 2011-01-10 14:54
Michael Rivero is 100% correct.

Had Obamacare been voluntary with no enforcement provisions, then nobody should get their panties in a bunch. However if a person chooses to ignore the unconstitutiona l and illegal government edicts, you can be assured that men with guns will show up at your home and perform acts of violence against you. The Tucson shootings are unjustified fur sure, however never lose sight of the biggest criminal enterprise in the country, the US government.

Anybody who is not willing to fight the acts of criminals (government officials) does not deserve freedom.

Remember that over 90% of E V E R Y T H I N G the US government does is without constitutional authority and is therefore illegal.
 
 
+37 # a man from Iraq 2011-01-10 14:55
When the Americas do what they did in Iraq and justify it, some nutter in your country will think it is the norm,,
 
 
+43 # nytimes 2011-01-10 15:10
Those that dunn Michael Rivero and his website links probably haven't follow him the years we have. They should try it for a few weeks and have the cob webs removed from their brains. Michael is the Patriot, we need more of them.
 
 
-17 # kernel85 2011-01-10 15:21
The notion that we don't live in a climate of hate is belied by the comments in this thread. They drip with vituperation, mostly right-wing, and are rife with misinformation.
 
 
+19 # Eric Joseph 2011-01-10 16:00
Disagreement isn't hate. Look up words before you use them.
 
 
+11 # Eric Joseph 2011-01-10 15:33
Too bad this guy wasn't a right winger. Too bad Krugman is just trying to further his agenda without being aware of all the facts.
 
 
+26 # Richard Carpenter 2011-01-10 15:43
I support Mike Rivero's right to post his opinions and selected stories. I am an adult who can handle holocaust deniers as well as gravity deniers and and any other kind of denier. The Constitution was written to allow ME access to any offensive opinions that I care to read. I refuse to be treated like a child or a slave. No nanny state here.
 
 
-21 # Talkino 2011-01-10 15:55
Agree on most of WRH's content, but mike gets the biggest damned kick out of federal officials being killed, anyone doing anything to anyone working for the govt. In fact, on his site right now, he's talking to "Jared," first name basis, not that there's a connection prior, mind you, but because he feels such an affinity to anyone harming someone in the govt, right up his alley.
 
 
+9 # Eric Joseph 2011-01-10 15:59
Nice to see someone who can tolerate disagreement, but ad hominems, ahem, are unproductive.
 
 
-36 # Anti-fascist 2011-01-10 16:08
Oh, so now Rivero *is* a Holocaust denier?

Get it straight, guys?

[He certainly is a Holocaust denier, and much else besides - he's a fascist - part of the problem.]
 
 
+25 # Moulin Rouge 2011-01-10 17:50
Let's clarify some definitions here before slinging words around.

I think Mr. Rivero is more of a holocaust investigator rather than a holocaust denier. A "denier" is one that states that a (the) holocaust never happened. I don't think Mr. Rivero falls into that category at all, based on what is on his website. He is certainly one that questions the "extent" of the holocaust (the numbers), and possibly the methods, but he does not question whether or not it actually happened.

It is one thing to say, "Only 3.5 million Jews died under Nazi Germany," and another thing entirely to say, "The Holocaust never happened at all."

Please do not brandish ad hominem attacks, especially when addressing such a sensitive subject.
 
 
+56 # Michael Rivero 2011-01-10 16:37
Thomas Jefferson states that the highest duty of any citizen is to keep themselves fully informed so that they might make good decisions.

Because of the Iraq nuke claim, we all understand that our government will lie to us about very important matters. There is nothing new in this; governments have lied to their own people going back to when Ramses II carved his temples to proclaim his victory over the Hittites at Kadesh, a victory which did not actually happen. So, the lesson carved in stone from thousands of years ago is that leaders BS their own people and we should not expect otherwise. We understand Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and was not a threat to the US, we understand (via Allan Greenspan's video confession at Jekyll Island) that fraud and criminality pervade Wall Street, we understand that clergy molest children, and we understand that truth is always the first casualty of war.

Given this experience, prudence and common sense demands that we always re-examine everything we have ever been taught by the media and the state-controlle d school system, to guard against the next Ramses or the next George Bush.
 
 
+14 # TalKino 2011-01-10 15:49
Calling it 'tyranny,' that is, the health care, is a crock. For me, retired military having served and been treated overseas by the local hospitals when no US mil med care was present, this health care bill falls WAY short. It should be full blown with public option and that option from the Govt, tethered by an SES earning $225K, max, not some Kaiser-Perm weenie 'earning' $12 MILLION per year. Were there a true public option, all these health care middle-persons would be flowed to the wayside and have to get real jobs, not the one where THEIR earnings are dependent on telling YOU that you can't have x/x procedure, not in your policy.
 
 
+16 # Guy Josserand III 2011-01-10 17:06
Obama nailed it when he said HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM. The insurance industry won the bonanza with the requirement provision although they would probably rather just retain the right to ration care, refuse care and rescind coverage. They might be considered to have a 'tyranny'. They rake off about 30% of revenues for non-care expenses including lobbying and propaganda costs and obscene profits compared to the 3% spent by Medicare. Indeed isn't the love of money always the root cause of evil and despair? The Tea Party is one product of the despair but their ire is misdirected. Government cannot do half the damage we have witnessed from the craven acts of banking and insurance and speculating. Their gambling produces no real wealth. Production is what our nation needs and the profit motive can help. But the profit motive has failed miserably to provide health care as shown by the fact that we pay twice what other countries pay and have worse outcomes. Altruism is also a strong motivator and I ask what you would rather have, providers who are in it for the emotional reward of seeing you healthy or for the money gained from expensive drugs and surgery?
 
 
+7 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:00
But we haven't really had a "profit motive" for decades now, have we?

Thanks to Congress forcing managed care (HMOs) on us in the 70s, prices have skyrocketed & service/treatme nt has declined. People don't have much choice, either, and they are not always happy with the care forced on them.

Long before that, we were on much more of a "profit-motive" basis (ie free market - not wholly, but much moreso than before or since).

Costs were affordable, doctors had to compete somewhat & focus on being "better" because patients had the choice to, and could afford to, go anywhere they wanted for treatment. Additionally, without all the bureaucratic red tape they could actually negotiate with low-income patients too.

One of the delusions of recent decades is that we have a "free market" system. For most all of the areas of the "market", that hasn't been true for a long, long time.
 
 
-1 # Guy Josserand III 2011-01-11 14:08
No we do not have a "free market." Examples of a free market are organized crime, the mafia and the drug cartels. They operate without regulation except for the rule of force. The closest we have come to a free market was the Gilded Age which graphically demonstrated the benefits of the rule of law in the market place. Our insurance system since Nixon has been based on insurance profits. That is why WE PAY TWICE WHAT ANY OTHER RICH COUNTRY PAYS AND HAVE WORSE OUTCOMES. Medicare and the VA do fine without the profit motive institutionaliz ed into insurance companies. Single payer, Medicare and the VA spread the cost of random accidents and illness across ALL who benefit and do it with ONE TENTH the waste. Learn a little about other capitalist democracies as in the film "Sick Around the World." I think it is from Frontline. Listen to the words of insurance insider Wendel Potter http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/profile.html. Don't buy the delusions that perpetuate plutocracy, the iron rule by the rich. Read Michael Lewis or see his Bloomberg interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9o-9LKvSQ
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6412474n
 
 
0 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-15 15:12
Those are not examples of "free market". Those are examples of our (corrupt) govt officials in collusion with business.

Think about it.

When a business offers a product or service, if Customers agree with it, including the price and all aspects of the product/service , the business will do well. They will have lots of repeat and new Customers, which means lots of profit. In a true free market, that's exactly what happens.

If the product or service is not good, or is overpriced, or for whatever reason the Customers don't want to pay for it, the business will not do well. The business will eventually fail & be forced to close or change its ways/prices or whatever conditions caused failure.

Same goes for companies who do wrong to the public, the environment, to its Customers or whomever. So long as they are held liable, it will be Customers who decide if that business will succeed.

Common sense. Free market at work.

We the People (Customers) decide if a product/service is worth price, and so in effect We the People decide if a business prospers... or fails.
 
 
0 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:24
I am completely against socialized medicine of any kind, and any involvement by govt in healthcare choice.

However, I FULLY support our military personnel's right to have 100% of their healthcare bills covered, regardless of how/when/why.

The reason I am against any government sponsored/paid for healthcare in general is because it is just plain wrong to force one person to pay for another person's needs (or wants).

Why can't individuals choose where their money goes? Why can't I choose to give that money to my neighbor who is left with 3 little kids after her husband was killed in a car accident? Or to a friend suffering from another serious disease? Why MUST I send my money to a stranger instead of to my own neighbors, whose needs may even be greater?

Whose right is it to decide where MY money gets spent?
 
 
+17 # name 2011-01-10 15:52
Just a few clarifications. We are not ruled by tyranny, but oligarchy. There is a difference, although it may be slight. Second, if you think you 'vote' for our legistlators and presidents, prove it. As stalin said, "Its not the people who vote that count. Its the people who count the votes".
 
 
-34 # Talkino 2011-01-10 16:01
Mike Rivero, always cheering when something happens to a federal official. What a hero (in his own mind). Loves to talk tough, but where was he when it was his time to serve? From his website, he looks 65, so VN timeframe. He's even taken to talking about the Tucson shooter as "Jared," i.e., first name basis - not making a connection between them, but he's got a REAL affinity to anyone that harms the govt or its employees - he also cheered a couple years ago when the guy was hanged in the mid-west, then it was called 'suicide,' but he was still VERY happy.
 
 
+15 # Justin 2011-01-10 16:05
IMHO, I think 2 Corporate-owned parties and a Siamese-twin media with ever-narrowing parameters for political debate does not even come close to making the USA a Democratic-Repu blic. How is it that other western industrial nations with a fraction of the American population happen to have 3 or 4 major political parties to choose from? Does it say anything in the Constitution that political candidates must be millionaires or require millionaire clubs as patrons? Mr. Rivero is right on target with his comments.
 
 
+10 # Ronv 2011-01-10 16:15
In my lifetime, there have been two Texan presidents. The first one was a Democrat and he left the scars of war, hundreds of thousands dead and so much social chaos in his wake that it took a generation for the nation to recover, but the seeds for an optimistic conservative movement were sown and that movement flourished until recently. The second Texan president was a Republican and he left the scars of war, hundreds of thousands dead and so much social chaos in his wake that it may take a generation to recover, but perhaps the seeds for an optimistic liberal movement have been sown.
 
 
-1 # amye 2011-01-10 16:23
Mr Krugman, I almost always agree with your op-eds! And, of course, I do with this one, for the most part, with one exception. Our Vice President, who is a Democrat, called Wikileaks leader, Mr. Assange a hi-tech terrorist! Thus, one more voice calling an innocent individual a terrorist, and a powerful political Democrat at that! Is that not violence?
 
 
+8 # rick shaw 2011-01-10 16:33
The climate of tyranny is alive and thriving within the body politic of left statists.

Speaking of hate, perhaps the incessant reference to tea party advocates as "tea baggers" or the constant belittlement and beratement of ones political philosophy and character acted to antagonize the shooter, if infact Mr. Loughner is affiliated with the Tea Party.

Those inclined to hyperbolic hypocrisy feel the need to ignore any culpability of any provocations on their part and stubbornly push forward with the myopic agenda to further a double standard in their favor. They say we should now censor dissident rhetoric, and strip the plebeians of their ability to protect themselves. One act has trumped the wisdom drawn from historical pattern.

The deterrent of acts of violence should come in the form of repercussion, not in preemptive measures to silence dissent. Ideas are not criminal, acting upon them in a way inconsistent with ones recognized natural rights constitutes the crime.
 
 
+6 # Timothy54 2011-01-10 16:56
Neither the county sheriff, nor the Congresswoman, nor her staff, nor the judge, expected political violence that day. Thus the lack of security. And, they didn't get political violence, they got insanity violence from a guy with a skull-and-dried oranges shrine in his yard.
 
 
+3 # Arlene Zide 2011-01-10 17:06
Incitement to murder is murder! Rush Loudmouth, Faux 'news', Glenn at the Beck and call of rightwing radical fanatics et al notwithstanding . Outright lies and deliberate misinformation is what the brown shirts and Nazis used (as did Rove and Cheney , and like the sexist cult rhetoric of Scalia still employs.....
What we have here is incipient neo-fascist twisting of the meaning of democracy and tyranny,
The rightwing noise machine is inherently anti-democracy.
 
 
+4 # Don Rubin 2011-01-10 17:13
The comments I have read in response to your column simply prove your point. These folks just want things to return to the way things used to be, when certain "everyones" knew their place. A pathetic display of ignorance in the guise of intelligence.
 
 
+3 # J.T. Waldron 2011-01-10 17:31
Gabrielle Giffords Faced Opposition from Local Anti-War, 9/11 Truth Activists

This is how local antiwar activists in Tucson have viewed Gabrielle Giffords (and her political machine) in the past. We offer our condolences for those who have died, those who were injured, and their families who are left to deal with the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. The fact is there was a lot of opposition to Gifford's stance regarding the wars, torture and rendition, the patriot act and impeachment of the Bush administration. This opposition had no specific party affiliation.

http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-faced-opposition.html
 
 
+13 # geraldom 2011-01-10 18:00
I received the following info from a local friend here in Tucson, AZ:

----------------
January 10, 2011 02:10 PM EST

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church are picketing the funerals of those killed during the recent Arizona shootings in the outfit's latest heartless attempt to gain publicity and exposure.

Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, pledged that he and his anti-gay cohorts would be protesting the funerals in Arizona on Monday, according to a USA Today report. The church has spent most of its time in the limelight protesting the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a disgusting display, Phelps is seen in an online video touting the "marvelous work in Tucson," according to the USA Today report. Phelps believes the work is part of "God's vengeance" on America, and he prays for "more shooters ... more dead."

It's mind-blowing that people like these exist. To believe in God is one's right, certainly; but to believe the senseless deaths of others, the sons and daughters of people we all walk with on a daily basis, is in any way uplifting is sick and twisted.
----------------
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-11 16:26
I've been told--haven't confirmed it--that Phelps is supporting his 'church' through lawsuits directed at people he's outraged enough so that they take a swing at him or otherwise impinge on his right to be a repulsive slimeball.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2011-01-11 17:50
Quoting othermother:
I've been told--haven't confirmed it--that Phelps is supporting his 'church' through lawsuits directed at people he's outraged enough so that they take a swing at him or otherwise impinge on his right to be a repulsive slimeball.


Othermother, can't his victims simply claim temporary insanity and/or emotional stress? That's not unreasonable.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-13 02:46
Would that protect them in a civil suit?
 
 
-8 # Loren 2011-01-10 18:09
What's most disturbing is the right wingers who have come to comment that don't offer any solution to the myriad problems they cite. In fact, they make it seem as if this Jared L. character was merely doing what he was pushed to do by the "tyranny" of the health care legislation. *sigh*

This is just complete b.s.!
 
 
+4 # John of Perth 2011-01-10 19:38
Have we no humanity?

It looks like the USA has the same problems as Australia re the mentally ill. No we can’t spend money on idiots! Ignore them and they will go away. Lets not ensure that seriously delusional persons are cared for in a proper way. The cost to the community of a seriously walking in the street mentally ill person is huge, from fractured relationships, unnecessary disruptions to the family, local society and even murder is huge.

Support is needed for the circle of family and friends/acquitt ances who are affected by such persons. I am speaking from close observations of such a person.

Unfortunately the high level of individualism expressed by many in this blog suggests that the only satisfactory solution is to be armed so that one can repel with lethal force if needed, any unwanted attention form such a person.
 
 
+5 # TruthStandsOut 2011-01-10 20:02
Unfortunately, I would not choose for my loved ones the type of support our government wants to provide. And if the govt is paying, you are forced to do things their way.
When we take from government, we lose our freedom to choose.

Check out some of Dr. Abram Hoffer's writings(he was the head of the Canadian Psychiatric Assoc years ago)
 
 
+15 # ChrisG 2011-01-10 19:55
I've got three points:

1) Beware of anyone who uses the term, "wacko conspiracy theories". Where have we heard that before? (Hint: Bush and the mainstream media)

2) There's something suss about the EXTENT to which the media is emphasizing and promoting political hate around this incident. And there's something suss about the number of obvious shills who are doing the same in comments sections of news reports on the media. Sure, we could expect some politically divisive comments, but to this extent? Who benefits from having such a divided population? And why isn't the obvious point, that Loughner was paranoid schizophrenic, being given so little attention? I personally suspect that he was yet another victim of ssri drugs. See "ssri stories" on the internet.

3) I've had personal experience with someone whose mind deteriorated as a result of ssri drugs. (Yes, I'm convinced he would not have deteriorated to the extent he did if he had never used them.) People like that are very GULLIBLE and EASILY MANIPULATED.
 
 
-2 # Ld Elon 2011-01-10 23:19
Man cant help but dr3am.
 
 
+4 # Occams Razor 2011-01-10 23:38
What if this sequence of events led to these tragic events in Arizona.

A young, insecure, Jared Loughner volunteers for said congresswoman's election campaign is fall of 2010. A pseudo relationship develops that Jared PERCEIVES as romantic. Giffords gets elected and off to DC in a fancy jet and fancy clothes, abandoning Jared to Tucson for good. Finally, when she comes back to town, Jared wants to confront her publicly about their "relationship" at 10 am the Saturday morning of her public appearance. Jared waits in line only to see the good Judge push his way straight through the mass and delivers a "kiss" hello to Giffords. Jared becomes enraged, marches up to the front of the line, shoots the judge first, then her and continues to fire. He goes to reload, saving one for himself and deliver the final blow but is tackled and pinned by a brave crowd.

Just for a moment, suspend your conclusions and consider that a crime of passion (in his mind) could have taken place and politics had nothing to do with it.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-11 02:53
Thanks for suggesting the alternative possibility. Why did he bring the loaded pistol, then? Do you suggest that if there were limits on the possession/carr ying of handguns, unstable people would not be able to act so fatally on impulse?
 
 
0 # Occams Razor 2011-01-11 10:47
@ othermother

I dont have the answer to every possible question on this illegal event. I would guess that Jared brought a Glock 19 shooting 9mm ammo and at least two 33 round magazines because SOMEONE helped him buy the gun, premeditate the event leading up to causing panic and DROVE HIM TO THE EVENT. FIND the 50 year old subject of interest and all your answers will be uncovered. But please tell me what you dont understand about the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? When every citizen is armed, it is a peaceful society. Gun control ONLY gives criminals and outlaws an upper hand (and guns). This scenario would not have gotten this far (Jared probably would have LEFT) if other citizens open carried. As a matter of fact, an armed citizen, Joe Zamudio, was in the supermarket, heard the shots and DID NOT draw his arm BECAUSE Jared was already tackled by time he got to him. The answer to preventing these future events is not restricting guns but to get every law abiding citizen training and ownership of a gun they carry on their person at all times. Furthermore, police cannot STOP crime, but they can show up and make a report. Citizens can stop crime and make it run.
 
 
-1 # othermother 2011-01-11 16:23
If you've not seen the news, the suspected accomplice has been cleared; he's a taxi driver who drove Loughner to the mall and then went into the supermarket because the fare wasn't paid. You mention carrying weapons openly; AZ allows carrying concealed weapons. Loughner apparently acquired one when he reached the legal age to do so in AZ (21). You don't mention how your law would deal with people obviously unstable. Would you expect them to be identified in training? Do you think, if firearms training became an industry like driving schools, that there wouldn't be a way for the Jareds to be licensed if it was just a matter of keeping customers satisfied to keep the business profitable?
 
 
0 # Occams Razor 2011-01-11 22:37
The gun store/pistol range may have persons that have deeper connections then thought. Also, media wont clearly state that the Loughners and Giffords belonged to the same small synagogue. I think this fits all to well in my crime of passion scenario.
 
 
-1 # Occams Razor 2011-01-11 22:57
I've never proposed a law about guns. The constitution says it.
But what don't you understand about the simple words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Again, if every LAW ABIDING CITIZEN was armed at that event, this would have never happened. Criminals prey on the weak and weak minded. What your questions are suggesting follows the plot of "Minority Report". That somehow there is some secret code or clue or behavior that indicates that a person will do some crime in the future. Meyer-Briggs and similar tests of the like have never worked to predict crimes nor should we trust such gauges. Gun rights are not the issue. You're trying to solve an ancient problem: "crime" by removing a modern tool of protection. Jared could have mowed down the crowd with a car, could have used a crossbow, or sprayed them with gasoline. Why do you think making laws about guns will stop crime?
Does a 90 lb. woman have a fair fight with a 250 lb. man? No, never, but if the man thinks he might be shot/killed, civility will follow, it's the law of nature. Predators prey on the weak, docile and cripples of the herd, not the strong. Which one are you?
 
 
+2 # Linda R. 2011-01-12 14:43
At the time the Constitution was signed and the second amendment was written people used muskets not AK 47's or Gloc's . There is a big difference between the two . There is no reason for anyone to own an assualt rifle or hand gun. If it made us safer you wouldn't see this rise in murders . If this man was not able to attain a concealed assault weapon these people would be alive today and this congresswoman wouldn't be fighting for her life. One does not need assault rifles to hunt either a 12 gauge shot gun would be sufficient unless you don't want to see up close and personal the animal your killing.
 
 
-1 # Occams Razor 2011-01-12 23:28
Assault does not describe the item, it connotes a use. A knife can grammatically be an "ASSAULT KNIFE" or a car, an "ASSAULT CAR" if the user makes it so.
You have your history of firearms incorrect. The british colonists (soon to be Americans) had been creating muskets with RIFLED BORES and SIGHTS on those MUSKETS before 1750s. The RIFLES of the American REVOLUTION were the modern day equivalent of SNIPERS and ASSAULT RIFLES to the British smooth bore MUSKET. When British Regulars fired their guns, they did not AIM. They TURNED their heads to the side to avoid the smoke to shoot. But the Colonists aimed their guns and specifically hit OFFICERS. Accurate range of a regular's musket was 40-60 yards. Effective range of a rifle bored colonist musket was 200-300 yards. Here is a sample of the fear showed to the regulars:
(c. 1775) "two brothers took a piece of board, five inches broad and seven inches long, with a bit of white paper about the size of a dollar nailed in the center, and while one of them supported this board perpendicularly between his knees, the other at a distance of upwards of sixty yards and without any kind of a rest, shot eight bullets successively through the board, and spared his brother's thighs"
Civilians owned cannons too.
More rifle history at http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/longrifle.html
2A: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
 
 
+2 # othermother 2011-01-13 03:29
Thank you for the reading references, but I believe you're evading Linda R's point.
As for 'shall not be infringed', that's perfectly clear, but anyone who's grown up in the US knows that police departments can and do restrict gun licenses based on officers' judgment of the applicant. In the small New York community where I lived years ago, an acquaintance who was refused a license was told (by officers) that pregnant women couldn't get gun licenses because they couldn't be trusted to be rational gun owners. Asinine as this view may be, I don't believe lots of guns would keep the peace. Guns abound in the tribal cultures of Afghanistan, but it's hardly a peaceful place. Of course, there are not many 90-lb women packing heat there, but every family has firearms.
 
 
0 # Occams Razor 2011-01-13 11:49
Your examples are proof positive of how tyrannical local, state and federal governments have become. That pregnant woman should have gotten a civil rights attorney to defend her 2A right to bear arms.
Comparing 2010 Afghanistan or any ME country to 1700s America is an better comparison. Secondly, you ignore how rural living is targeted by criminals since "help" is far away.
As my history lesson demonstrated, America's not too distant past demonstrated the utilitarian and protective needs for multiple types of arms not just the ones LINDA R says are OK. Just because your local community is 100% crime free does not allow you to violate the constitution, the very same document that allows your comments here.
Switzerland is a better comparison of majority rifle ownership to America. Every adult citizen forming part of a militia (militias and reserve/nationa l guards are NOT the same. Members of a militia have NO legal ties to government. Now read 2A again understanding a militia is a collection of free people, not soldiers) is required by law to own and maintain a battle rifle.
But both of you are EVADING my point. Guns are not the only way to kill or maim others. Why don't you spend you time banning bad drivers or finding mentally ill folks that can kill without a license? Firearms are just CONVENIENT for you to label BAD and walk away.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-14 06:50
Since Swiss law requires adult male citizens to keep and maintain a battle rifle and also requires regular military training of these citizens, I fail to understand how this can be described as having no connection to government.

'Militia' has acquired a different set of references in the contemporary USA. I do not know whether the old term 'state militia' has been replaced in every case by 'National Guard', but 'militia' is now often associated with groups whose political agendas have subjected them to surveillance by federal agencies.

Firearms are not a 'convenience'. Friends who were assaulted by addicts have sometimes criticised me for not keeping a pistol in the house, but unless I am prepared to kill or disable someone with it, the chances that it would be taken away from me and stuffed down my throat are unacceptable. I'd rather keep a smart dog and mace the burglar or nut case, though that alternative too is outlawed in a number of states.

I quite agree about identifying people who are mentally unfit to carry arms and have commented elsewhere on RSN on that subject. Several public bodies--the college, the army and at least one Walmart clerk--identifi ed Loughner as a disturbed person, but this didn't quite get through to the point of sale.
 
 
0 # Occams Razor 2011-01-17 13:29
A few quotes from history to contextually the right to bear arms.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...an d include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

As per your question of militia vs military, GIs a property of the govt. while Militia is composed of freemen, free to leave.
 
 
0 # ewkeane 2011-01-15 20:52
if the shooter used a pistol with an effective cartrige then the carnage would have been worse.
if this shooter had a family that cared enough to keep him on a short leash then things might have been different.
bad parenting? part of the mix, along with tv sets and movies that glorify death and destruction.
By the way, the .223 cartrige was developed for varmant hunting (small game), and was adopted by unkle scam for use in the cheap and reliable ar-15 rifle.
 
 
-3 # lnason@umassd.edu 2011-01-11 08:59
The guy's favorite reading was The Communist Manifesto and The national socialist manifesto, Mein Kampf and both these documents provide rationale for physical violence to overthrow existing governments.

Were this guy motivated by political considerations (which I consider to be highly unlikely), it is more probable that he targeted a blue dog democrat because she was not progressive enough for his tastes.

There is no evidence that Loughlin was interested in, supportive of, or even heard of the conservatives who are currently being lambasted by the left for generating a climate of hate that "caused" the young man to go berserk.

Krugman and his ilk appear to be setting the stage for legislation restricting free political speech. Don't let us be stampeded by fear into such a loss of basic human rights.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+2 # CommonSense 2011-01-12 08:53
Lee is right. And we shouldn't need a refresher course in the basics of civility, but denying the obvious usually fails to make it go away.
Who here had nice parents and was brought up to be a good citizen, solving problems, not making them?
Two Wrongs don't make a Right
Count to 10 before Taking Action
Love They Neigbhor as Theyself
The Road to Hell is Paved with 'good' (or at least reactive) Intentions
Stupid is as Stupid Does.

Yes, the 2nd Estate (today's corp. media) is letting us down, to say the least. But that's no excuse for poor individual behavior, be it in the form of violence or gun-grabbing.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-14 07:04
Lee may be right, but he forgot to mention the Declaration of Independence, unless we naively imagine that 'dissolve the ties that bind...' [in that case, the colonies to England) was meant to eschew force. I'm not interested in restricting free speech, not even that of the repulsive Phelps. Inciting to riot or assassination, however, along with yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, needs to be distinguished from free political speech.
 
 
+1 # john smith 2011-01-11 09:37
occam is right

the shooters family and the reps family belong to the same small synagog

they knew each other
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-13 02:49
Where did you read this?
 
 
0 # Occams Razor 2011-01-13 12:09
See the motherjones article page 2
"Loughner's mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.**"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=2
Then a link to Ron Kampeas of JTA.org (a jewish news service) says the evidence does not indicate Amy Loughner jewish but adds "Loughner's family was in no way Jewish [observing?], nor was his mother -- but she might have mentioned her Jewish grandfather, beloved enough to live on in her brother's name, with pride or interest. Under those circumstances Loughner, who sought "chaos" according to Tierney, might have sought to provoke his mother and his uncle by pretending to admire (or actually admiring) Adolph Hitler. He might have told Tierney that his mother was Jewish as a shorthand, or might have seen her as Jewish -- like I said, not the most reliable reporter. Or he might have explained the lineage, and Tierney might understandably have conflated it as "mother Jewish." "
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-14 07:06
Thanks for the clarification of John Smith.
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-14 07:15
Thanks for the reference to the Mother Jones article. Loughner does seem to be manipulative.
 
 
0 # GravityWave 2011-01-11 09:57
Don’t kill the messenger. The fact is that *most* of the posts here that express conservative opinions demonstrate inadequate language skills, ignorance of formal rules of logic and semantics, and inadequate data. All this reflects sound bites being gulped without discernment. Books on language arts, logic, and semantics would greatly benefit your “discussion.” Ignorance is a neon sign. And when you are informed of these facts continually, and you do nothing to correct the situation, why would anyone extend to you a gracious kind of coddling you don’t deserve? We all suffer the repercussions of your lack of discernment.

None of us is safer than the drunkest driver, or the unvaccinated child, the person with no medical insurance, or the person with violent ideation who receives no help. Our wealth is no greater than the level of integrity of the accountants pushing bottom-line-fir st economics. Our freedom of speech is only as free as our monopolized media. Our government's rulings have the same integrity as our most lawless lobbyist and politicians. We are all as foolish as the child who can't learn because he is hungry, ill, or lacks people and language skills.
 
 
+4 # cbmc 2011-01-11 13:58
"Government is neither eloquence nor reason. It is force. And like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." G Washington.

OK guys, here's the deal. I see an incredible amount of energy being spent in a attempt to demonize one party or the other. The fact of the matter is that in the back rooms of congress there's only one party and you ain"t invited.
The tactic being used is at least as old as The Art of War. It's called divide and conquer and it's working fabulously as far as I can tell.
None of this is a left/right thing, it's a liberty/slavery thing. As long as you debate the left and right, guess where you end up in the liberty/slavery paradigm? Yep, chattel bait.
The only debate that requires addressing is whether or not it's moral for a service to be provided at the point of a gun.
The answer to that question will separate the wheat from the chaff and lead to a discussion of what liberty is and how it may be achieved.
 
 
+4 # jefffillmore 2011-01-11 14:03
Not surprised. I'm just wondering when it's going to start happening to republicans.
 
 
+1 # BobbyRne 2011-01-11 18:07
A debate between informed parties can be enlightening and entertaining.

A debate between mis- or uninformed parties is entertaining in that statements are made which are so beyond the pale as to be laughable.

There are people posting here who would argue that deaths pursuant to their yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater was the result of the decedents being too slow.

Gimmeabreak.
 
 
+1 # EventheLemmingKnows 2011-01-12 08:56
Don't be stampeded by hysteria into losing your forebearer's hard won rights.
 
 
+1 # othermother 2011-01-13 03:11
It's heartening to learn of Tucson citizens who plan to line the route of the funeral procession silently to protect Christina's family from the sight of disgusting signs.
 
 
+1 # V 2011-01-14 11:55
Clearly, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the importance of Tucson is that it has put a light on the elephant in the room; the desire of a determined ultra right wing faction that has chelated itself onto more moderate Republican elements to violently overthrow the government of the United States. Just replay Congressman Brown's (R-GA) remarks about the "tyranny" of the government a couple of days ago. We're not talking about a straight line from little Miss Green and crazy Jared what's his name drawn by Sarah Palin. We're not talking about a citizen's civil rights to own guns or the rights of sportsmen or those of people who want to defend their homes...we're talking about armed revolution. Tucson should be the canary in the coal mine and we should get the hell out of the hole before it blows. That means we need to wake up and act now. This thing can get out of control."

We've all heard "pundints" [sic], friends and acquaintances calmly parrot the statement that the Tucson shooting had nothing to do with anything. Neville Chamberlain is an archetype and we seem determined to rehydrate it like children who believe that the blanket will protect them against the monster in the room.
 
 
0 # antifa 2011-01-16 13:20
maybe.....
 
 
+1 # no2ndhander 2011-01-14 12:20
God I love to read these comments. Absolute proof that the American people are just plain stupid. Heads in the sand, too concerned about reality TV and celeb hero worship to see the truth. Your vote means nothing. You mean nothing. Human life means nothing. The only thing that matters is Power, which is in the hands of the ultra rich who in fact make up the majority of our elected officials. Kinda like inbreeding... Do you really think our government cares about anyone when our own president has the power to order the killing of US citizens? Man is evil and absolute power leads to absolute evil. This is nothing compared to what's coming...
 
 
0 # othermother 2011-01-14 18:50
no2ndhander - if you spend too much time enjoying the sight of stupidity, you won't have enough time to watch your back. Some of the stupid disagree with you and think elected officials are just employees of the ultra rich. I'm a stupid of a different stripe, since I don't believe Rep. Giffords falls into either category.

I do not require the government to "care"; it cannot be my mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter--or my keeper, either--but I do want it to work. And if I spent my life watching reality t.v. I wouldn't be writing here.

You are entirely too proud of being a prophet of doom.
 
 
0 # Jordan Philip Perris 2016-10-18 13:08
My how to guide for world peace: http://jpperris.blog.com/2016/10/05/hello-world/
 
 
0 # Jordan Philip Perris 2016-10-18 13:09
jpperris@yahoo.ca
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN