ABC World News Reports Threat at its Tucson Town Hall, Omits it Was Made to a Tea Partier

Trolls

Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 5:49pm.

Like so many other things in America today, they just don't make 'em like they use ta.

-Dave

• Login to post comments

This is why steroids and trolls do not mix

Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 6:41pm.

That was freakin' intense.

• Login to post comments

Relying in Christiane

Submitted by Cowboy on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:01pm.

Relying in Christiane Amanpour for news is like relying on Hostess for a balanced diet.

• Login to post comments

Well at least Dee managed to

Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:17pm.

Well at least Dee managed to stir up this place on a slow Sunday.

Jer

• Login to post comments

~For my fellow eeeeeeeeeevil

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 7:21pm.

right-wingers.

:-p

• Login to post comments

She's not too bright either

Submitted by Rukus on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 8:11pm.

Considering her apparent calling in life.

And doesn't her bio say she is a natural born American? According to her Netroots speaker intro she was a migrant worker.

She is so busy blogging to herself she doesn't have time to leave a comment on her Organizing for American page.

• Login to post comments

Hey Dee, do you by chance know a guy named Eugene?

Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 9:00pm.

I figured you two might have run into each other at a La Raza BBQ or something.

-Dave

• Login to post comments

Well, that was fun.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 01/16/2011 - 9:01pm.

Kinda like being visited by an extraterrestrial, but with plenty of witnesses.

I'm just thankful I wasn't sucked up into the mothership for an exploratory.

• Login to post comments

What isn't being covered....

Submitted by farstar99 on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:03am.

"Mr. Fuller was also involved in a confrontation on Jan. 8, shortly before the attack on Ms. Giffords, which occurred at an event she held for her constituents outside a Safeway supermarket. He said in a long interview last week with The New York Times that he had argued there with a man he described as a former Marine after a heated discussion over politics. Gabriel Zimmerman, an aide to Ms. Giffords, separated the two." "Mr. Fuller spoke dismissively of Republicans during the interview. “They appeal to simple-minded rednecks,” he said." In the interview, he repeatedly denounced the “Tea Party crime syndicate.” Oh yeah, he sounds real stable. That "enacting social justice through hypnosis and visualization" sounds rational, too. He was just understandably upset, right?

• Login to post comments

One chance for Dee...

Submitted by PlatZ on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 4:31pm.

Dee:

 

I am probably wasting my time, but it is mine to waste, isn’t it?  I will try this exactly once.  Because I believe in civil discourse, I will be as civil as possible.  I am only commenting at all because you have, several times, thrown a number of insults at me (indirectly) and people like me.

 

I am not doing this in any particular order, so please bear with me.  Please do not bother responding UNLESS you intend to actually reply to the points I make, which is something that you have not done for anyone else here.  Please do not bother with throwing any insults at me.  You have done enough of that already.

 

1.  It is rarely the case that laws should be changed in the heat of the moment.  While specific tragedies and incidents should make us consider if laws should be changed, they almost universally should not be changed in the heat of the moment, and this case would make a poster-boy example of that.  Of all the things listed, I’d say that the area best-suited to investigation is if something that should done about mental illness questions.  On the other hand, most issues with purchase of a firearm already cover mental illness and criminal history.  With that, it begs the question if the firearm in question was even legally acquired, which is not a function of magazine size, or amount of ammunition on hand.  In either case, the heat of the moment is not the time to change the law.  Very few laws written in the heat of the moment have been good laws.  (A number of laws written with calm deliberation have been tragically poorly written or conceived, but nearly all laws written in the heat of the moment have been.)  As to lawful weapons and amount of ammunition, absolutely nothing in this incident talks to those issues.  (Indeed, there are no magazines for any legal handgun that would not be filled, often more than once, by a single box of ammunition.  Most boxes of handgun ammunition come in 50-100 count boxes, sometimes 25.  The greatest exception to this being safety slugs, which are such specialized rounds that they can demand a substantial price for just 5.)

 

2.  Humphries certainly led marches at Giffords’ OFFICES.  That is indisputable, and there is not REASON to dispute it or worry about what it means.  The right to peacefully assemble and protest is Constitutionally protected.  Further, this protest was held openly, in public, and even on public land.  That is vastly different from numerous cases of trespassing and picketing people’s houses, the SEIU actually BREAKING IN to harass and threaten people, or other such events, which have happened on the left.  (SEIU home invasions, Cindy Sheehan on MANY occasions, etc.)

 

Examples:  http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/

http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2010/05/20/seiu-storms-private-residence-terrorizes-teenage-son-of-bank-of-america-exec/

http://sirknob.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/dc-md-police-sanction-seiu-home-invasion-tactics/

 

There is no dispute or debate of these actions, the violence of their nature, the perpetrators, or even their illegality.  It is a matter, instead, if he powers that be actually want to enforce the laws.  So, for the record:  Humphries = peaceful protest, but SEIU = violent invasion.

 

3.  I do not know if the TEA Party protests were daily or not.  It literally does not matter either way.  Peaceful protest is protected, and if these protests were NOT peaceful, then there is no way they would have been allowed.  Since peaceful protest is legal, then it doesn’t matter if they only happened once, or if they happened twice a day.

 

4.  I am waiting for examples of the “Hate Filled messages”.  I followed your linked photo numerous times and none of those come close to qualifying as such.  Personally, I will gladly repudiate ANY hate-filled TEA Party signs, but I have never seen any.  I have seen pictures of a few objectionable signs at TEA Party events, however those have universally been proven later to be liberal group plants attempting to crash, and they were ALL run off by the TEA Partiers.  It is so much the MSM opinion of violent, hate-filled, racist TEA Party gatherings that a UCLA grad student actually started attending them as a research study.  She took pictures of EVERY sign at every gathering she attended.  What she discovered was that the common media presentation of the TEA party was essentially wrong in every detail.  So, again, I say, show me ANY example of a hate-filled TEA Party sign, and I will repudiate it.  In the light of nearly a decade of violent rhetoric and hate-filled messages and signs in anti-Bush protests, the TEA Party is positively tame.

 

5.  While you have failed to provide any evidence for claims of “Hate Filled messages” from the TEA Party protests, you have ignored the links repeatedly provided by comments here where liberal protesters have openly called for the murder of various conservatives, including repeatedly calling for killing Bush WHILE he was President and hanging effigies of various individuals.  All the links are there, but you have not answered to any single one of them.  We openly and eagerly repudiate any violent and hate-filled messages from the TEA Party.  The TEA Party is so self-monitoring on such that they repudiate those messages BEFORE you hear about them.  At the same time, you are strangely silent about liberal messages that are not just hate-filled, but openly violent and CALL for violence.  That sort of double-standard does not serve you well in an attempt to convince anyone that isn’t already in complete agreement with you.

 

6.  You follow several logical fallacies in your comment about the vandalism at Giffords’ campaign headquarters and Humphries comment.  While you did not say such, the way you tied the two together suggests a belief that the TEA Party was responsible for the vandalism and Humphries comments were somehow in justification for that AND future warning.  What I have observed is that when it comes to vandalizing homes or campaign offices, the vast majority of events on all sides of the political spectrum were one liberal group or another vandalizing/breaking into the homes or offices of candidates of various parties. (One of the ways we know this is a little police technique called “guilty knowledge”.  Especially in the case of attacks on campaign offices of Republicans, the perpetrators frequently come away with some information or other that is only privately known in that office and not available to the public.  Shortly after the break-in, however, the opposing liberal, usually Democrat, campaign often starts actually USING some of that information.) There are some inside conservative jobs, usually attempting to sway public opinion.  At the same time, nearly all the incidents against liberals (that we have any way of knowing the perpetrators) were either inside jobs for public opinion or performed by groups even MORE liberal.  That said, there are also a few legitimate cases of conservatives trashing liberal offices.  Without exception, I openly repudiate EACH and EVERY incident of political vandalism or breaking into campaign offices no matter WHO the perpetrators are or their reasons.

 

7.  As to Humphries’ comment, there is nothing inflammatory, in itself, about his comment, especially in whole.  Interestingly, it is nearly impossible to find anything of this comment other than the part you quoted.  Granted, the given quotes frequently give even less than you do.  At the same time, the context you give clearly exonerates Humphries from any violent motive, intent, or responsibility.  Humphries is talking about a political competition, talks about the nature of the competitors, and in that context uses the phrase that the competition “is toast”.  If you find this inflammatory, violent, or over-the-top, you have NEVER played OR watched any competitive sport.  Further, you have not paid any attention to the comments from any political contest in history.  It is typical in almost any competition I have seen or to which I have been a party (including some board games and even a chess match or two) to say that the competition is toast, or even that you are going to ‘kill’ the competitor.  Humphries, here, is saying that the competition is toast because of the nature of the stiff competition that competitor faces.  That is less violent or over-the-top than most basketball, football, or soccer games to which I have been party. Once separated from the implication that there is somehow a direct connection to the vandalism, there is nothing wrong with this.  It hardly ticks on the objectionable meter even in the light of the break-in.

 

8,  While it may be in bad taste to point out the hole in the security/threat environment that was being discussed around this event, his point is more than just a good point.  Then again, it may not have been in bad taste.  It is also not a blanket attack or condemnation of Giffords.  Indeed, it is mostly a blanket condemnation of the sheriff and Giffords’ security people.  Or else it is a condemnation of the coverage of this matter.  As has been pointed out, there are only two real possibilities.  Either an environment of threat did exist and the people responsible for Giffords’ security were grossly negligent, or an environment of threat did not exist and that lie has been trumped up to place false accusations.  Humphries was completely right, and it is not blaming Giffords, unless she was apprised of both an environment of threat AND the lack of security and did nothing about that while attending the event.  He does not say that, nor does he imply that.  He pointed out the extremely logical conclusion that something does not fit.  I wish I could ask some questions of Giffords, the sheriff, and her security staff about their ‘environment of threat’ and the level of security there. 

 

9.  The left has had numerous cult leaders.  Frankly, one of them is in the White House right now, and some others tried to get there.  Indeed, there is no definition of ‘cult leader’ that you can apply to Palin that cannot be applied to Gore or Obama, unless that definition specifically includes political leanings or philosophy.

 

10.  Now I wish to talk about the Palin target map. There are numerous comments and issues about this.  That leaves a lot to address.  I will try to do that as clearly and concisely as I can.

 

a.  First, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, the map is OLD.  This isn’t a map that was released in December 2010 or January 2011.  This is over a year old.  If this map were to be the trigger to ANY violence, it would have happened long before this shooting.  Further, if this map was the cause for this, or any, violence, then there should have been 17 shootings, not one.

b.  Not only is there no evidence that the shooter saw this map, there is no objective reason to believe that he ever saw the map.

c.  The map does not put a crosshairs over anyone’s head.  Indeed, there are no heads on the map.  There is a list of names of people in vulnerable political positions.  Any they targeted?  Yes, for defeat in a political election.

d,  There ARE no crosshairs on this map.  The subject has been discussed by several people in various industries here.  The listed symbols are frequently used by surveyors and some drafting concerns to mark points of interest.  From this professional background, they are not used in a violent nature.  It is not a gun crosshairs.  It is a surveyor’s symbol.  That cannot be said any more clearly.

e,  I have viewed and reviewed literally hundreds of scopes and crosshairs (reticules, to be more technical).  Further, I have spent hours since this incident searching for this ‘crosshairs’.  There is no gun scope or crosshairs (reticule) that has this specific appearance.  It does not exist.

f.  There is, of course, the question of intents.  Lacking further evidence, one can only conclude that the people that made the map and are denying any intent as a gun target are telling the truth that it was never the intent.  Outside the proclamations of people with an obvious agenda, there is no reason, at present, to doubt this conclusion.

g.  In pushing this item, you have repeatedly failed to address the question of the Democrat’s use of this map (among others).  http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/democratic-leadership-council-had-target-map-in-2004/ Further, there is the matter that this map far pre-dates the Palin map.  There is also the assertion by a Democrat Party strategist that he created the target map.  (Not THIS target map in specific, but rather the whole concept of a target map in total.)

h.  Conclusion:  The claim that this map was anything except pointing out what districts were potentially vulnerable to active campaigning and voting efforts is spurious at best and slanderous at worst.

 

11.  Your comments about far right angry and violent rhetoric outweighing anything the left has done falls apart in the light of other links presented here, including:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49Q79N20081027and http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621and http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2008/02/mitt-drops-out-mccain-is-gops-2008.htmland http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/(that one is a major compilation).  That is just to name a few, including one of the specific images that you have posted on your own blog.  You have not presented anything even a tenth as bad as most of these in your campaign to present the worst of the worst from TEA Party and ‘far right’ hate.  So again, the challenge lays for you to present something that significantly changes that, and make sure that it is confirmed TEA Party as TEA Partiers have often had to chase out fakes with hateful, and occasionally violent, signs.

 

12.  Denials?   Caring?  Apparently more needs to be said here, including some repetitions of what I have already said. Trying to respond to you gives more challenges because you have bounced all over the place, repeatedly.

 

a.  I do not deny that Palin targeted Giffords for POLITICAL defeat.  I do deny that Palin put a target ON Giffords or over her name.  Those are two distinctly different things.  What Palin did was not violent in nature.  It was creating a list of people vulnerable to being voted out of office.

b.  I would deny that the TEA Party mobbed Giffords’ office.  If the protests around Giffords’ office had been violent or mob-like, it would have been news on every channel, around the clock, for the entire year.  There is a vast difference between a peaceful protest, including picketing and even chanting, and an unruly mob.  Indeed, after lengthy searching, I found absolutely nothing approaching an unruly mob protesting at Giffords’ office or in any OTHER TEA Party protest.  Even the videos that you linked on your own blog as proof of a mob clearly showed a peaceful protest, not a mob.  Further, their presented definition of the ‘nuclear options’ was to vote the offending parties out of office, not anything violent.  So yes, I categorically deny that the TEA Party has been violently mobbing Giffords or anyone else.

c.  Again about his chastising Giffords after being shot, there are many ways of taking the comment that are not attacks against Giffords.  It just seems that you are interested in putting the worst possible interpretation upon it.  When Giffords is on record saying she was NOT worried, afraid or feeling threatened, his comment enhances that further.  It then becomes more of a criticism of the claims about a climate of threat, etc than the thought of criticizing Giffords for her lack of security.  Besides, the lack of security is a matter for the sheriff and Giffords’ security people, not Giffords herself.

d.  As to despicable actions by TEA Party, etc, I’m still waiting for any evidence of such despicable acts about which to reply.

e.  I care about Loughner shooting people.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that the TEA Party or any right wing individuals OR groups had anything to do with that shooting.  By pressing such fictions, you only hurt your own arguments.

f.  Since you are misinformed, at best, about mobs, it isn’t a question of caring.  There were no mobs there about which to care.

 

13.  Certainly, the various TEA Party leaders, conservative politicians, and talk radio hosts have spent time criticizing the President, his policies, and his political goals.  They aren’t violent in the process, nor do they promote violence.  Many of them openly and repeatedly talk out against violence.  They do not incite violence, they condemn violence.

 

 

Just to close, for now.

 

I do not hate or fear the President.  It could not matter less to me if you seem him as white, black, mulatto, etc.  I really don’t care his ethnic background.  I care about his national origin, because it is a Constitutional issue.  Personally, I do believe that he qualifies as a natural-born citizen.  I believe this for my own reason.  At the same time, what is abundantly clear from hundreds of hours of study and research is that that qualification has not been conclusively proven.  Indeed, the evidence given would not be sufficient even for a civil trial.  That really isn’t the matter at this point.  I don’t hate him. Don’t start calling me a racist, either.  The vast majority of my business customers are of a different ethnic background than me, and I don’t care.  It doesn’t matter.  They are people.  They are customers.  Nothing else matters.

 

I am, however, critical of the President.  Nearly all of his policies and goals are contrary to what I believe is good for the country.  Indeed, the only bit of legislation that he has signed that I am completely behind and completely agree was an amendment to a bill that I otherwise completely opposed.  It is possible that the amendment was added partly as a poison pill to the bill.  Everything I know about the President and have read about the amendment in question make it clear to me that if the amendment had been a standalone bill, he would a vetoed.  I do not, however, have the time to research everything that the president has done, so I cannot speak to absolutely every possibility or action of his.  The ones that I know, however, have not been promising.

We spent years being told that dissent was patriotic, that criticism of the President or his policies was the height of being a good American.  Now, being in any way critical of the President or his policies, for any reason, is being called racism.  See the difference?

This is a very small list, and only a very small list.  I could also mention the DailyKOS comment about how Giffords was 'dead' to the poster.  Not all the violence comes from any one political group, but most of it does come from the left, a conclusion that the data does support.

 

One last note:  You have made a lot of complaints about ad hominem attacks against you.  It really makes me think that you do not know what that really means.  Ad hominem or ‘attacking the man’ is a logical fallacy that by attacking someone’s character or person, you somehow disprove their argument.  It is the notion that any accusation against an opponent, true or false, invalidates their argument.  It is, in essence, attacking the person’s character as a basis to invalidate their argument.  What most people around here have done in regards to you, Dee, is to completely invalidate your arguments, and use that as a springboard to criticize you.  There is a significant difference there, not that I think you will accept that.

• Login to post comments