Sorry. The accusations were dead wrong. The accusations were premature, absurd and exactly what the left has been saying that does not need to happen. More so, they were so damn wrong, it looks like the most likely subjects of blame, albeit indirect by way of NOT doing their jobs, is the Pima County Sherrif's department, surprise surprise that's one of the folks hurling the absurd accusations.

Want to bitch, stop bitching at the people who were accused of causing a murder they had nothing to do with. Blame the people who caused the shit storm in the first place, not the ones who had the temerity to defend themselves a week after the monkey shit started getting thrown.

Pot, giant steam locomotive....black.

(Reply) (Thread)

Sorry, but "they started it" doesn't cut it for third-graders, and it isn't a justification for two opinion leaders on the right, and a third (Buchanan isn't the force he used to be) who still gets national TV airtime. "They accused us of murder, so we'll accuse them of genocide" is not a productive direction for political discourse.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Who exactly is being accused of genocide by whom?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The Washington Times named Paul Krugman as part of the "ongoing pogrom." Palin and Buchanan were more vague, accusing "the left" of blood libels and lynch mobs.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So, as you accused, the conservatives have NOT accused the liberals of genocide have they? Instead, they're accusing the Liberals of slander. Which is ACCURATE.

So, what we have here, is yet another example of:

Liberals (politicians, media types, pundits) accusing conservatives of being responsible for a mass murder incident, which it is patently clear they were NOT responsible for. This is ok.

And conservatives getting angry about that and defending themselves and that is apparently offensive to people like you. This is apparently NOT ok.

Lets ignore that the Liberals were dancing in the blood of the dead. Lets ignore that they were dead wrong on their accusations. Instead, lets focus on those contemptible conservatives DARE to defend themselves against a broad smear campaign of libel and slander.

Oh and while they're at it, they make a call for civil discourse and at the same time suspension of free speech principles so the horrid conservatives can be muzzled and gagged.

This isn't about 'tit for tat'. This is about an aggrieved party being told they don't have the right or privilege of defending themselves against unfounded and baseless accusations. That's the height of bullshit.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Blood Libel" is not a mere slander. A "pogrom" is not slander. A "lynching" is not slander. Palin, Buchanan and the Washington Times are describing what they claim is being done to them as mass murder.

Lets ignore that the Liberals were dancing in the blood of the dead.

This is a stellar example of "our side's wild hyperbole is wholly justified, while their side's wild hyperbole is a crime against humanity" bullshit that I'm talking about. If that's the "conversation" you're interested in having, I see no point in continuing any further.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Blood Libel - The accusation that X party is responsible for deaths that they are in fact utterly NOT responsible for. This is an accurate term.

This is a stellar example of "our side's wild hyperbole is wholly justified, while their side's wild hyperbole is a crime against humanity"

Really? The media uses hyperbole and mistruths all the time. Want me to dig out the fabrications, lies and outright falsehoods surrounding this shooting and high capacity magazines? NPR fronted a American Hunters and Shooters Association flak as a Pro Gun blogger, among other things. The word they're REALLY looking for in this case is Deodand and not "ban" but they just don't see it.

Then we can look at how headlines are characterized. "BLOOD BATH and election results is a perfect example. I can dig out others. Do I REALLY need to dig up examples? Hell, just last week when one of the talking heads on CNN was talking about how we need to have more civil discourse, he in turned described the Republicans as having gone to Battle stations or some such.

Similes and hyperbole are a damn sight different than direct and slanderous accusations and you damn well know it.

"The Falcons got killed last night!"
vs
"_You_ are responsible for these deaths."

One is a turn of phrase. The other is a direct accusation and slander or libel depending on the format. Again, it's clear. When the Democrats slander it's fine. We conservative retort with a polemic hyperbole, it's wrong and everyone needs to settle down. That's a double standard beyond belief Andy.

As I said before Pot, Steam Locomotive, Black. (Watch, you'll probably accuse me of being racist for trying to bring black/white race politics into the discussion).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This is a stellar example of "our side's wild hyperbole is wholly justified, while their side's wild hyperbole is a crime against humanity" bullshit that I'm talking about. If that's the "conversation" you're interested in having, I see no point in continuing any further.

Ok, fine. I'll bite.

How would YOU describe the massive pile-on that accused Palin of being directly responsible for the murders while at the same time painting the gun owners as also responsible? MANY People in the Media and on the left were using the deaths to make political points, not even days after the incident. How would you characterize it?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Blood Libel - The accusation that X party is responsible for deaths that they are in fact utterly NOT responsible for. This is an accurate term.

The blood libel, as the term is most widely used and understood, is the claim that Jews murder Christian children for ritual purposes. It was the pretense for thousands of pogroms and lynchings over a few centuries. Sure, you can engange in reductionist redefinition of the term, but do not be surprised when few people go along for the ride.

One definition of a holocaust, the prevailing definition before the mid-1940s, is simply a firestorm. If you described an election result as a "holocaust," you shouldn't be surprised if most people think you're comparing it to the Nazis' crimes.

How would YOU describe the massive pile-on that accused Palin of being directly responsible for the murders while at the same time painting the gun owners as also responsible?

I would describe it as fictional. Show me one pundit of any significance who accused Palin of being directly responsible. I'm leaving out the blogs and message boards, because on Daily Kos or Free Republic you can find calls for the death of just about anyone on any given day.

Before the shooting, Giffords herself had commented on the infamous crosshairs graphic. It would be a glaring omission not to mention it in covering the shooting. Some media outlets, particularly the New York Times, overreached in tryint to divine the shooters' motives. But there was no "massive pile-on," and I have not seen anyone in a position of authority claim that Palin was directly responsible.

The cycle we have here is that some on the left made an irresponsible claim, but not a direct accusation. Pundits on the right wildly overreacted, and when criticized for the overreaction, dug in their heels and cranked it up to eleven. They have turned the narrative around to one in which they are the victims of a far greater crime than befell Gabrielle Giffords.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I would describe it as fictional. Show me one pundit of any significance who accused Palin of being directly responsible. I'm leaving out the blogs and message boards, because on Daily Kos or Free Republic you can find calls for the death of just about anyone on any given day.


This was only repeated and aired by the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, the Democratic Underground, and originated from nearly a dozen Democrat Senators and Representatives. What was Senator Dick Durbin speaking of when he doesn't like the cross hairs on Palin's site and draws a connection there but ignores the Democratic Leadership Council site? He's not some no-name pundit/blogger.

Before the shooting, Giffords herself had commented on the infamous crosshairs graphic. It would be a glaring omission not to mention it in covering the shooting.

Ok. And the Target Symbols that are STILL on a Democatic Leadership Council Website which dates back to 2004? What of those? Why aren't those mentioned? Why are those still there? Today?

Or the map which appeared on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's site with target symbols on Republican districts? What of those?

What about the target list that the Daily Kos put on Gifford's herself? Is that ok too?

Why the fixation with Palin? It's a smear campaign. In one moment they're calling for toning down the rhetoric. In the next they're accusing people (Palin, Beck, etc) of culpability in a mass murder.

The cycle we have here is that some on the left made an irresponsible claim, but not a direct accusation. Pundits on the right wildly overreacted, and when criticized for the overreaction, dug in their heels and cranked it up to eleven. They have turned the narrative around to one in which they are the victims of a far greater crime than befell Gabrielle Giffords.


No. The left made a slanderous accusations and the media ate it up with rampant speculation as to a Palin/Tea Party Link and trumpted it wide and far. "Palin was responsible", that was the message, that was the Narrative. They continued even though the facts didn't fit the narrative. You know, "fake, but accurate."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You were saying about crosshairs/target terminology and holocaust references?

As I said, it's only a problem when conservatives do it or defend themselves.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And the "Mainstream Media" has been completely silent, except for ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, USA Today and Comedy Central.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)