Is Arizona the nation's capital for hate, anger, rhetoric and vitriol?

[H D]

So, Obama saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" was reckless and irresponsible, right? Why is it so easy for people to bash a woman who has zero accountability to the public, but ignore the words of the POTUS? He's the freaking leader of the free world and he SAID this. He's not a former governor of a state that doesn't matter that spends her time hunting and filming reality shows but happened to use surveyor's symbols that have an ambiguous creation/symbolism. He's the President and he SAID he was going to bring a gun to fight Republicans when they pull out a knife. He also promised a changed culture in Washington. Liar, liar.



All I want, for the first time ever, is to see it written by a non-conservative that "Obama was wrong." Somebody humor me here.

 

[Johnny O]

The thing is, a lot of people (mostly Liberals) are trying to assign logic to an individual for whom there is no logic in attempt to get a political gain. Dude didn't have a political agenda, he's just a nutty paranoid schizophrenic.

 

[H D]

Obama found a way to attach a political theme with a new slogan and tax payer funded "free" t-shirts at the memorial service. What an opportunity he must feel he's been handed. :sad:

 

[H D]

He also undercut the federal charges against this man...

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I agree that no politician should use those kinds of symbols or references to violence and the use of weapons to solve issues. Using cross-hairs on a map is not as suggestive as if she had put the cross-hairs on photos of the candidates.



I certainly don't think Sarah Palin is Presidential material primarily because she tends to "Shoot from the Lip", however I don't think her statements or the use of cross-hairs on a map to target certain congressional districts instigated this attack in Arizona. In fact, we don't even know if the shooter even seen Palin's map and cross-hairs, or heard her speach where she said "Don't Retreat, Reload", but it appears that all of Palins political critics have jumped to that conclusion.



My point is that people always jump to the conclusion that these nuts would not have done these terrible deeds had it not been for some kind of vague symbolism of violence that triggered their violence. Immediately everybody wants to blame something, or someone else for the actions of a deranged person?



I think Palin used poor judgement in using cross-hairs on her map, and for her "Reload" comments. And it will probably hurt her credibility as candidate for any political office, but I do not believe it was "Wreckless" as you feel it was.



...Rich

 

[H D]

The same kind of excuse making is what gets many murderers and felons through our court systems every year. If there is a way to build a defense for the person, passing the blame to something in the past of the accused that could have had a negative impact on them, then its really not their fault.



Society is always to blame. Never mind the fact that everybody is exposed to the same stimuli daily. A child rapist isn't to blame because his father molested him, even though every molested kid doesn't grow up to be a rapist. We've all seen a violent movie, but a fraction of a percent actually mimic the gore.



I blame one person for this tragedy.

 

[TrainTrac]

I blame one person for this tragedy.

Indeed. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but in a note she posted to her Facebook page yesterday regarding the AZ tragedy and media backlash against her and other conservatives, one paragraph in particular stood out to me:

President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a laws broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The full note can be read here: <A HREF="http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=487510653434">American's Enduring Strength</A>



Or, you can view it here:

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/18698532" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/18698532">Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength"</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user5713437">Sarah Palin</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

 

[Bill Koonce]

I don't see Palin taking any personal responsibility for her official misconduct while Alaska Governor, trash talking, racism, blaming "the media" for her gaffes etc. etc. etc.



After people like Sharron Angle have incited others, There's a lot of blame to go around. Sure it's convenient to make a scapegoat out of a person who doesn't appear to have the mental capacity to understand reality. But it's not justice.

 

[H D]

...official misconduct while Alaska Governor, trash talking, racism, blaming "the media" for her gaffes etc. etc. etc.

None of those describe official misconduct. Maybe its things you don't like (if it even exists anywhere but your mind), but they're definitely not against any code of conduct. Civil servants are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not say things that 100% of the population likes. I could apply "trash talking, racism, and blaming the media" to Obama; so, if its official misconduct, we should proceed with an impeachment trial.



The poor shooter never stood a chance in this unjust, violent world where scary housewives make vaguely suggestive PowerPoint presentations that could incite nothing less than vigilante style homicide. He must have felt alone knowing that nobody else around him saw the call to arms as he did. Now the poor guy is facing charges for something he had ZERO control over. Give me a break.



Be sure we know who is being used as a scapegoat. Hint: they've been mentioned, but it's not the murderer.

 

[WILL E]

I live in AZ. We are not the Capital for hate, anger, rhetoric and virtriol. And certainly not because one nut case shot a bunch of people.



We were a bunch of racists when a MLK holiday was narrowly voted down (and there were two on the ballot which added to the defeat due to the confusion) but after we voted one in we no longer were. (amazing what a day makes). It should be noted that AZ is one of the few, if not only, states that voted in a MLK holiday. I am not trying to turn this into an MLK debate. My point is the single act of voting in a holiday did not turn us all from racists to non-racists and the act of this single gun man doesn't make us the captial of hate etc.



I would also note that Sarah doesn't hold any public office so she is not an official using cross-hairs. And we all know about the DCCC using bulls eyes on their web page and 'targeting' specific congressmen right?



There is no doubt that the media doesn't view the left's violent imagery the same. Who can forget the images of Bush being hung and what about the MOVIE about assasinating Bush?



There are going to be wack jobs. The wack jobs may find affiliation with some group of people. I don't think it is fair to say that they are more drawn to one political leaning or another.



One thing is for sure. We cannot allow free speech to be limited. Cross-hairs, bulls-eyes, retreat and reload, 'bush lied people died' are all protected. Obviously there are limits, calling for the killing of someone is illegal.



I wouldn't mind seeing our elected officials tone it down some with the rhetoric. I don't think President Obama saying 'they bring a knife we bring a gun' is going to make someone actually bring a gun but I am getting tired of the same old talking points (many of which are just flat out lies)

 

[H D]

+1 Will

 

[ShelbyChip Melton]

+2 Will

 

[Bill V]

There is no doubt that the media doesn't view the left's violent imagery the same.

I'm not so sure of that.



First of all, I don't think it's fair to say that it was "the Left" or "the liberal media" who made the entire issue of Palin's use of crosshairs an issue. The first time I ever heard about it wasn't when someone on "the Left" or "the media" brought it up, but when Palin and "the conservative media" started screaming 'unfair' about it. THAT'S what made it part of the current national conversation. I still haven't seen any of the so-called "liberal media" allegations that it was Palin's crosshairs who drove this guy to shoot. At best, Palin et al blew it out of proportion so they could play the role of 'victim'. At worst, if I really wanted to be cynical, it almost feels like they could have even fabricated the original allegations just so they could respond to it in the victim role. Either way, it's a drastic overreaction on their part.



Even if there was, legitimately, some media member making links between Palin's crosshairs and this shooter--thanks to modern technology, it feels like there are more "media members" in this country these days than there people. To blame all of "the liberal media" for creating a tie between Palin's crosshairs and the Arizona shooter, when it was actually the action of just a small number of people in the media, is about as ludicrous and irresponsible as blaming all conservatives for the shooting itself.

 

[WILL E]

The ultra left reported the cross-hairs.



The regular media reported what the ultra left was saying.

 

[Les]

Bill V, sounds like you missed the first 24hrs. of "reporting" following the incident. Apparently you only heard the response, not the accusation.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

It's funny this whole "crosshairs" thing is still in the news. It's funny that Palin is still backpeddling.



The way I see it is bad taste is bad taste, and fueling the rhetoric with things like crosshairs, and comments like "Don't retreat...reload!", is simply, in a word or two: uncivilized and reckless.



I've been a Palin supporter in the past, and still like her chances of one day being on a presidential ticket. Regardless, as I said, there comes a time to tone down the rhetoric and not add to it. I still think she is adding to it.



Funny how Giffords herself objected to the crosshairs, and kind of "prophetically" said that its just that type of imagery that can cause harm.



Again, whether one actually believes crosshairs, or the rantings and ravings of political figures contribued to this wackjob in AZ, I ask: "Does it really matter?" I further ask: "Aren't we, and shouldn't we be BETTER than this?" Our leaders sound like spoiled children on a playground, and those that are taking sides and supporting their childish rantings aren't helping.



If we don't expect more, then we are sure to NOT get it.



TJR

 

[H D]

Our leaders sound like spoiled children

To me, the biggest problem with this country is right there in this sentence. And its not the "spoiled children" part.



"Our leaders" really bothers me. They are NOT OUR LEADERS (not a swipe at you TJR, its just common vernacular and I understand). They are our public SERVANTS. Their only role is to represent and serve our purposes. Somehow, we have made career leaders in this country who feel no obligation to their duties and only seek the power we have allowed them to gather. Its not just one party that likes increased government and power. Both sides have been increasing the government's power for the past 100 years.



In the meantime, we discuss silly imagery and draw loose connections to rationalize and blame the derangement of murderers. When a politician like Palin seems out of the mainstream of our "leaders"...well, you can see the attacks she endures. How about Ron Paul?...he's portrayed as a lunatic because he mentions things like decreased government. Imagine the nerve!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



Don't read too much into leaders. I believe in smaller government. I'm more a moderate than a con or lib. When I say leaders, I mean elected officials that are supposed to serve us, and to represent us.



Wouldn't it be great if they started doing that?



TJR

 

[H D]

I know you didn't mean it that way. I'm aware of your previous posts. I just wanted to point out that they are viewed as such my so many that it has actually become common vernacular. I call them leaders from time to time myself, and it was within the last couple years that I started catching myself and shuddering every time I said it.



If that is the perception to the point that it is a part of every day language, I tend to believe it has become fact. They ARE our leaders, sadly.



There is nobody to blame but the apathetic losers of this nation, those who continue to vote straight tickets out of an ill-formed allegiance and remain uninformed about their votes, and the cowards who do nothing about it.



(I sure hope that last phrase isn't read to be as violent inducing as a surveyor's symbol, because God knows that is not the intention).

 

[Les]

The way I see it is bad taste is bad taste, and fueling the rhetoric with things like crosshairs, and comments like "Don't retreat...reload!", is simply, in a word or two: uncivilized and reckless.

Uncivilized and reckless, arn't we being just a little sensitive. Suddenly "crosshairs" is an evil word, or "reload", or "kill". If you eliminate these and other similar words, our elected idiots would have little to say.