Skip navigation



  1. This tragedy has brought out a frightening but predictable amount of projection, from all directions. While it’s clear that this lunatic had no coherent ideolgy (anyone who calls him a “conservative” or a “liberal” is an idiot), and while those who simplisticly indict Palin are being ridiculous, it takes willful blindness to deny that the culture of eliminationist speech has created a tinderbox. The people who have created this environment refuse to take responsibility for their rhetoric and its too-often deadly results, and instead project their own tendencies onto everyone else. Meanwhile the angry crazies get angrier and crazier, and the rage-charged rhetoric choking the landscape will continue to focus their anager onto specific targets.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 23, 2011 at 2:25 pm
    • Permalink

    Gah! Has Promethea turned into Braniac?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    • Permalink

    Also, nice touch with them playing Clue.

    “It was Sarah Palin. With the twitter post. Broadcast on CNN!”

  2. cobainfan69: What, you’re saying blacks can’t have big brains, huh, huh??

    Actually it was a good call– I still draw these things too fast. Have corrected it since reading your comment: see blog.

    Who says I have no use for lefties?

    • Steve
    • Posted January 23, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    • Permalink

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” — Rahm Emanuel

    Marbles,… Nice attempt at ‘triangulation’…
    – NO – the “…predictable amount of projection” did NOT come “…from all directions.”
    The blitzkrieg of shameless lies and “projection” was started from the political left – that is a plain fact.
    This tragedy is just two weeks old, and you are managing a very dishonest recollection of very recent history. Obviously, the art of ‘projection’ is something your side is well practiced in.
    The shameless slurs and slanders came from the likes of Paul Krugman, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, and the rest of the MSM Democrat followers of Saul Alinsky.

    These trumped-up sleazy accusations against Sarah Palin for a map created with architectural location symbols imposed on select states (yes, those are architectural symbols – you can look them up!) are blatantly hypocritical — as the Democrat party too, has routinely used such symbols and marshal terminology over many election cycles.

    These accusations are also the ‘big lie’ technique of going after conservative media – just like the rapist-in chief, Bill Clinton did, right after the Oklahoma city bombing… that sleaze bag slut of a president directly accused talk radio for the “…environment” that caused the bombing.

    It is obvious Marbles, you do not like the witnesses and friends to Jared Loughner’s past, characterizing him as a ‘left wing pot head’… do you?
    There are many indications, based on statements of his closest acquaintances that he was into illegal substance abuse, and irrational anarchistic rhetoric. Hell, even some community college expelled him, for his lunatic ranting.
    Further, Jared Loughner began his obsession against this congresswoman back in 2007.
    Hmmm — lets recall another inconvenient fact… in 2007, Sarah Palin was a quiet Alaskan Governor, unseen by the national media.

    Also Marbles, are you applying for a job as an MSNBC, ‘copy & paste’ repeater of left-wing talking points??
    ” The people who have created this environment refuse to take responsibility for their rhetoric and [it’s] too-often deadly results, and instead project their own tendencies onto everyone else.”
    …or, perhaps you are immediate family to Paul Krugman ?

    In the bigger picture- you libs never stop your jealous, whining over the success of conservative talk radio. The talk radio market is -market- driven — that means FREE market driven – its success comes from what tens of millions of citizens want to listen to… and that is another fact the liberal left does not have the honesty to admit or acknowledge.
    Your side tried with Air America, now bankrupt. National Public Radio, another progressive ‘tool’, cannot sustain itself in the free market either. It is always leaching off the taxpayer, and routinely begging for donations.

    There is a reason you have never heard Rush Limbaugh peddling for donations to operate his program… it has something to do with the fact he has 23+ million listeners a week and earns $55+ million a year… more facts the political left is pea-green jealous over.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 23, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    • Permalink

    There is so much irony in Steve’s post it is literally making my head swell, and just as Promethea’s shrinks, too.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 24, 2011 at 12:13 am
    • Permalink

    This so-called climate is another term for “conservatives need to shut the F*&k up, cuz we know better!” Perhaps I’m the only one of the vile hatred towards Reagan? I can remember vividly hearing about his shooting in 81. Kids in my class Cheered! Why cuz they hated the guy! Some how the left has made an industry of convincing (or trying to convince) that hate is a one way street coming from the mouths of right wingers. Yet, somehow left wing hate is regarded as “spirited descussions” or even art….
    Please. The climate did not create this lunatic.
    Also, just to let you know, I regard Keith Olberman as a douche. Yet, I did not agree with him being fired from MSNBC, Douchebags have a right to speak just like anyone else. No matter how vile and hateful. Its the price we pay for all of us to speak without fear of incarceration. Do I hate Marbles for having a different opinion from myself? Of course not. Yet I dont want him silenced.

  3. As usual, Steve, you see something someone writes and read all kinds of things into it that have nothing to do with what was said.

    You also managed to ignore the fact that I specifically said that blaming this tragedy on Palin, or conservative ideology specifically, was ridiculous. (Anyone who counted both The Communist Manifesto AND Ayn Rand’s works as among his favorite reading material is obviously not the most coherent person in the world, and that’s not even getting into his illiterate, nonsensical babblings about mind control and grammar. Truthfully though, I rather doubt he actually READ any of those books on his list at all. It’s difficult to believe someone that ungrammatical and illiterate could be that voracious a reader).

    “It is obvious Marbles, you do not like the witnesses and friends to Jared Loughner’s past, characterizing him as a ‘left wing pot head’… do you?”

    Right, Steve. I’m going to put a LOT of stake on that quote, when this country is filled with people who couldn’t tell you what “left-wing” meant if their lives depended on it. Everything under the sun is attributed to “the left” by people who have no idea what they’re talking about, from Fascism to the guy who shot that Holocaust Museum guard.

    Nowhere, however, do you address the actual issue. You come close when you perform the usual deflection act regarding Oklamhoma City, choosing to ignore the reality that McVeigh got all his ideas straight from the lunatic fringe on the right’s outer flank. More important for our current situation, however, is the fact that the culture of violent rhetoric on the right, unlike the (insignificant in comparison) culture of violent rhetoric on the left, has been blessed with a direct pipeline to the mainstream.

    You will not find Democratic politicians recyclying diluted talking points from crazy violent fringers. But that is exactly what has been going on in the Republican Party for years, and it has been ratcheted up several notches since Obama came along.

    Save for those fools at the WTO protests, the days of the American left having an actual violent fringe that carries out actual violence against people are in the past. The right can keep bringing up the 60s and 70s all it wants—-none of it is relevent in today’s context. The violence has gone elsewhere.

    It has claimed lives. Plenty of them. And threatened many others.

    Those determined to belive in some kind of false equivalency can close their eyes and wish as hard as they want. That doesn’t it true.

    You will not find a list of left-oriented violence and violent rhetoric even CLOSE to this one.

    (Moderator: You’re of course free to blot out that link if you choose, but it’s not going to accomplish much besides make this blog look cowardly.)

    “This so-called climate is another term for ‘conservatives need to shut the F*&k up, cuz we know better!'”

    Ikabod, that is always the line conservatives trot out whenever someone calls them out for saying horrible things. The most hysterical among the ranks will cry “Censorship!” like a bunch of pantywaists, thereby totally cheapening the word and muddying the waters even more than they already have been.
    NO ONE is trying to “silence” conservatives or tell them to “shut the [whatever] up.” Pretending that’s what’s going on is an easy way of dodging the issue, of ducking ownership of the monster that the right wing has created over the past twenty years.
    We don’t want to “silence” conservatives.
    What we do want, to be perfectly frank, is for them to stop using rhetoric overtly characterized by threats of violence and physical intimidation.

    Anyone who would cheer the assassination attempt of any president is a scumbag who has surrendered their right to be taken seriously, and you will not find any serious people who would excuse the vile behavior you witnessed regarding Reagan. But what you witnessed was the behavior of immature imbeciles—–not immature imbeciles whose darker impulses are are echoed and reinforced, 24/7, by an entire media infrastructure.

    Of course nasty things are said on the left. But here’s the important difference—the left does not have a self-reinforcing media infrastructure that circulates rhetoric pointedly characterized by violence. The left does not have, on its outer reaches, hundreds of militias who are armed to the teeth, spectacularly paranoid, and whose talking points—this is KEY—inevitably seep through the outer layers of the conservative movement, down and down until, in diluted form, they reach the core: the Republican Party itself. And increasingly these days, the dilution is quite minimal, as in the instance of would-be Alan West chief of staff Joyce Kaufman’s little speech in Florida.
    This is the pattern that has developed on the American right during the past 25 years or so. Many conservatives have become so desensitized to the rhetoric batted around by themselves and their political allies, they are either unable or unwilling to see that it has had deadly consequences, over and over again. The patterns have been obvious for some time, yet the relexive response is deflection. Deflection onto an American left that does not HAVE an equivalent culture of violent rhetoric. Not even close. Isolated quotes here and there that someone found on Kos, or one gun-to-a-knife-fight metaphor by one Mr. B. Obama, do not change this. And furthermore, let’s talk about those isolated quotes everyone will be sure to hype. You will have to look long and hard to find the following things on the left: (a. tribalism, and (b. eliminationism. By contrast, those things are everywhere on the right.

    (FreeRepublic alone is proof enough of this. Its opposite counterpart, Democratic Underground, is filled with nasty, vile comments. ***But they are not nasty vile comments that come from a tribalist mindset, or that constantly speak of the other side in eliminationist terms.***)

    But I’m not optimistic that my words will make anyone here think twice about their position. If, for example, the commenters here are truly unable to understand why Steve’s anti-gay words are hateful, and are only able to respond to that truth with old chestnuts like like “trite,” “cliched,” and “trying to shut down the discussion”—-if they truly cannot understand what is wrong with speaking that way about people, than they are not going to be able to take off their blinders to the blood-soaked language their political friends have normalized, and the long trail of blood it has created.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 25, 2011 at 2:06 am
    • Permalink

    Marbles — You seem to perceive nobility in volunteering to be ignorant (?), and claim you do not know what these terms, “left-wing pot head”, together means… go for it!
    Outside the scope of your beliefs, there are a vast number of folks who know its meaning well.

    Zack — perhaps it is time for -a new- Sierra, pot smoke filled cartoon illustrating the wonderful enlightenment of the THC guided politics and resultant higher wisdoms ??

    Marbles,… do you smoke pot ?… & how much a week?
    C’mon, fess up !… [ we ought to establish a better base of mutual understanding – or at least some chemical reasons for our differences ]

    Your link to –
    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ? — gee whiz Marbles, apply your best wisdom and ask why there is not a ‘Coalition to Stop Knife Violence’ — or a ‘Coalition to Stop Brass Knuckle Violence’…?
    There is no end to the number of nouns we can fit into this idiot template, for a title.

    Sorry, but your lefty politics is more conspicuous than the nose on your face.
    Btw – I am an NRA Life Member… ( own some Glocks, all larger calibers than 9mm),… not to mention a few other ‘toys’…
    I have followed the ‘gun control’ debate since the mid ’70’s. Your linked anti-2nd Amendment association has a multi-decade history as being proven serial liars – on nearly every argument they spout, but liberals never let a convenient lie go unused. Other than that, they are fine human beings.

  4. Address what’s actually being said, or don’t bother replying at all. Simple.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    • Permalink

    The day the shooting happened there was a need NO! An absolute requirement to blame the shooting on the left. Rather than wait for the investigation as to who or why we got the liberals out there having a fit about how Palin had become a rebel rouser. It IS about shutting up conservatives. Somehow this is a result of the fairness doctrine being removed?
    Apparently civility in the 25-50 (Fairness doctrine) years has not done crap to prevent political assassinations/attempts. Yet its removal has resulted in 1 attempt. ONE. And this with 20 years of Rush Limbaugh spewing nasty, racist hate filled rhetoric.

    1949 Fairness Doctrine is FCC policy:

    •Truman, Harry S. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Nov. 1, 1950, in Washington, DC, as 2 Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to shoot their way into Blair House.
    •Kennedy, John F. (president of U.S.): Shot Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald; died same day. Injured was Gov. John B. Connally of Texas. Oswald was shot and killed two days later by Jack Ruby.
    •Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (black activist): Shot and killed in a New York City auditorium, Feb. 21, 1965; his killer(s) were never positively identified.
    •King, Martin Luther, Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot April 4, 1968, in Memphis by James Earl Ray; died same day.
    •Kennedy, Robert F. (U.S. senator from New York): Shot June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan; died June 6.
    •Wallace, George C. (governor of Alabama): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 15, 1972, at Laurel, Md., by Arthur Herman Bremer. Wallace paralyzed from waist down.
    •Ford, Gerald R. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination attempt Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento, Calif., by Lynette Alice (Squeaky) Fromme, who pointed but did not fire .45-caliber pistol. Escaped assassination attempt in San Francisco, Calif., Sept. 22, 1975, by Sara Jane Moore, who fired one shot from a .38-caliber pistol that was deflected.
    •Jordan, Vernon E., Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 29, 1980, in Fort Wayne, Ind.
    •Reagan, Ronald (president of U.S.): Shot in left lung in Washington by John W. Hinckley, Jr., on March 30, 1981; three others also wounded.

    I bring this up since so called violent rhetoric SHOULD be a lot more prevalent than it is. All rhetoric should be toned down. Yet, I believe I have seen a lot more F*&k Bush bumper stickers then F*&k Obama bumper stickers. Maybe because I live in California.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles,… do you smoke pot ?… & how much a week?
    C’mon, fess up !… [ we ought to establish a better base of mutual understanding – or at least some chemical reasons for our differences ]

  5. Steve, I’ll try again.

    Address what I took the trouble to write about, or don’t bother saying anything.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles — You are the last one here to spout-off about not addressing another’s points…
    But to your credit, you show positive signs after being a troll to now writing full sentences & paragraphs.

    The question about pot was linked to Jared Loughner’s behavior~
    So, grow a backbone (or does THC erode that?) & answer the simple question…
    Do you smoke pot?… & how much a week?… (now asked for the 3rd time)

  6. Your penchant for deflection is awe-inspiring. Karl Rove has nothing on you.
    Turning away from discussing the issue of inflammatory rhetoric in favor of asking obnoxious questions about another commenter doesn’t indicate someone who takes their political positions very seriously. Unless you have something substantive to say about the issue, all you’re doing is admitting you have nothing.

  7. Ikabod, you’re moving the goalposts around in a bunch of different directions.
    First of all, no one is really talking about the Fairness Doctrine. Liberals dropped it ages ago, just like they dropped gun control for years until the Giffords shooting just now. Conservatives have kept it alive, essentially popping paper bags near each other’s heads all the time and keeping each other scared of it, but it’s pointless. It’s not coming back.

    The kind of violent hatred seen and heard everywhere has of course existed in this country all along. But the difference is, until the late 1980s or so, it did not have a media voice. There was not a self-reinforcing echo chamber where the vengeance-minded fringe could gather and feed off each other. And they certainly had not developed a pipeline to the mainstream that would deliver their diluted rhetoric straight to the mouths of DC politicians and their spokespeople.

    The Fairness Doctrine’s demise roughly coincided with the opening up of media. The Doctrine held sway back when most people had three networks, a few local channels, radio, and the local rag. Together with the Internet, as well as cable television, the talk radio explosion has completely changed the way things work.

    If you’re measuring the feel of the landscape purely by presidential assasination attempts, sure, they’ve been scare lately. But the list of other violence incidents, small in scale but considerable in quantity, is the true measurement of where we are. (Steve may paint the the body I linked to as “liars,” but the list in the link is hardly made up. And that’s just in the last two years alone.)

    • Steve
    • Posted January 25, 2011 at 8:12 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles — you are a very colorful study for nothing more challenging than elementary level psychological studies…
    But trying to get you past the indignant double standards you spout is like teaching calculus to my cats.
    Let’s move beyond the most difficult question you will not offer a mere one-word answer to…

    Moving forward… how much pot do you smoke a week ?

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 26, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    • Permalink

    Well there may not be much support for its reinstatement:

    My beef with the entire episode was just the magnatude of “culpability” that was pointed towards Palin and rest of the rightwing talk media cabal.

  8. Ikabod:
    If there was not such a history and precedent for this sort of thing, I’d agree, especially since this guy was clearly not coherent enough to have any particular set of recognizable politics.
    But then, if that precedent, it would never have occurred to anyone to even bring up the question of culpability in the first place.

    No one wants to be associated with lunatics, and it’s perfectly understandable why people get defensive about this. But they need to acknowledge that the brand of firey rhetoric to which they’ve become accustomed has a history of striking a chord with a particular TYPE of unbalanced person. It’s happened many times.

  9. [meant to say “if that precedent did not exist” in that third paragraph.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: