Did The New York Times Just Endorse Violence Against Republicans?

Submitted by: 5cats 5 months ago in News & Politics


There is no lie the New York Times cannot tell with a straight face and a refusal to retract. There is no low the MSM will not drop to in order to push a meme. The Times published an editorial that in part, went something like this...

"Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right."

The slanted reporting continues...

From CNN botching an article about a weapon used in a crime and refusing to correct it, to IAB trying to connect David Duke to Donald Trump while the shooting victims fight for their lives.

A baseless and shameless exploitation of suffering to make cheap-ass attacks on those the left hates. To the MSM ignoring the long list of leftist violence against conservatives and Trump supporters.

To the MSM and DNC blaming everyone and everything for the shooting... except the liberal-left, or themselves of course. This shooting may well start a "revolution" as the MSM keeps hoping for. Only it will be of people turning their backs on both the MSM and DNC for the final time. Let us hope that's the case!

You think the DNC isn't hammering the 'Hate Trump' drums even after the bloodshed? Think again.

And there's plenty more where these came from. Might as well put these together in one post, the IAB Liberals will ignore them ALL anyhow. It seems like the Alexandria Shooting has brought out the very worst the MSM, DNC and Liberal-Left have to offer. It has caught the Emperor without any clothes, exposing the ugly truth. It will only get worse from here as they all "double down" again and again. 
There are 117 comments:
Male 5,308
I couldn't help notice that the people on here trying so hard to blame only the left for all the violent rhetoric and violence out there, have been quite mum on the incident today in London where a far-right loon drove a van into a crowd of Muslims. It was literally a right-wing terrorist attack using an ISIS killing technique. After being pulled from his van the man shouted, "All Muslims, I want to kill all Muslims." The crowd was rightfully pissed and started attacking him but an Iman stepped in to shield the man until police arrived. That's right a leader of the very religion the man blames terrorism on saved his life.
0
Reply
Male 41,603

Here's on of the MSM's top anchors, on a national broadcast, saying the Republicans are responsible for being shot:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/19/cbs-news-was-the-steve-scalise-shooting-to-some-degree-self-inflicted-n2342881?utm_campaign=townhallcom_twitter&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

"To some degree..." no, the people who were shot were not 'responsible' for being shot to ANY degree.
-2
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats Do you get dizzy from all the spin you read and parrot? You literally can turn anything partisan. The 60 Minutes commentary was about as non-partisan as anything there is. Why do you have to be so dishonest?

Your partisan article's headline: CBS News: Was The Steve Scalise Shooting 'To Some Degree Self Inflicted'?

Your partisan spin: "Here's one of the MSM's top anchors, on a national broadcast, saying the Republicans are responsible for being shot."

What Scott Pelley actually said on 60 Minutes: "It's time to ask whether the attack on the United States Congress, yesterday, was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted."

He was calling it an attack on congress NOT on Republicans, and that the violent rhetoric on both sides is "to some degree" responsible. At no time does he single out Republicans for being responsible.

Along with an example of the Info Wars driven Pizza Gate shooting, Mr. Pelley included what he saw as political hate speech from Bernie sanders and immediately follows Bernie's quote with the fact that some people with mental illness may act on such talk: 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders has called the president the "most dangerous in history." The shooter yesterday was a Sanders volunteer. 

You might think that no sane person would act on political hate speech, and you'd be right. Trouble is, there are a lot of Americans who struggle with mental illness."
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 But there it is, he said the victims were 'somewhat responsible' for the shooting. Those victims are in Congress, yes? They are Republicans, whom he accuses of inciting violence.
So no, that is false, the victims are zero point zero percent responsible. Period! He is lying. And you are defending him.

This is a paid, professional journalist reading a script carefully written and researched by a team of paid professionals. Words Matter! It is not an off the cuff comment or a tweet... they know exactly what it sounds like and they deliberately broadcast it.

To equate this act of political terroristism with the fucking pizza thing is beyond disgusting. A joke. You accuse me of parroting party propaganda after saying something as ludicrous as that? For shame.
0
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats I don't know why I even bother.
1
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 This is part of an ongoing call to violence by the MSM and DNC. It has been going on for months if not years now. The specific targets may change:  'Wall Street' or the Police or Republican Congress or (most especially) Trump himself! But the methods have not changed at all.

When they (the MSM) get caught doing it, they can always count on the mindless followers of the DNC to blindly defend them. Just like they did for Bill, just like they did for Hillary... on and on it goes.
0
Reply
Male 164
markust123 that makes two of us.  When you argue with a fool you only prove there are two fools.  
0
Reply
Male 8,792
The link between the Giffords shooting and the Palin Political Action Committee map has been debunked for years, for several reasons:

  • The 'stylized cross hairs' were not crosshairs at all.  They were, in fact, taken from a geological map clip-art.
  • There was never any evidence Loughner ever saw such a map.  His political leanings were from Independent to leftists.  He was not a conservative.
  • He had a fascination with, and hatred of, Giffords that went back to before 2007.  That's 4 years prior to the publication of the map.

The New York Times trying to establish such bullshit just demonstrated their basis in bias, and zero basis in facts.
0
Reply
Male 5,422
megrendel I agree with much of what you're saying here, Grendel. I don't think there's any connection between the Palin crossairs map and Loughner's shooting of Giffords. Loughner was a delusional schizophrenic and that's all the explanation needed for the tragedy.

But I'm not at all convinced that the crosshairs on Palin's map weren't intended to be seen as crosshairs. Palin herself introduced the map with the following tweet: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"' Pls see my Facebook page."

Palin loved to pose with guns and made a lot of use of gun images and gun references in her politicking. It wasn't good. Mixing political outrage with talk of guns and "Second Amendment remedies" (a remark not by Palin, but by Sharron Angle, a Tea Party candidate) was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.

0
Reply
Male 8,792
squrlz4ever You can argue what they actually were vs. what they mean, but that does not change the origin of the symbol (not a gun sight).

But, her map did not say 'reload'.  It said "20 House Democrats from districts we carried in 2008 vote for the healthcare bill. Let's take back the 20, together. "  In fact, the harshest language on the ad is 'Let's take a stand.'

Yet, during the same election, the Democrats released a similar map, with actual targets, and accompanying language...and yet no outrage: "BEHIND ENEMY LINES: President Bush won nine states by single-digit margines. Those states should be ripe targets for Democrats"



Now, that map had actual targets, and used belligerent language: "ENEMY, TARGETS."   But it seemed to be perfectly okay. 

0
Reply
Male 5,422
megrendel Certainly it's true that Democrats as well as Republicans have used military terms and symbols in the course of their campaigning, as the map you posted shows. Few candidates, however, have been quite so enthusiastic in their love of guns and gun terminology as Palin was. That's why her map drew more attention than that particular Democrat map.

May I ask where you're getting the info that the crosshairs on Palin's map were taken from surveying clipart?

Palin herself, incidentally, referred to her map as having "bullseye" symbols. Here's what she tweeted after the election that the crosshairs map was addressing:

"Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)"

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column studied the claim that Palin's map was using surveryor's symbols and not crosshairs and found it to be false, giving it one "Pinocchio." I think they summed it all up well:

"It's impossible to know exactly what Palin had in mind unless correspondence with the mapmaker is ever released. But sometimes perception is reality. It's outrageous to suggest Palin had anything to do with the tragic events in Tucson but it's silly for her aides to claim she did not intend these to be gun sights. They can defend it, or apologize, but they shouldn't pretend otherwise."
0
Reply
Male 5,308
squrlz4ever Nice fact checking. That Tweet is real and still up. I just checked. Palin herself confirmed they were a "bullseye". Yes, she did not say crosshairs but she never was known for her words. What freaked people out at the time is that below the map were the names of the people targeted. The picture of the map with the names is still up on Palin's Facebook page. Gabrielle Giffords commented at the time about being in Palin's crosshairs. I'm not saying Sara is responsible for her shooting. That lunatic is the only person responsible for the shooting. Just saying people sure were lying or misinformed and still are lying or misinformed about the crosshairs.

megrendel also, that DNC map wasn't in the same election it was for 2004. Facts matter.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 A Bull's-eye is also for a dartboard. Others have said those are photographic sights, at any rate they were never intended as gunsights, even though many other political ads from both sides have been in the past...

Yes, the DNC map pre-dates the Palin one, it sets a precedent ok?  You've unwittingly supported Grendel's point :-) 
People lied that they WERE 'crosshairs' from a gun, that's the lie here, and the NYT article in question repeats the lie as if it were a fact, ok? THAT is the point!
0
Reply
Male 8,792
Note the Dry Hole survey mark on this chart (3rd column, 11th down).  Also known sometimes as a 'Closed in Well'.

Also note, a 'Bullseye' is not a 'Crosshair'.  A Bullseye is the center of a target.   A Crosshair is what you see when looking through a scope (and that can be a gun scope or a microscope or any other kinds of scope.)

No matter what it was, it had absolutely no bearing on the Giffords shooting.  Laughner was not a conservative, and his obsession with Giffords started years before Palin was on the scene. 

The only reason Palin's map drew any attention at all was because of the media's need to try and pin anything against here that they could. 

And now they try to resurrect it a false, and proven false, narrative.

0
Reply
Male 5,308
megrendel Dude, you're starting to sound like a certain someone on this site with your refusal to admit you were wrong. You honestly don't think the person who made the map googled "crosshair" and that is the image they chose? I mean really.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 So now you can read the mind of the person who created the Palin poster? :-/ YOU KNOW they intended to use a gun-sight, you are 100% positive this is a fact! They could not possibly want a photographic sight for focusing, as would fit their theme of... focusing on these electoral seats. You know this! Because... ESP!

If they intended to use GUN sights and then used these, they did a pretty poor job of it, eh? But SOMEHOW the public KNEW they were GUN sights, even if you admit they are not, somehow people could also see what was not there! Like... magic! They knew it was intended to be a GUN sight (even though it was not an actual gunsight, nor are guns mentioned in the poster) and thus were spurred to violence!!

Um, no. YOU do NOT 'know' the 'intentions' of the design of this poster. That's DNC propaganda which both you and the NYT (the topic here!) are repeating even though you know for a fact it is a lie.
0
Reply
Male 8,792
markust123 No, just telling the difference between a 'bullseye' and a 'cross hair'.  The former mentioned by squrlz, the later by the article. 

But why are we arguing what the symbol was, when it's be proven to not have been a factor with Laughner?  

Even if it were a Varmint hunting,  Bullet drop compensating,  Laser rangefinding,  Low light shooting,  Illuminated Tactical reticled super-duper assassin's rife scope symbol...IT. STILL. HAD. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. THE. GIFFORD. SHOOTING.

And the Times attempt at re-animating that dead, proven wrong conspiracy is pure bullshit.

And to me, it would appear the graphic artist who designed it used to white crossed lines at 100% opacity and a white circle set at about 40% opacity. (Oh my gawd!  They wuz WHITE circles...that racist bitch!)
0
Reply
Male 5,308
megrendel "But why are we arguing what the symbol was?"

The honest truth - because I like to fact check. It's interesting to me to take the spin/lies on both sides and dig down into the actual truth. The us-against-them world of partisan politics is a fact checkers dreamland.
0
Reply
Male 8,792
markust123 Fair enough.
0
Reply
Female 425
The left are the most tolerant we see and they will shoot you , vandalize your property, spit on you for wearing a hat or tshirt and call you every name to prove it.
2
Reply
Male 8,792
savagenation Reminds me of a line from a little known Henry Winkler movie, "The One and Only".  About an actor turned wrestler and all his various 'gimmicks'.  Near the end he comes out dressed pretty much like Ravishing Rick Flair.  And the announcer is stating, "He hates violence!  He abhors violence so much he once killed a man who talked of violence."  (That is not an exact quote, just what I recall.)
0
Reply
Male 1,543
savagenation i especially love how they defend "freedom of speech" on the college campuses.  LOL
1
Reply
Male 15,404
Right wingers have been advocating violence as long as I can remember. Other side starts to echo them and suddenly the right is up in arms.

Break out the popcorn. I'm hoping for a civil war. That'll help you lot get it all out of your system for a good half century or so and distract the country from wars of foreign aggression for a bit. Plus, NATO can't be dragged into a civil war. Everybody wins.
0
Reply
Male 1,543
Draculya that is bullshit.  how much VIOLENCE did you see the Right do during 8 long years of a black president wiping his arse with our constitution?  NONE, because the right are lawful, respectful, people.  I DO worry about these left wing loonies....they want some sort of revolution.  Push the right far enough and they WILL react to save the country, and you will NOT like the outcome.
-2
Reply
Male 10,376
spanz can I get a bullet list of what he did that hurt the constitution? 
0
Reply
Male 5,422
holygod Pretty sure "Dijon mustard on hamburger" is going to figure in there somewhere.
0
Reply
Male 8,792
squrlz4ever I'm not going to diss a guy for his tastes, after all I have a few odd dishes I like.  But DAMN!
0
Reply
Male 10,376
squrlz4ever Saluting with a coffee cup? Trying to get american children to eat healthier? Letting gay people get married? Not wearing a jacket in the oval office? OBAMA RUINED AMERICA!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 5,308
spanz "how much VIOLENCE did you see the Right do during 8 long years of a black president wiping his arse with our constitution?  NONE, because the right are lawful, respectful, people."

None???? Are you delusional? In 2016, during the bathroom bill fervor, the murder rate of transgender people rose to 26. Hate crimes against gay people skyrocketed when marriage equality was coming into play. Hate crimes against Muslims (and people who looked like Muslims) skyrocketed during the 2008, 2012 & 2016 elections when Republicans and conservative pundits used anti-Muslim rhetoric to rally the troops against. Hate groups grew exponentially during and after Obama's election, and militia group numbers sky rocketed. Fear based rhetoric increased gun sales like we have never seen. In 2008 my racist Uncle bet me $100 that a n-word would never be president. To his credit he paid up in 2009. Racists lost their freaking minds that the leader of the free world was black. They were so out of their mind they had to pretend he wasn't American so he was not really their president. Hate crimes against blacks skyrocketed during and after his election. It was hate, hate, hate for 9 freaking years. A group of anarchist's rioting or one politically based shooting by a liberal extremist wacko is not going to erase that fact.
0
Reply
Male 14
markust123 
As I recall, the hate crimes against honest tax paying white citizens skyrocketed during Obamas presidency. The intolerance against law-abiding Christians was appalling.
1
Reply
Male 10,376
AdrianC it's shocking how oppressed white Christians are in this country. Stay strong brother. 
0
Reply
Male 5,422
spanz This sounds like a threat of nationwide violence, which is ironic considering that you're trying to make the case that the right are lawful and respectful.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
And you know what? I had this weird feeling that somehow, someway? My post would get corrupted.

So I saved it, like I used to when a certain IAB Moderator used to delete my submissions irridisregardles of their content. And then brag about doing so in the posts. And people said I was crazy for accusing him of doing that... until I proved beyond any doubt it was the truth...
I am reminded of those dark days. 

So I saved my submission (most of it anyhow) and LO! and behold! My main link, the whole point of it all? Gets... omitted. How inconvenient, eh?

Given the vitriolic and violent anti-Trump hatred here, now? And the wanton disregard for facts and truth? Was I 'paranoid' about my submission being corrupted? Intentionally or accidentally?

Who has disproven my claim here? That the IAB Liberals would TOTALLY IGNORE the post and simply attack? Who has addressed the various topics here? 

dapperaardvark = at least on topic, nicely done.

DrCribbens = on topic. Honestly? I'm very surprised but quite pleased about that.

Otherwise? You all should feel ashamed... if shame was still an available option.
-1
Reply
Male 5,422
5cats You state that DrCribbens was on topic--which she certainly was--and you state that you you are "quite pleased about that." But you still haven't answered the main questions she has repeatedly asked:

And how--and please be very clear about this one--does the article endorse violence against republicans? How? Given that the article does no such thing, will you be apologizing for that headline?

Is the headline, in fact, yours? If so, why should everyone else "feel ashamed," according to you--while you give yourself a pass for an irresponsible headline that you won't even address when asked about it?
0
Reply
Male 4,204
Daegog's simple rule for browsing at iab.com

If it says: Submitted by 5cats, don't read it.

Rarely will you be disappointed with this rule.  Besides, you already have a good idea what its going to be about anyhow.
2
Reply
Male 15,404
daegog always read and comment. Never let the far right go unopposed.
1
Reply
Male 41,603
daegog Good! Go away and stop spamming your shit all over IAB. Bye!
-3
Reply
Male 10,376
5Cats What do you think is a reputable source for news?
1
Reply
Male 10,376
5cats can I get an answer to this? I'm legitimately curious.
0
Reply
Male 5,422
holygod Pentapuss Pout Mode--ACTIVATE!
0
Reply
Male 1,089
Who endorsed violence? 

"Why do we have a Second Amendment? It’s not to shoot deer. It’s to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!"

'Twasn't a liberal who said that boy-o
0
Reply
Male 1,976
marsii Good point. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "The security of a FREE STATE". Depending on how this is read, it is easy to deduce that "arms" are legalized to allow common citizens to keep the government in check, if needed. How else would one interpret "The SECURITY of a FREE STATE"?
1
Reply
Male 5,308
It cracks me up how the very people who were so hateful toward President Obama have now become angry victims now that their guy is in office. Same as the very people who were so hateful toward W suddenly became angry victims when their guy got into office.  
1
Reply
Male 14
markust123 
I am saddened by the blatant racism displayed by Democrats - Thank goodness their ringleader Obama is no longer in power. Now we can enjoy some peace and tolerance - oh hang on, we can't - the liberals are still here with us. 
-1
Reply
Male 6,127
AdrianC So liberals are racists because they accepted a black man as President but Republicans aren't because they only promised to block anything he proposed? Stupid.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
broizfam As I said in 2009 and 2013, and I repeated in 2017:
It is the DUTY of the opposition party to oppose. Bitching about the Reps doing it and then the Dems doing it themselves before Trump even takes office, doing it IN NOVEMBER, takes a shamelessness that is deplorable.

So yes, Democrats try to block Trump, I'm not complaining, have I? I did point out how STUPID they were to say they'd block ANY Supreme Nominee... and then Trump rolls out one that was on Obama's short-list :-) And they had to eat their words like it was crow...
0
Reply
Male 6,127
5cats Agreed. Just because he did *whatever* doesn't, by itself at least, make it okay for me to now do the same. Especially if I was bitching about him doing it! And blocking "just because" doesn't represent the constituency whether it's Democratic or Republican.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
IF THE PROPER LINK were there many questions below would already be answered.
-2
Reply
Male 35
5cats I'm still somewhat confused. 

Here is the direct link to the NY Times editorial in question (for those following along at home.)  

This column specifically stated that the shooter "...was surely deranged, and his derangement had found its fuel in politics."  It goes on to recall some of the details surrounding the attempted murder of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords back in 2011 and making a general condemnation of the level of violence present in politics.

After rereading your post and comparing it to the actual article, I think the point you're trying to make is that the Times article seeks to suggest that the 2011 shooting (in which six people lost their lives, lest we forget them entirely) was directly inspired by the actions of Palin's camp.  However, the article also states:

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument here, but I'm not following.  I can honestly say that I do not for an instant believe that any political violence in recent years has been the result of a call to action by either party, but simply as the article stated people finding the fuel to their derangement in politics.

Regardless, the shooting is a tragedy for both sides as it can only serve to further polarize our politics and increase the tension already present.
1
Reply
Male 5,422
Yowza. Whole lotta confused ranting going on with this piece. The object seems to be both to decry overheated political attacks while, at the same time, attacking liberals with overheated political attacks. I think? ~Squrlz scratches head... whether this a response to confusion or fleas is uncertain~
2
Reply
Male 35
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

Betteridge's law of headlines is one name for an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
3
Reply
Male 5,422
dapperaardvark Aardvark, that's awesome.
2
Reply
Male 35
squrlz4ever The r/futurology subreddit has made me a bitter man.
0
Reply
Male 4,391
A lot of people have been unhappy with the Republicans ever since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves
-1
Reply
304
dm2754 Spoken like a true ignoramus who cares not for the manner in which political parties have evolved since the 1800's. Not particularly surprising coming from a conservative though. Always living on alternative facts and the way things used to be.
2
Reply
Male 4,391
pleasestop that's a lot of words to say nothing
1
Reply
Male 216
dm2754 fewer words: the teams switched sides, and as a result you're not making the point you're hoping to. To my limited understanding, it's due to the "Southern Strategy" though squrlz4ever could probably explain this better than I. I hope this illuminates things a bit, no offense intended if offense has been taken.
0
Reply
Male 436
AgamemnonTheGreat The switched sides argument is complete bullshit. Southern states still voted in Democrat legislatures and governors well into the 1990s.
0
Reply
Male 216
johncourage Sir, I don't know you nor do I know why you're so aggressive in your responses, but the infamous "Southern Strategy" is not bullshit, but a matter of historical record. It was not a 100% absolute-reversal, which if I implied,I am sorry for. I try not to speak in absolutes, and while I haven't heard, I will say that there is some potential for confusion in reading it all. The sides did migrate CONSIDERABLY though, sir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
0
Reply
Male 436
AgamemnonTheGreat Aggressive?

Well you would be a little aggressive too if half the country constantly called you a racist based on a fairy tale from 1 election where a few southern states voted republican in '64 and then proceeded to vote democrat in '68 and '76. But somehow we are all supposed to believe that they "switched sides", even though they consistently voted Democrat in all state level elections until 2000.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/map/historic.html#1964

The "Southern Strategy" is lie without ANY evidence to back it up. That is an absolute. There is zero evidence of voters switching sides. The election results are public record. Southern states voted in Democrat Governors during the times when they had supposedly switched sides.

One argument for the "Southern Strategy" is that Goldwater, one of the primary supporters of civil rights is a racist because he thought a clause in the '64 civil rights act was an attempt to legislate morality and thought. Of course the truth is that he was painted as a racist and that maybe got him some votes in '68 but there was no strategy in it. Conveniently forgotten by everyone is that more Republicans supported the '64 civil rights act than Democrats. Why would racist southerners switch sides to back a party that overwhelmingly supported the legislation that they were supposedly against?

Second, they argue that Nixon courted the racist southern votes that he didn't even get in the first election and then he won most of the map in the second, not just the "racist south".

Maybe I am a little aggressive about this topic, but that is because it so obviously bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
pleasestop Fuck off already...
Evolved? You mean the Democrats and Jim Crow? Or the Democrats fighting against Civil Rights in the 60's? Or the Democrat KKK? That is 'evolution' to you?
Straight out of the DNC Gospels... you are so sad!
-3
Reply
Male 41,603
dm2754 Democrats have never forgiven them :p Either the slaves or the Republicans.
-3
Reply
Male 69
dm2754 savage, bro.
1
Reply
Male 4,391
notoriousbac many people consider him a tyrannical leader. And often put the sole responsibility of the Civil War on his shoulders. Hence the death to tyrants when they shot him.
-1
Reply
Male 35
Am I the only person not connecting the dots between the title and the post content?
4
Reply
Male 41,603
Male 35
5cats Ah, thanks for the link.

0
Reply
Male 41,603
dapperaardvark YW, it makes a little better sense when the whole thing is presented eh?
It is an ongoing pattern, not one single event that 'proves' it. But this shooting and the public murdering of Trump every night in NYC are big red warning signs...
-1
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats "But this shooting and the public murdering of Trump every night in NYC are big red warning signs."

The second half of the play is where the characters realize the horific consequences of assassinating an innocent leader. The play is anti-assasination. Enjoy your fake outrage and ignorance of the arts.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 So... NO ONE is stabbed to death on stage every fucking night then? My pointing out the facts is ignorance eh?

And that 'no one' does not resemble Trump in any way? Right down to his wife having a Czech accent? No? Fuck off.
-3
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats "My pointing out the facts is ignorance eh?"

No, it's your misunderstanding of the play itself that is ignorant. But nice attempt at deflection.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 They take an event from Ancient Rome... told by a Shakespearean play... put Donald Trump (specifically) on stage... and stab him until he is dead... and that is unrelated to anything else, ever.
What have I missed here? Please be specific.

Optional: please show the equivalent plays about Barack Obama being fucking murdered on a daily basis, ok? Do you get it now? The false moral equivalence? 
-3
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats "please show the equivalent plays about Barack Obama being fucking murdered on a daily basis, ok?"

Same play with Obama you dolt.
1
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 Interesting, I had no idea. Thanks!

Not performed on a huge stage in a public park or anything, but similar themed yes.
A black actor as Brutus was a brilliant idea too, apparently they chose a fine actor for that difficult role.
The comment section is interesting too, many from a few days ago.

(And I doubt the audience cheered when Obama got murdered eh? And the 'message' being sent back then was how evil the Tea Party was, the modern version is about how evil the President is, but still a fine catch! Sorry I was so grumpy last night eh...)
0
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats I appreciate the thank you and the sorry. I'm a little confused why you are still furthering a partisan false narrative about the 2017 play and now another one about the 2012 play, though. The 2012 play was not about how evil the Tea Party is. I purposely gave you a link to a conservative review so you would know the play with the Obama-like character actually happened. But now you are repeating an old false narrative from that review that it was about the Tea Party. Here is a local review of the 2012 play. There is zero mention of the Tea Party. It is the same old Julius Caesar play where the characters feel remorse for killing an innocent leader. Same as the remorse shown in the current play of killing an innocent leader. Playhouses often use modern settings with modern leaders for this play so that the audience can more closely relate to the story. Does it not bother you that you were manipulated into repeating a false narrative about the 2017 version of the play? Or is the narrative (that Liberals are using dangerous violent rhetoric) so important to you that you don't care if the second biggest proof of this is a lie? Is it only about making the opposition look bad? This kind of manipulation is exactly what turned me off to partisan media in 2010. The more I looked into what I was being told I was supposed to be angry about the more I realized it was all horse shit.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 Your own link talked about that, how it was part of the play, the evil tea party (a nameless group that was based on the Tea Party? Same thing it was apparently clear in the play itself) was doing violent, OWS style-protesting and rioting... otherwise I have no idea about the play other than that link.
Obviously it wasn't featured too often on nation news networks... might have been IDK.

And sorry again, I let my grumpiness spill over from others, you didn't deserve such harsh language :/

Again? I'm positive the audience did not cheer and applaud when 'Obama' got killed, but they sure as hell do in the 2017 version... I'd have to see the two plays assassination scenes to say anything about them, they probably were similar? But the audience reaction tells the tale...

0
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats "And sorry again, I let my grumpiness spill over from others, you didn't deserve such harsh language :/ "

I really like this human side of you. I hope it is here to stay.

5cats "Your own link talked about that, how it was part of the play"

The link I gave you was a CONSERVATIVE review. Of course they are going to pretend the Tea Party was part of the Obama-like version of the play. You have a habit of believing anything that says what you want to hear.

5cats "Obviously it wasn't featured too often on nation news networks."

Exactly. There was zero controversy or outrage about the Obama-like version of the play. Same as there was zero controversy or outrage about the current Trump-like version. That was until the outrage was MANUFACTURED. 

5cats "Again? I'm positive the audience did not cheer and applaud when 'Obama' got killed, but they sure as hell do in the 2017 version."

No, the audience did not cheer for the Trump-like character getting stabbed. You have only been TOLD that they did and you believe it, because again, you have a bad habit of believing only what you want to hear.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 It would make perfect sense in the context of the play. The Tea Party was in reality peacefully demonstrating against specific Obama policies. And the liberal-left (99% of actors included) wanted to smear the TP any way they could :p Double goodness! Make the TP look evil in this 'alternate universe' and it still makes sense in the play.

Show me people booing the death of Trump before these protests broke out and I'll believe it. Of course the play ended its run but it will be back. They cheered to see Trump die and you know it.
0
Reply
Male 5,308
5cats Oh my God, you are so partisan. You can't turn it off. They were Shakespeare fans booing a partisan idiot who was interrupting their play.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
markust123 Obviously I meant during all the other performances, I specifically said IN THAT SCENE not "when random people jump on the stage" ok??

You call me partisan? You are highly biased yourself to imagine (and it is just your imagination) I said anything at all about the audience reaction to the protestors... you cannot even think it possible I have a valid point? You have to substitute imaginary things for reality just to criticize me (for things I never said) ???
0
Reply
Male 5,308
5Cats The problem with the fake outrage over the Trump-like version of the play is the misunderstanding of the audience themselves. They are not a bunch of Trump haters going to see him get stabbed, they are Shakespeare fans through and through. Someone who is not a fan of Shakespeare would find a whole slew of plays on, and off, Broadway that they would want to go to before they suffered through Julius Caesar.
0
Reply
Male 5,422
markust123 Boom! Truly a mic-drop moment.
1
Reply
Male 5,422
1
Reply
Male 21,133
dapperaardvark I think the submitter was reaching. 
3
Reply
Male 41,603
fancylad You left out the actual link to the main article.
-3
Reply
Female 474
Erm...

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

Is that wrong? Which of those points do you disagree with?

I'm struggling to see your point on this one, 5Cats. The article you linked to says things like:

An American today would be right to be horrified — and not very surprised. This was one of two mass shootings in the United States on Wednesday.

The sniper... was surely deranged, and his derangement had found its fuel in politics. Mr. Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer virulently opposed to President Trump.

Also, you may want to note the correction posted at the bottom of the article which you somehow missed, although it was posted 24 hours before you posted this.

"Correction: June 16, 2017
An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs."

So how are they ignoring liberal violence against republicans? It states very clearly that the gunman was a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter. Do you disagree with that? Why?

And how--and please be very clear about this one--does the article endorse violence against republicans? How? Given that the article does no such thing, will you be apologising for that headline?
4
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens Yeah, nice of them to stick a correction in later, at the very bottom and not fix it in the text eh?

It is a well established leftist tactic: put up fakenews (which everyone reads and sends to each other) and then later on maybe offer a small correction (which is largely ignored).

Just check IAB itself for NF2 and/or Fancylad "connecting" and thus laying the blame on Trump for this shooting. MANY journalists and Democrats have openly done so already.

But thank you for being on topic! The actual link is missing from the post above:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorial
-2
Reply
Female 474
5cats Nope, I'm not letting you off that easy. To remind you of the question you just tried to sidestep:

"And how--and please be very clear about this one--does the article endorse violence against republicans? How? Given that the article does no such thing, will you be apologising for that headline?"

How is their "fakenews" (which they corrected) any worse than your fake news, which you haven't?

Again - how does the article endorse violence against republicans? I get it that you're after an eye-catching headline that you hope nobody will question, but seriously - did you think you wouldn't be asked to justify this one?

And, by the way, if they'd fixed it in the text you'd just have accused them of trying to cover it up. It's not their fault you can't be bothered to read the whole article.
2
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens Not at all, they put a note on what the original text said at the BOTTOM and it's not 'stealth' at all. If it's OK for the correction? Why not for the mistake? Oh right! Because the NYT wants people to read the lie, and ignore the facts!
-3
Reply
Female 474
5cats Oh, and talking about ignoring things:

"And how--and please be very clear about this one--does the article endorse violence against republicans? How? Given that the article does no such thing, will you be apologising for that headline?"

How is their "fakenews" (which they corrected) any worse than your fake news, which you haven't?

This is the third time of asking. Are you unable to answer?
1
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens By offering excuses, apologies and making false moral equivalences? The NYT tries (dishonestly) to place the blame for the shooting on the Republicans, NOT the Democrats.
By emphasising past Republican 'evils' (by lying about them) and ignoring all the current Democrats calling for (and organizing) actual violence? They are deliberately trying to shift the public's opinion against Republicans.

This is one part of an ongoing pattern of lies and deceptions by the NYT specifically to excuse the many actual attacks BY the left and highlight attacks by the right, even if they have to invent such things and publish fiction as if it were factual. (crosshairs)

Where's my fakenews? What news have I faked? Am I a paid, professional journalist? Do I run a newspaper which is supposed to be unbiased? I can be as biased as I please, thank you very much.

Why didn't I answer before? Because the answers are in the actual link I intended to put up. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorial
1
Reply
Female 474
5cats Nonsense. Utter nonsense. No reasonable person could come to those conclusions by reading that editorial.

"An American today would be right to be horrified"

"a sickeningly familiar pattern is emerging"

"the sniper... was surely deranged"

I don't see how the NYT could have condemned the attack any more than that.

How exactly do they put the blame on the republicans? How do they excuse it? There is nothing in that article that says that.

"Mr. Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer virulently opposed to President Trump. He posted many anti-Trump messages on social media, including one in March that said “Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”"

They're blaming republicans by blaming a democrat campaign volunteer? That's some pretty convoluted logic right there.

And you should note that not even the article you linked from the Nationalist Review claimed that the NYT 'endorsed' violence against republicans. Note the word you used in your headline. Not 'excuse', but 'endorse'. That's a pretty big claim to make and you should be prepared to specifically justify it. 

In fact, such a view is simply a fantasy, and you should apologise for it. If you're not prepared to apologise, please quote the sentences that led you to believe they were endorsing violence.

And your fake news is in the headline. You don't have to be a journalist to propagate fake news (today's equivalent of reds under the bed). You just have to twist facts to your own political agenda. (Although, of course, it isn't fake news by the republican definition of the term, which is 'anything critical of Donald Trump for any reason).
0
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens YEs, the first few paragraphs are filled with the sugary language that is expected at this sort of time. It is the later part(s) that are the problem which is the problem.

Plenty of Democrats and journalists have openly called for and endorsed violence against all Republicans, why should the NYT be any different? 

I am not a journalist, I cannot spread fakenews even if I tired. If a 'sensationalist' headline bothers you? How do you survive in the MSM for an hour?? :-p
0
Reply
Female 474
5cats Now you're just dodging the issue again. I'm not asking whether other democrats and journalists have openly endorsed violence. Your claim is that the NYT, in this article, is endorsing acts of terrorism against American politicians.

I've asked again and again. You have made a very serious and specific allegation about this specific editorial. Justify it or apologise.

And for the last time: you don't need to be a journalist to spread fake news. You can be a journalist or a blogger or anyone with a public platform, such as, say, an internet forum where you can post lies for a political end, for example by claiming that an article which categorically, clearly and repeatedly condemns an act of violence is somehow endorsing that violence.

Now stop trying to wriggle out of it.

Justify your allegations or apologise.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens I'm saying plain and simple: this specific article endorses violence against right wingers. The article I actually linked explains it better than I can. 

I'm supporting that argument with precedents: they've (MSM and DNC) all been doing it for years now. If they've been doing it all this time, why would they not be doing it here? Integrity? Lolz! They just got caught, that is the only issue that bothers them now.
0
Reply
Female 474
I'm saying plain and simple: this specific article endorses violence against right wingers

Where? Seriously. Where? You've been caught lying, 5Cats. Face it. You've made an outrageous claim and I've called you out on it and you have no answer. There's no wriggling or changing the subject you can do any longer. For someone who complains so much about the news being twisted in order to make a political point, when you do exactly the same thing it makes you a hypocrite of the first magnitude.

And you can stop claiming that the other article you linked says any such thing either. It claims that the NYT has libelled republican politicians by saying they incited violence. It does not claim that the NYT endorses violence or that there is anything in that editorial that endorses violence.

I'm just checking here: you know what 'endorses' means, right? I mean, you've looked it up and everything?

And to claim that precedents prove your point is so laughable I'm struggling to believe that, clutching at straws though you are, you're seriously expecting me to accept it. What you're saying here is that the proof that this specific NYT editorial endorses terrorism isn't to be found in the editorial itself (because it clearly isn't) it's because the media and the Democrats have done it in the past. That's your proof? Couldn't you prove it by, you know, quoting the editorial or something?
0
Reply
Male 6,127
DrCribbens The report endorses violence against Republicans because 5Cats wants it to because that's how he routinely justifies dunning ALL liberals as being the same, whether it's Bernie Sanders or that psycho asshole with the gun. He misreads, misquotes, and mistakenly lumps people together however he has to in order to prove his pro-conservative point and glorify the godly wonderful Republican party.
I have no doubt, for instance, that he'll find something in what I've written here that lets him feel he can accuse me of justifying that horrible shooting.
5
Reply
Male 8,200
broizfam It's actually right out of the Breitbart, conservative playbook, make a misleading title fill the article with words that contradict the title but no one reads the actual document, or well the people that do go "WTF"?  But the tons under educated morons that come to get their marching orders go I SAW IT ON THE INTERNETz!
4
Reply
Female 474
normalfreak2 Exactly what he did here as well. Post bullshit with an eyecatching headline, hope that nobody reads any further.

Nobody fell for it then either. 5Cats, you need to make more effort. It's too easy.
3
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens Not one IAB Liberal talked about the facts presented in that post. They bitched like little shits over the source of the reporting, but ignored the scientific paper that was published.

So no, I have nothing to prove in that post because the facts were never challenged... same shit going on here too, mostly.
-2
Reply
Male 5,422
5cats You just wrote: "Not one IAB liberal talked about the facts presented in that [anti-AGW] post." Nonsense. Below is my comment from that post, which you ignored like a child sticking his fingers in his ears.
- - -

If you came away from Glowby's comment thinking he agrees with the article you've posted, you ought to re-read it. He clearly states that all the facts it presents, except one, are fabricated. Also, a quibble about words: scientific papers contain findings. Articles, on the other hand, contain information. In this instance, as Glowby stated, much of that information is wrong.

You wrote: "There's been a 'flatline' of 'warming' for the past 18+ years. Slowly rising yes...."

A flatline that is rising? That makes no sense. A flatline in a chart is a line that is... well, flat. But, okay, let's go with it. You say there's a flatline that has been slowly rising for 18+ years. Let's take a look at what the scientists at NASA are saying. Below is a copy of what is, arguably, the most important chart in all of global warming science, the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index as prepared and maintained by NASA scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. I've highlighted the past 18 years for you (1999-2016) in pink.



To even a casual observer's eye, you can see that the line is clearly rising. The third dot from the right, where the red running-mean line ends, is 2014. When 2014's data came in, scientists found that it was the warmest year ever recorded since modern temperature records began in the 1880s. Then 2015's data came in and that became the warmest year ever. And then last year's data came in, and that beat 2014 and 2015's record years and it became the warmest year ever. This doesn't look much like a flatline to me, not even a flatline that is "slowly rising," as you said.

You wrote: "It is only 'record high' if they increase the current data OVER what they actually recorded, lower the older data for no reason at all, AND ignore satellite data which is the most accurate measure of the Earth's temperature in existence."

Well, I'm glad you approve of the satellite data and think so highly of it. Those satellites that are recording temperature data? They were put up by NASA scientists and the data from those satellites are part of the data that go into producing the chart I just showed you. So, no, I don't think they're ignoring their own satellite data.

In this same sentence of yours and others that follow, you make a lot of accusations of scientific incompetence and dishonesty on the part of climate change scientists. Yet every investigation that has ever been conducted into adjustments of temperature records has shown that those adjustments were done to ensure that the temperature records are as scientifically accurate as possible. None of the adjustments was ever found to be done in secret or for nefarious purposes.

Can you please provide a link showing your evidence that NASA scientists were cheating with the data that went into the chart I've just shown above? As this is, again, arguably the most important chart in all of climate science, if the cheating occurred, it should be pretty easy to find the evidence of it. Thanks.

You wrote: "The Earth is warming, has been for 5000+ years now... so that does not prove AGW at all."

That's simply not true. Over 5,000 years, the Earth has both warmed and cooled, yes, but it's always done so slowly and never as quickly as what we're seeing in recent decades. In fact, if you go back 1,500 years, you can see the the overall trend of Earth's temperatures was slightly downward--until we hit the year 1900 or so. Here's a graph illustrating this from the scientists at NASA:



The blue line at the right shows temperatures that were recorded with modern instruments. The green line at the left shows temperatures that were recontructed by tree ring data, lake sediment, ice cores, coral growth, and other methods. You'll note that this chart cuts off at 2000--so it doesn't include the record high temperatures of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Still, the sudden rise in temperatures is obvious. No flatline here.

You wrote: "Are you claiming all previous cycles have ended, just stopped? ALL OF NATURE has ceased to affect the Earth's climate, after billions of years, it just plain stopped and humans are 100% responsible now, since 1900?"

I don't think anyone anywhere is claiming that all natural cycles have stopped, and I'm not sure where you get this idea. Natural cycles are continuing as always. It's just that they are being overwhelmed by the Greenhouse Effect caused by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

I hope this helps. Thanks.
0
Reply
Female 474
5cats I talked about the facts. I talked about the facts at great length and then justified, point by point, the arguments I was making and then explained them again.

I challenged the facts. I focused on the facts. I quoted the parts of the article that you posted that directly contradicted your claims.

Your answer was... oh, wait, no. You didn't have an answer, did you? Because it was fake news.

If it helps, I can post my reply again to refresh your obviously faulty memory.
1
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens I was referring to the climate change post from before, specifically. I did mention you had been on-topic here, along with a couple of others, I'm pleased with that! Sad that the usual hate-mongers just jump in too, as they always do.

The actual article I intended to link has those answers you're seeking, it is linked a few times here (in the comments) already.
0
Reply
Female 474
5cats I was referring to the climate change post from before

So was I.

This is the post I was referring to, as per the request by @squrlz4ever. The one you described as bitching like little shits over the source of the reporting, but ignored the scientific paper that was published. The one you had no answer for.

Interesting reply. And seeing as I have a spare five minutes, I'll take the time to bite.

Now, obviously, I didn't actually work out the percentage. But I'm happy to analyse my post for you, just so you've got a better chance of understanding it.

The first part was a comment on the source that you had quoted. I think this is valid. It's valid to understand whether the source is, for example, The International Journal of Climate Change or some rag that makes money out of titillating its readers. As many of the people on this forum won't be familiar with the Daily Star, it was pertinent to point it out.

Everything between the first and last paragraph was then a comment on the article itself and an article that the original article contains a link to (another Daily Star page). The overwhelming majority of this consisted of direct quotes from the article(s).

Again, to help your understanding, I'll summarise the relevant points again here.

* "The study suggests that the last time temperatures were significantly warmer than today, freak climate change happened". When I said that 'any ice age will be the result of global warming' I was summarising the above quote.
* "Confidence is very low to non-existent because everything that happened back then is likely to not 100% match what is going on today, therefore a different outcome is likely."
* "A further abrupt reduction is recognised as a possibility by climate scientists, but is considered to have a low likelihood."
* The research is "largely irrelevant for the modern period as the conditions in the past no longer apply."

Which bit of these is the crap bit? Note the comments such as 'the study suggests', 'confidence is very low', 'recognised as a possibility' and 'largely irrelevant'. This is about the article that you posted. The people who wrote the article are telling us it's most likely bullshit. Did you read it before you posted it or, like the people who wrote it, were you just hoping that we'd read the headline and not go any further? And I'm the person who's claiming that 'the science is settled'? (Not that I ever have, but you seem pretty certain about your conclusions, even when you've reached them by reading articles that aren't actually saying what you think they're saying.)

As for warming leading to cooling, did you read my post at all? It contained an explanation of how global warming can lead to localised cooling. Not understanding the explanations isn't a valid reason for dismissing them.

It seems, then, that your claim that I did nothing but launch personal insults is nonsense.

And so, after all that, the fuckwit comment may have been uncalled for, but let's face it, when you post articles that not only contradict your own argument but contradict themselves, you're not doing yourself any favours.
0
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens I ignore the squrlz whenever possible. He knows this and constantly spams me to try to draw a response. He is reprehensible and I have nothing to say to him other than 'stop'.

Repeating AGW PROPAGANDA and not even mentioning the FACTS presented in the paper which is the TOPIC is a complete waste of time and utterly changing the subject.

The people who wrote the article are pro-agw!! Of course they use 'cautious language' duh! But even they cannot cover up the facts: the models of other AGW predictions are just plain wrong. And all AGW has is models, none of the facts are within their Margin Of Error even after they secretly 'adjust' the data to fit the theory...

Again: the news-paper and the scientific-paper are entirely different things. How hard is that to understand? Attacking the Star in no way at all makes the science invalid.
0
Reply
Female 474
5cats I'm sorry, but this just shows how confused you are about the whole thing.

You posted the article!!! 

You don't get to post an article to prove your point and then tell us it's wrong when you realise it isn't saying what you thought it was saying.

And again: the source of the story is extremely relevant. Any notion that the source of information isn't pertinent to the information itself is utterly naive. 
0
Reply
Male 41,603
DrCribbens The SOURCE of the STORY is the SCIENTIFIC PAPER PUBLISHED BY A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL for fuck's sake! The Star is irrelevant!

THAT IS MY POINT and the previous post perfectly illustrates how IABers ignored the subject (published, peer-reviewed science) and attacked the messenger (The Star) (and me of course) which is not the source of the SCIENCE DONE ok? You cannot refute science by bitching about the reputation of a fucking newspaper!!!

Some idiots changed the subject and I'm supposed to care? No! If they cannot talk about the subject of my Post? Let them post their own ideas elsewhere and stop spamming.
0
Reply
Female 474
5cats If you believe the newspaper isn't relevant to the point they're trying to make then you're more hopelessly naive than I thought you were. Do you genuinely believe that a newspaper (and a British tabloid at that) doesn't twist the facts to their own ends? Do you really think that what you see in the paper is true? You, who spends half his life whingeing about the "MSM"? Or is it only true when it suits you?

And please, remind me. Are you saying the paper is reporting this accurately or not? It's just that you've changed your mind twice over your last three posts.
0
Reply
Male 5,422
DrCribbens Please do copy & paste your reply directly beneath his assertion that "the facts were never challenged." Lies or bad memories--or whatever this is--need to be exposed. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 8,200
squrlz4ever I'm sure 5cats will get right on that!  Any day now....
0
Reply
Male 8,200
DrCribbens I second this.  5cats What are you complaining about?
1
Reply
Female 36
thank the gods that we have 5cats to post and comment, gotta love narrowed minded ineptitude rhetoric, and dittos to all, whatever the agenda
4
Reply
Male 41,603
-3
Reply
Male 569
I'm not even going to go to the trouble of posting the gif.  Just suffice it to say, "eat popcorn."
2
Reply
Male 21,133
While IAB's initial article on the shooting does mention Trump and David Duke, there was no attempt to connect the two.

Also, maybe someone smarter than me can correct me, but wasn't Jared Lee Loughner's motivation completely politically motivated? He was a paranoid schizophrenic, but wasn't he also anti-government, with far right beliefs?

I only did a Wikipedia search, but this is what I found in a quick read...

The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack were described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement".

and...

"In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways."

But whatever -- you find what you're looking for if you look hard enough. 
1
Reply
Male 41,603
fancylad FancyLad you left out the article link which examines all the lies contained in the NYT article (that got linked instead)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorial

Loughner was extremely leftist, he hated Giffords BEFORE Palin came along because she wasn't leftist (or radical) enough for his liking. Tea Party? He had nothing in common with them, nothing to do with them at all.

There were no "stylized cross hairs" in Palin's poster, those are photographic sights to "focus" on things... which is the message of the poster. Other posters were created later by Democrats and 'journalists' with actual cross-hairs on them, but they were fakenews passed off as what the poster "looked like to them" but letting people think it was the real thing.
1
Reply