Gabriella Giffords Assasinated...

[Anonymous]

Hey....it's not my fault that President Obama smells terrible. However, in the spirit of American enterprise , and since the President still has 2 years to stink up the White House and Air Force One; I would recommend investing in a clothespin company. Obama's new chief of staff has the right idea... http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.engagingkcoe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/clothespin-on-nose2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.engagingkcoe.com/blog/category/operational-excellence/&usg=__mig_Pd6kCtEaEGHycIfkc8fG6T8=&h=1400&w=1000&sz=138&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=An_kIaO2_JK4eM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclothespin%2Bon%2Bnose%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D758%26bih%3D486%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C3&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=787&vpy=39&dur=2859&hovh=266&hovw=190&tx=116&ty=120&ei=V3EsTe6fNML-8AbE8ZDHCg&oei=XnEsTdfmHoqr8AbMpIW5Cg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=1003&bih=544

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey....it's not my fault that President Obama smells terrible. However, in the spirit of American enterprise , and since the President still has 2 years to stink up the White House and Air Force One; I would recommend investing in a clothespin company. Obama's new chief of staff has the right idea... http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.engagingkcoe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/clothespin-on-nose2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.engagingkcoe.com/blog/category/operational-excellence/&usg=__mig_Pd6kCtEaEGHycIfkc8fG6T8=&h=1400&w=1000&sz=138&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=An_kIaO2_JK4eM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dclothespin%2Bon%2Bnose%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D758%26bih%3D486%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C3&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=787&vpy=39&dur=2859&hovh=266&hovw=190&tx=116&ty=120&ei=V3EsTe6fNML-8AbE8ZDHCg&oei=XnEsTdfmHoqr8AbMpIW5Cg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=1003&bih=544

There's a 50 cents off coupon for anti-bacterial dial soap in today's paper...

[Anonymous]

Sarah Palin smells like salmon. Don't take my word for it, she said it herself!

Panty sniffer, I just blew your mind! Now what are you going to do with your political hygiene theory? I know, you will probably take three showers in a row...

[Anonymous]

That's not genetic or chronic like Obama. If in the course of doing a job the work product rubs off on you. That is normal with the expectation that you are going to clean yourself up and b pleasant to be around the majority of your esistance. Chronic Stank that President B.O. leaves all over his bed, the White House and his airplane leaves a poor impression and represents our country poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's not genetic or chronic like Obama. If in the course of doing a job the work product rubs off on you. That is normal with the expectation that you are going to clean yourself up and b pleasant to be around the majority of your esistance. Chronic Stank that President B.O. leaves all over his bed, the White House and his airplane leaves a poor impression and represents our country poorly.

Hey 11:13, what's the matter, did you run out of your medication yesterday? Hahahaha Better get that prescription renewed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's not genetic or chronic like Obama. If in the course of doing a job the work product rubs off on you. That is normal with the expectation that you are going to clean yourself up and b pleasant to be around the majority of your esistance. Chronic Stank that President B.O. leaves all over his bed, the White House and his airplane leaves a poor impression and represents our country poorly.

Oh no. You said her hygiene was part of her clean, put together look. She smells like salmon. She had to get perfume to cover it up. Her words, not mine. Salmon.

[Anonymous]

See, she is aware when she doesn't smell good. Then she does something about it. This is what attractive, intelligent people do. Obama on the other hand....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See, she is aware when she doesn't smell good. Then she does something about it. This is what attractive, intelligent people do. Obama on the other hand....

No, her smelliness is a lifestyle choice. She says she smells like salmon for a whole season! And it's not just salmon. Next, its moose season , then it's caribou, and so on. Her whole life is one or another smelly habit. She's gamey, and that is not attractive. And it doesn't wash off easily. No wonder she didn't live in the Governor's mansion for that long first term of hers. The staff didn't want it smelling like a bait shop. Who can blame them?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

I agree with all of this. Problem is that there is no connection to the Giffords shooting - so while this might be an opportunity to re-examine some overheated rhetoric and symbolism, most likely it will be viewed as political opportunism taking advantage of an unrelated tragedy. Plus, it is free speech.

Sooner or later there will be a true assassination where the killer WAS motivated by politics, and that will be the instance that can bring about change. This likely isnt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

I agree with all of this. Problem is that there is no connection to the Giffords shooting - so while this might be an opportunity to re-examine some overheated rhetoric and symbolism, most likely it will be viewed as political opportunism taking advantage of an unrelated tragedy. Plus, it is free speech.

Sooner or later there will be a true assassination where the killer WAS motivated by politics, and that will be the instance that can bring about change. This likely isnt it.

This is exactly what it is. And it's disgusting. But hey, never let a crisis go to waste.

And, not to get in the way of the idiotic conversations above about hygiene...I was just reading this editorial about the Sheriff. I nothing about the politicial leanings of the paper, but I thought the article raised a good point. The Sherrif is engaging in the same vitriol he's accusing others of. And I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to distract people from the fact that his office knew about the problems with the perp - knew he had mental issues, knew he had problems with his school, knew he'd made death threats against other people - yet this still happened. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

I agree with all of this. Problem is that there is no connection to the Giffords shooting - so while this might be an opportunity to re-examine some overheated rhetoric and symbolism, most likely it will be viewed as political opportunism taking advantage of an unrelated tragedy. Plus, it is free speech.

Sooner or later there will be a true assassination where the killer WAS motivated by politics, and that will be the instance that can bring about change. This likely isnt it.

This is exactly what it is. And it's disgusting. But hey, never let a crisis go to waste.

And, not to get in the way of the idiotic conversations above about hygiene...I was just reading this editorial about the Sheriff. I nothing about the politicial leanings of the paper, but I thought the article raised a good point. The Sherrif is engaging in the same vitriol he's accusing others of. And I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to distract people from the fact that his office knew about the problems with the perp - knew he had mental issues, knew he had problems with his school, knew he'd made death threats against other people - yet this still happened. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html

It is plainly obvious that the sheriff is being sincere in his concern. Questioning his motives detracts from your point. Anyone can read his face and tell he is not pretending.

I think that reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which the political climate contributed to Loughner's horrible crime.

But we have been talking for two years about how the hostility within the tea party is getting out of control. I know it is frustrating to you decent tea partiers, and I believe there are many. But you are in a movement and a movement is hard to control. Nevertheless, the hostility is there and some of your leaders are more than willing to capitalize on it. The videos and photos from the rallies are all too clear. The polls of tea partier beliefs are all too clear. If you can't face it, the tea party movement will fail.

[Anonymous]

Liberals should really move back to pacifist Europe. I heard much vitriol and hatred against Bush and Cheney. Assasination plays..Bush is a Nazi.... Haliburton...Our troops and the President are war criminals (talk about attacking the government). But conservatives are strong people with thick skin. We are used to this kind of treatment and we shrug it off without trying to silence people. Another reason we are superior!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals should really move back to pacifist Europe. I heard much vitriol and hatred against Bush and Cheney. Assasination plays..Bush is a Nazi.... Haliburton...Our troops and the President are war criminals (talk about attacking the government). But conservatives are strong people with thick skin. We are used to this kind of treatment and we shrug it off without trying to silence people. Another reason we are superior!

By shrugging it off you mean you whine all the time? Look at your own post. Which is it, shrug or whine? BTW on the silencing thing, why are conservatives usually on the other side of free speech cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

I agree with all of this. Problem is that there is no connection to the Giffords shooting - so while this might be an opportunity to re-examine some overheated rhetoric and symbolism, most likely it will be viewed as political opportunism taking advantage of an unrelated tragedy. Plus, it is free speech.

Sooner or later there will be a true assassination where the killer WAS motivated by politics, and that will be the instance that can bring about change. This likely isnt it.

This is exactly what it is. And it's disgusting. But hey, never let a crisis go to waste.

And, not to get in the way of the idiotic conversations above about hygiene...I was just reading this editorial about the Sheriff. I nothing about the politicial leanings of the paper, but I thought the article raised a good point. The Sherrif is engaging in the same vitriol he's accusing others of. And I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to distract people from the fact that his office knew about the problems with the perp - knew he had mental issues, knew he had problems with his school, knew he'd made death threats against other people - yet this still happened. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html

It is plainly obvious that the sheriff is being sincere in his concern. Questioning his motives detracts from your point. Anyone can read his face and tell he is not pretending.

I think that reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which the political climate contributed to Loughner's horrible crime.

But we have been talking for two years about how the hostility within the tea party is getting out of control. I know it is frustrating to you decent tea partiers, and I believe there are many. But you are in a movement and a movement is hard to control. Nevertheless, the hostility is there and some of your leaders are more than willing to capitalize on it. The videos and photos from the rallies are all too clear. The polls of tea partier beliefs are all too clear. If you can't face it, the tea party movement will fail.

1) The good point of that article is that on day one of the shootings you can excuse the sherrif of being overcome by emotions and lashing out. Beyond that he's participating in the same vitriol he condemns. And frankly, continuing to point his finger at radio hosts and politicians - when this clearly was not politically motivated - isn't his job.

2) You are in denial if you think there is not hostility on your own side. Shall I post links to videos and photos from liberal rallies? Placards calling for the death of Bush? Hoping Palin gets gang raped. Come one. Or do you just want to continue your holier than thou attititude? Most of the so called "hostility" in the tea party movement has been media smears to try and paint the tea party as violent extremists. It's a common tactic to try and discredit them. Ridicule them. Accuse them of being racist. Yet, never produce a single piece of video evidence of the alleged incident. Accuse them of being astro turf. Etc., etc. Are there angry people in the tea party? Sure. They're angry about a lot of what is going on in this country right now. Are they hostile? No more than liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the shooter was not a follower of that candidate, so how is his campaign gun event even relevant? you don't like it, but what evidence is there that it caused any violence or anything bad of any kind? I don't see the relevance.

You apparently have not been able to follow the discussion (understandably with the much more relevant issue of body oder mixed in). Someone posted this:

The idea that anyone using phraseology like "in the cross hairs", "targeted", "under attack" etc. in political discourse is referring to guns or bow and arrow for that matter is beyond absurd.

I pointed out that Giffords' opponent used the word "target" in an advertisement for an event that involved shooting a fully automatic weapon. I provided photographic evidence that the event involved shooting at human-shaped targets. In that case, it is obviously not "beyond absurd" to think that the phraseology referred to guns.

I never claimed that this event had anything to do with the shooter. To the contrary, I've said repeatedly that I didn't think the shooter was politically-motivated. But, regardless of whether this event had a political motivation, the use of violent, gun-oriented political messaging -- largely, though not exclusively by the right wing -- is a dangerous phenomenon and one that we should condemn.

I agree with all of this. Problem is that there is no connection to the Giffords shooting - so while this might be an opportunity to re-examine some overheated rhetoric and symbolism, most likely it will be viewed as political opportunism taking advantage of an unrelated tragedy. Plus, it is free speech.

Sooner or later there will be a true assassination where the killer WAS motivated by politics, and that will be the instance that can bring about change. This likely isnt it.

This is exactly what it is. And it's disgusting. But hey, never let a crisis go to waste.

And, not to get in the way of the idiotic conversations above about hygiene...I was just reading this editorial about the Sheriff. I nothing about the politicial leanings of the paper, but I thought the article raised a good point. The Sherrif is engaging in the same vitriol he's accusing others of. And I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to distract people from the fact that his office knew about the problems with the perp - knew he had mental issues, knew he had problems with his school, knew he'd made death threats against other people - yet this still happened. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html

It is plainly obvious that the sheriff is being sincere in his concern. Questioning his motives detracts from your point. Anyone can read his face and tell he is not pretending.

I think that reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which the political climate contributed to Loughner's horrible crime.

But we have been talking for two years about how the hostility within the tea party is getting out of control. I know it is frustrating to you decent tea partiers, and I believe there are many. But you are in a movement and a movement is hard to control. Nevertheless, the hostility is there and some of your leaders are more than willing to capitalize on it. The videos and photos from the rallies are all too clear. The polls of tea partier beliefs are all too clear. If you can't face it, the tea party movement will fail.

1) The good point of that article is that on day one of the shootings you can excuse the sherrif of being overcome by emotions and lashing out. Beyond that he's participating in the same vitriol he condemns. And frankly, continuing to point his finger at radio hosts and politicians - when this clearly was not politically motivated - isn't his job.

2) You are in denial if you think there is not hostility on your own side. Shall I post links to videos and photos from liberal rallies? Placards calling for the death of Bush? Hoping Palin gets gang raped. Come one. Or do you just want to continue your holier than thou attititude? Most of the so called "hostility" in the tea party movement has been media smears to try and paint the tea party as violent extremists. It's a common tactic to try and discredit them. Ridicule them. Accuse them of being racist. Yet, never produce a single piece of video evidence of the alleged incident. Accuse them of being astro turf. Etc., etc. Are there angry people in the tea party? Sure. They're angry about a lot of what is going on in this country right now. Are they hostile? No more than liberals.

Thanks so much for this excellent response! You articulated so well what many of us feel.