I just want to say even in context that quote is still crazy as fuck. However, I'm pretty sure that a single quote or quotes didn't lead up to this shooting, it was the highly polarized atmosphere in politics in general.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Reactions to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)
- Thread starter Deck Knight
- Start date
- Status
Disagree entirely. This is the type of thinking that insulates our Congresspeople from the citizens and makes them less effective at their jobs. Perhaps the greatest tragedy to come from this would be if Representatives took this line of thinking and stopped having events like town halls or the one Rep. Giffords was attending when she was shot.
Also, re: people saying this exists in a vacuum. Yes, it is a tragedy, and I feel very strongly for the people whose lives were lost in the tragedy. But, at the same time, I am not going to let that distract from the fact that this attempted assassination highlights a very real problem with our political discourse, and that is that the levels of animosity have become so great that, in many cases, Laughner's attack isn't considered as shocking as it should be. Also, when a politician is attacked, the attack is necessarily a political one. This was not a random act of violence. It was an attack on a politician as a representative of the government with an expressly political purpose (just look at some of Laughner's alleged anti government writings). To ignore this would be willfully ignorant.
Again, I am not saying any one particular politician or talking head deserves the blame, or that all people who are anti-government are fringe characters like Laughner, but that the current environment is toxic and far more welcoming to people like Laughner than it should be. There is no reason Congresspeople should fear for their lives and simple statements that this was a "tragedy" will not be enough to fix our political climate. Our political leaders and members of the media must lead by example and make it clear to their supporters before the fact that this type of behavior (including the vandalism of her office during the health care debate) is absolutely unacceptable and has no place in the American political dialogue.
Well, considering that this very thread is in a sense a political manipulation of the event masquerading as a discussion or "call to reason" ("look at how hypocritical liberals are, jumping to conclusions based on explicitly violent rhetoric from the tea party when they should be praying for the victims' families instead" -- there are pretty obvious and potent political messages contained even in the prayer part), and given his past posting history, it doesn't see too far out of the question! (Saying Deck Knight "generally sways to the right" is a pretty funny joke, though, I must admit.) It's a bit like how, after a shooting, conservatives vehemently complain about the way "liberals" are "exploiting" the shooting to advocate stricter gun control as a thinly veiled tactic to attack gun control and to advance their own political agenda.
Son of Disaster said:
Actually those quotes, especially the first one, are, indeed, really fucking crazy.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...urch-to-picket-funeral-of-9-year-old-arizona/
even with it happening so often, it just pisses me off everytime. but really, a 9 year old?
even with it happening so often, it just pisses me off everytime. but really, a 9 year old?
First of all, if anyone here truly believes that Democrats use the same level of incendiary rhetoric as Republicans, you are objectively a blithering moron. I'm not kidding. This goes beyond partisanship. I mean, even in the OP, the best quotes you could find were "if they punch, let's punch back" when you have several key public figures belonging to the Republican party advocating a full on violent revolution against the government. Are you really trying to establish some sort of moral equivalency between those two things? What the fuck are you on, mate?
With that out of the way, I don't think analyzing the possible causes of this tragedy demeans the lives of the victims in any way. Deck Knight mentions in the OP that people should be "praying for the families of the dead", when that would just be a feel-good media circlejerk that doesn't accomplish anything. I feel for the victims and I absolutely advocate useful forms of support (like donations or sending them goodwill cards or whatever), but I see no issue with drawing media attention to the absolutely batshit insane propaganda being employed in politics today and do something about that so that shit like this doesn't happen again in the future. That's actually productive and useful. I don't even care if both parties are equally complicit in this (they're not, read the first paragraph), it should not be acceptable for anyone to say things like that or to use assassination related imagery. Especially for a party that is infamous for its fringe, borderline psychotic gun nuts.
It's very likely that the individual who did this was mentally compromised, so it's not like I'm claiming that political propaganda turns normal people into sleeper agents. What I am saying is that this sort of political climate definitely directs the attentions of those who are innately more violent towards politics, and it feeds that violent inclination with subconscious justification, until they do something like try to assassinate leaders or bomb abortion clinics or lynch blacks or whatever else.
With that out of the way, I don't think analyzing the possible causes of this tragedy demeans the lives of the victims in any way. Deck Knight mentions in the OP that people should be "praying for the families of the dead", when that would just be a feel-good media circlejerk that doesn't accomplish anything. I feel for the victims and I absolutely advocate useful forms of support (like donations or sending them goodwill cards or whatever), but I see no issue with drawing media attention to the absolutely batshit insane propaganda being employed in politics today and do something about that so that shit like this doesn't happen again in the future. That's actually productive and useful. I don't even care if both parties are equally complicit in this (they're not, read the first paragraph), it should not be acceptable for anyone to say things like that or to use assassination related imagery. Especially for a party that is infamous for its fringe, borderline psychotic gun nuts.
It's very likely that the individual who did this was mentally compromised, so it's not like I'm claiming that political propaganda turns normal people into sleeper agents. What I am saying is that this sort of political climate definitely directs the attentions of those who are innately more violent towards politics, and it feeds that violent inclination with subconscious justification, until they do something like try to assassinate leaders or bomb abortion clinics or lynch blacks or whatever else.
I don't see why this is being painted as having anything to do with politics. Loughner is obviously a lunatic. The fact that it involved a Congresswoman is probably just happenstance. Sounds to me like he was just a terribly warped man looking for a way to get attention and this was what he saw as his opportunity.
How can you even say this? Are you the murderer? He hasn't even said anything yet, and it has been shown from what little has been discovered about him that he is clearly deranged and mentally unstable. To say that the crime was politically motivated seems a very foolish assumption.
Don't be stupid, he means it as a kind gesture. Whether the praying does something or not is irrelevant, what's important is that he wants people to think about the victims and their families and how tragic the murders are. What do you suggest Deck Knight, or anyone else who uses "praying for their families", do instead? Some people don't have the time/money to help, so instead they say that as a way to offer their condolences and support (mentally rather than physically) to the victims and their families. You can't even say that politicians could have done something to stop this, outside of never having public appearances.
My thoughts are that while this is a tragedy, it is difficult to say that aggresive politics are the cause of it. I certainly think that both major parties in the US are far too aggressive with their words and tactics, but in this situation the perpetrator is a person who cannot think or act reasonably rather than a fanatical political supporter. One may argue that the aggresive politics convinced the man that shooting the representative and her constituents was the right thing to do, but I would say that it is impossible to know exactly what his motivation was, as well as whether or not he would have found a different reason (or perhaps simply a different target) had the aggressive politics never existed. It is a sad truth of this world that there are some people who are unfit for civilized society. It is far too difficult to discern who is dangerous and who is not from any outward appearance or behavior, so those who would bring harm to others often slip through unnoticed, and innocent people with good intentions are often wrongly detained =/
It honestly real talk pisses me the fuck off when i see the shooters face.Beyond the political standpoint of it that is pretty deep, anyone notice the lack of coverage on anyone besides the 9 year old shot the judge or Giffords.Maybe the families wanted privacy. But the media has been constantly emphasizing that the 9 year old girl was born on 9/11/2001.Shoving it down our necks. Its really sad anyone died because of 1 idiot but why not give coverage to the people that actually had a standing in society.Like the judge.
Incendiary rhetoric is indeed a political mainstay. While we don't really know if it is to blame in this particular case, both "sides" are guilty of it. And it should stop. If your beliefs have merit, such rhetoric shouldn't be required to rally the base or whatever.
That what was I was essentially saying, except the latter. Nice touch.
People need something to blame. At least in this case they want to blame something that's 100% negative with absolutely no positive aspect whatsoever. If this situation can be used to discourage and bring down the type of shit we've seen politicians like Sarah Palin pull, I wouldn't think the families of those affected would complain.
Most level-headed response I've seen to this:
US Link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
Canadian Link: http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=f7eb2f9d-fe35-422d-9770-874ca758cde7
Most level-headed response I've seen to this:
US Link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
Canadian Link: http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=f7eb2f9d-fe35-422d-9770-874ca758cde7
My heart goes out to the victims and the families affected by this shooting. I wish that I could end my post there, but I feel that this discussion seems to be going in a way in which just ending there would feel wrong.
People, in the media on smogon or otherwise, trying to spin this as a politically motivated issue are either stupid or extremely biased on one side or another.
This isn't a matter of politics; this is a matter of one mentally unstable person making a horrible decision to try to hurt and/or kill a politician as well as people present. The fact that there were 6 dead, including a young girl, and 13 injured, 14 including Rep. Giffords. This was not some calculated, political assassination; if it were, this man would have no reason to shoot off over 20 bullets.
The fact that the left is trying to spin this as the agenda of Tea Party members is absolutely absurd. If this were their political agenda, wouldn't we be hearing of more of these attacks? It's fucking stupid; stop eating up your Huffington Post bullshit and realize that a. this person is far from sane, and b. there is zero established motive as of yet and that speculation is useless. You can argue that "he was insane, so he could have been swayed by this discourse," but there's nothing to suggest what his own logic behind his actions are besides some youtube posts of his. And Tea Party? Really? This is a guy who lists the Communist Manifesto as a favorite book of his. When the hell have you ever heard of a Tea Party member want anything to do with Communism?
Meanwhile, the right is trying to spin this as some liberal who loves Marx and is somehow liberal through the books he read, as well as a God-hating liberal atheist (although to a much lesser extent, though that may just be because most media outlets lean left), which is equally moronic. Reading a book does not a murderer make, nor does not believing in God make him somehow "liberal." While i haven't read as much on the "zomg he's a liberal, guyssssss" as the "zomg he's a tea party member guysssssss," both of these points would be utterly ridiculous. I would say the same thing I posted above here about trying to establish any motive so early...although to be fair, I haven't seen this argument as prominently as the liberal one.
Politics as usual. Fucking stupid.
Great link, btw, Firestorm.
People, in the media on smogon or otherwise, trying to spin this as a politically motivated issue are either stupid or extremely biased on one side or another.
This isn't a matter of politics; this is a matter of one mentally unstable person making a horrible decision to try to hurt and/or kill a politician as well as people present. The fact that there were 6 dead, including a young girl, and 13 injured, 14 including Rep. Giffords. This was not some calculated, political assassination; if it were, this man would have no reason to shoot off over 20 bullets.
The fact that the left is trying to spin this as the agenda of Tea Party members is absolutely absurd. If this were their political agenda, wouldn't we be hearing of more of these attacks? It's fucking stupid; stop eating up your Huffington Post bullshit and realize that a. this person is far from sane, and b. there is zero established motive as of yet and that speculation is useless. You can argue that "he was insane, so he could have been swayed by this discourse," but there's nothing to suggest what his own logic behind his actions are besides some youtube posts of his. And Tea Party? Really? This is a guy who lists the Communist Manifesto as a favorite book of his. When the hell have you ever heard of a Tea Party member want anything to do with Communism?
Meanwhile, the right is trying to spin this as some liberal who loves Marx and is somehow liberal through the books he read, as well as a God-hating liberal atheist (although to a much lesser extent, though that may just be because most media outlets lean left), which is equally moronic. Reading a book does not a murderer make, nor does not believing in God make him somehow "liberal." While i haven't read as much on the "zomg he's a liberal, guyssssss" as the "zomg he's a tea party member guysssssss," both of these points would be utterly ridiculous. I would say the same thing I posted above here about trying to establish any motive so early...although to be fair, I haven't seen this argument as prominently as the liberal one.
Politics as usual. Fucking stupid.
Great link, btw, Firestorm.
Uh, so let's see if I've got this straight. The media are not covering any of the victims except the judge, Giffords, or the nine-year-old girl. This is presumably a bad thing. So your solution is for the media to focus more attention on... the judge?
what
Okay, everyone who is saying this is politically related really needs to shut their mouths, as they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. This shooting had nothing to do with politics at all. This psychopath was crazy as hell, look up the facts. He was kicked out of his junior college because people were afraid for their lives; he was reported to campus police 5 freaking times. Shooting an important person such as the senator was a way for this lunatic to get attention, he's a psycho and that is most psychopath's goals.
Also, if anyone is to blame it is the police department in that area. According to facts, this kid had many past problems and should have been watched or put into a mental hospital. And no one should compare this to gun rights and the 2nd amendment, this guy had an automatic weapon, illegal EVERYWHERE in the United States. And if you believe conservatives are the ones to blame, then you are lost.
Also, if anyone is to blame it is the police department in that area. According to facts, this kid had many past problems and should have been watched or put into a mental hospital. And no one should compare this to gun rights and the 2nd amendment, this guy had an automatic weapon, illegal EVERYWHERE in the United States. And if you believe conservatives are the ones to blame, then you are lost.
Lati0s: Not everything is about atheism. Seriously.
As for me, I love incendiary rhetoric. How we discuss things as a society should not be dictated by what the craziest few will do when they hear a metaphor. In a free society most people can discern the difference between a rallying call and a call to actual physical violence. Everyone understands in a Republic than an "attack" is entirely a catchall metaphorical device for levying an argument against your opponent, factually accurate or no.
"But her PAC posted up crosshairs!" And Daily Kos posted up targets. Even the term "campaign" dates back to an age of empires invading each other. Whenever there is a call to silence speech of some kind it's always from liberals who employ the same tactics they decry (and execute them violently more often.) That's just reality. Liberals need to grow a spine and stop using every act of a maniac as a footstool to silence the free speech of political adversaries. If anything they should be glad conservatives don't feel the same way, since, again, most mad men are leftists. So rare is Sarah Palin/Tea Party violence that Joe Klein and his other bottom-feeding dirtbags had to blame them before any facts about Loughner were known. If Loughner had a coherent political ideology rather than just being an jumbled mess of a man, that ideology would be anti-Christian anarchism. The dude had an altar to Satan in his back yard and his friends described him as a pot-smoking hipster. Not exactly the Christian right-wingery leftists depict the Tea Party as.
You know who is to blame for this tragedy? Jared Lee Loughner. He is the one who pulled out the gun and shot people.
If Jared Lee Loughner is insane, then the blame falls on those who saw his decaying psychological state and failed to act. It falls on the people who, even knowing his state of mind, continued enabling him. It falls on those people who, in their quest to never be judgemental (and make sure no one else is) uses that as a basis to avoid basic discernment.
If I call Jared Lee Loughner insane, is that "hate speech?" Is it "incendiary rhetoric?" Who gets to decide? I'd rather have the freedom to say whatever I like and let reality determine whether I am correct or not.
As for me, I love incendiary rhetoric. How we discuss things as a society should not be dictated by what the craziest few will do when they hear a metaphor. In a free society most people can discern the difference between a rallying call and a call to actual physical violence. Everyone understands in a Republic than an "attack" is entirely a catchall metaphorical device for levying an argument against your opponent, factually accurate or no.
"But her PAC posted up crosshairs!" And Daily Kos posted up targets. Even the term "campaign" dates back to an age of empires invading each other. Whenever there is a call to silence speech of some kind it's always from liberals who employ the same tactics they decry (and execute them violently more often.) That's just reality. Liberals need to grow a spine and stop using every act of a maniac as a footstool to silence the free speech of political adversaries. If anything they should be glad conservatives don't feel the same way, since, again, most mad men are leftists. So rare is Sarah Palin/Tea Party violence that Joe Klein and his other bottom-feeding dirtbags had to blame them before any facts about Loughner were known. If Loughner had a coherent political ideology rather than just being an jumbled mess of a man, that ideology would be anti-Christian anarchism. The dude had an altar to Satan in his back yard and his friends described him as a pot-smoking hipster. Not exactly the Christian right-wingery leftists depict the Tea Party as.
You know who is to blame for this tragedy? Jared Lee Loughner. He is the one who pulled out the gun and shot people.
If Jared Lee Loughner is insane, then the blame falls on those who saw his decaying psychological state and failed to act. It falls on the people who, even knowing his state of mind, continued enabling him. It falls on those people who, in their quest to never be judgemental (and make sure no one else is) uses that as a basis to avoid basic discernment.
If I call Jared Lee Loughner insane, is that "hate speech?" Is it "incendiary rhetoric?" Who gets to decide? I'd rather have the freedom to say whatever I like and let reality determine whether I am correct or not.
Evidently not.
You're assuming that the barely-literate base that your party panders to is capable of grasping metaphor. It is not.
Additionally, I don't think saying things like "second amendment remedy" and "they'll pry our guns from our cold, dead hands" is particularly metaphorical.
Are you just reciting the same talking points over and over again?
No one gives a shit about sarah palin's little graphic exclusively. No, it's all the other crap in combination with that graphic. Does Daily Kos advocate the violent repression of immigrants? Does it advocate rampant paranoia about how the "government is coming to take your guns"? Does it hint at a dark and tumultuous future of bestiality and rape if those dang homos can get married to each other?
It is an objective fact that liberal media preaches measurably less hatred than conservative media, and this is because we don't really have any groups to hate but conservatives and maybe rich people. You guys have to hate gays, blacks, muslims, mexicans, europeans...hell, I'm surprised you manage to find time to hate liberals, your plate seems pretty full already!
(Note: "Hate" in this context refers to "groups who are the target of incendiary rhetoric")
I wish I could see the world as simplistically as you can.
Moral culpability for an action is not necessarily confined to the person who does the action. Ultimately, if someone egged this individual, they are at least partially responsible.
See, now we're getting somewhere. My entire point is that people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh enable these people by feeding into their violent fantasies and implicitly encouraging the violent overthrow of people he or she disagrees with. And it's not even particularly subtle, I mean, you have them actively calling for "the tree of liberty to be watered", how is that justifiable?
And while we're at it, we should also remove all those pesky laws that say you can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or slander people or verbally bully them to suicide. Free speech, fuck yeah!
That bit of sarcasm, I'm actually not interested in government mandated restrictions on political speech. I recognize that it's a slippery slope and, sad as it may be, I'd be willing to let the republicans continue their demagoguery over a vague expansion of hate speech laws. I'm just hoping that this incident draws enough attention to this issue that no one can get away with propaganda of this manner. Of course, given your parroting of talking points (astonishingly similar to other individuals in other forums), I can see that right wing damage control is already well under way, and no lessons will be learned from all this. Sad.
Nice showing you have absolutely no fucking idea about mental health issues there. Really good job on that one.
That's not entirely true. The gunman first shot Rep. Giffords point-blank in the head and then proceded to fire randomly into the crowd. There is no doubt in my mind that this was an attack on Rep. Giffords in particular that also happened to involve those around her, perhaps hoping to be able to escape in the panic.
Your boy, if he's serious (he's on a comedy network, I still struggle to think that he's being 100% serious in his speeches), is singing music to my ears.
Aaaand of course Deck Knight makes a (for the most part) stupid post after I defend him =/
And then the left responds with more hatred for the right respond back to. If someone is at fault for a hate filled political atmosphere, it's oh, I don't know, every radical in the country?
Deck Knight, you did a marvelous job of not actually addressing any of FlareBlitz's points. He was comparing the current rhetoric of the Democratic party with that of the Republicans and teabaggers. Rhetoric, not action. Contemporary, not historical. At any rate, the Democratic Party is not a left-wing party. They are not a social democratic party. They are certainly not a revolutionary socialist party, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard, or whatever else Barack Obama might signify in your paranoid fantasies. Liberalism is at its most radical a very moderate left-wing political philosophy. In practice it falls in the center to center-right of the political spectrum. That's why I have little time for it! Those considerations alone would render your post irrelevant. Fortunately, it also has the virtue (?) of being inaccurate and, shall we say, highly selective!
But if you really want to play this whole "let's compare the body counts of left-wing and right-wing terrorism in the United States" game, you are leaving out, to take a few examples off the top of my head, bombed abortion clinics and the assassination of abortion doctors; the militia movement (Gordan Kahl, Timothy McVeigh); the KKK and Black Legion; white separatist, Christian nationalist, neo-Nazi, and other hate groups; death threats and acts of vandalism against elected officials in recent months, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that, historically, pretty much every major explicitly pacifist and nonviolent movement has been at root a left-wing movement. In the U.S. context, MLK Jr. is the most obvious example. (Dorothy Day's Catholic Workers movement can be a bit difficult to classify, given that Distributism has its basis in what are essentially right-wing solutions to wealth inequality. Right-wing in that they defend the institution of private property.) I mean, really, stop grasping at straws here. No one is claiming that political violence, or even "incendiary rhetoric," is exclusively right-wing and conservative. It's just much more common among right-wing populists and American conservatives than among liberals. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of mainstream liberalism is a certain fetishism for "civil discourse" (see Habermas, Obama). That's why people such as yourself are able to troll liberals so easily with (intentionally borderline) racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever comments and general vitriol. The best they can offer in response is a few caustic remarks and snarky jokes, a level-headed rebuttal, and a plea for civility, when it'd probably be a more efficient use of time just to tell you to go fuck yourself.
But if you really want to play this whole "let's compare the body counts of left-wing and right-wing terrorism in the United States" game, you are leaving out, to take a few examples off the top of my head, bombed abortion clinics and the assassination of abortion doctors; the militia movement (Gordan Kahl, Timothy McVeigh); the KKK and Black Legion; white separatist, Christian nationalist, neo-Nazi, and other hate groups; death threats and acts of vandalism against elected officials in recent months, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that, historically, pretty much every major explicitly pacifist and nonviolent movement has been at root a left-wing movement. In the U.S. context, MLK Jr. is the most obvious example. (Dorothy Day's Catholic Workers movement can be a bit difficult to classify, given that Distributism has its basis in what are essentially right-wing solutions to wealth inequality. Right-wing in that they defend the institution of private property.) I mean, really, stop grasping at straws here. No one is claiming that political violence, or even "incendiary rhetoric," is exclusively right-wing and conservative. It's just much more common among right-wing populists and American conservatives than among liberals. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of mainstream liberalism is a certain fetishism for "civil discourse" (see Habermas, Obama). That's why people such as yourself are able to troll liberals so easily with (intentionally borderline) racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever comments and general vitriol. The best they can offer in response is a few caustic remarks and snarky jokes, a level-headed rebuttal, and a plea for civility, when it'd probably be a more efficient use of time just to tell you to go fuck yourself.
It's time to water the tree of liberty! BA HA HA HA HA HA!
FlareBlitz:
You are providing the very example of incendiary rhetoric you claim to dislike so much in the other side.
Maybe when you realize that:
Are blatantly false statements and talking points (oh, how you hate those), it will be worth responding to you. Until then, take your hateful, incendiary rhetoric elsewhere. Unless you seriously want to argue the routine attacks against Christians, conservatives (especially women and minorities), pro-lifers, gun owners, white males, business owners, Mormons, and Catholics do not happen. If which case, go ahead. But please, please provide something other than your tired narrative.
You can start by giving me exact, specific statements by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin inciting people to do violence. Then explain to me why the President of the United States, whose statements are much more likely to have been heard by Jared Lee Loughner than either Limbaugh or Palin are not equally or moreso the cause.
He was itching for a fight. He was looking for someone's ass to kick. He brought a gun to a knife fight. He punished his enemies. He argued with them and got in their faces. He hit Rep. Giffords back twice as hard for not answering his question adequately at a town hall meeting a year before Palin was ever on the national stage, and then some.
If only we could figure out where he got such ideas so we could put some blame on that person's incendiary rhetoric. It would be too simplistic to blame him for his own actions.
FlareBlitz:
You are providing the very example of incendiary rhetoric you claim to dislike so much in the other side.
Maybe when you realize that:
FlareBlitz said:
Are blatantly false statements and talking points (oh, how you hate those), it will be worth responding to you. Until then, take your hateful, incendiary rhetoric elsewhere. Unless you seriously want to argue the routine attacks against Christians, conservatives (especially women and minorities), pro-lifers, gun owners, white males, business owners, Mormons, and Catholics do not happen. If which case, go ahead. But please, please provide something other than your tired narrative.
You can start by giving me exact, specific statements by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin inciting people to do violence. Then explain to me why the President of the United States, whose statements are much more likely to have been heard by Jared Lee Loughner than either Limbaugh or Palin are not equally or moreso the cause.
He was itching for a fight. He was looking for someone's ass to kick. He brought a gun to a knife fight. He punished his enemies. He argued with them and got in their faces. He hit Rep. Giffords back twice as hard for not answering his question adequately at a town hall meeting a year before Palin was ever on the national stage, and then some.
If only we could figure out where he got such ideas so we could put some blame on that person's incendiary rhetoric. It would be too simplistic to blame him for his own actions.
- Status