[JohnInIndy]

Not only are most USA people unaware of geography, if some of the comments on here are any indicator, they are also unable to understand politics. Views of the left and right have always been presented by and characterized by polarized media. Any half intelligent person would have to listen to and read those mostly opposed views to try to form an "informed" opinion. Furthermore, the USA (and Canada for that matter) ranks low in about every category of criteria used to assess the qualities of developed countries, including health care, education, legal and economic systems and financial stability. People, I say people, because problems occur once residents and/or citizens are mentioned, of the USA must stop bragging that the USA is the greatest country on earth. They are brainwashed and are their own worst enemies. Most do not even know how many countries are on earth. Indeed they don't know there are more than a few. These are not new phenomena. Research history! By all indicators matters in the USA are getting worse. It appears that there is no solution to the demise of world order as it presently exists. The world shall have to wait and see if such a consequence turns out to be better or not. Amen.

Actually it must be. I just don't see many people immigrating to Mexico. Or Cuba Or Darfur. Do you? If we aren't the greatest why are so many people trying to get in here?

[Nesster]

Todd - you're not THE Todd, are you?

What do you expect, us liberals have by definition everything backwards: we don't hate Obama the way the right wing does.

Actually, you gave me an idea: what if there's something wrong with the chain of evidence that resulted in Alaska being admitted as a US State. What if that means Sarah isn't actually... nah, she was born in Idaho or something... or was she? Did you know who owned Alaska before we did? Russia. That's right, Russia. What was Russia famous for? Vodka, cheap imitation Leicas, and Communism. We can't possibly trust anyone who lives in a former communist country, they're probably all secret communist moles seeking to take over and turn the American Government to their secret goals... there was a list of 20 points here somewhere... how many of them have come true, since 1964 when... yes.. Sarah Palin was 'born'.

[Wheatfield]

I have never seen more hatred spewed from the left then I have seen spewed toward Plain.
The fact that she is being irrationally blamed for to this terrible mess in AZ shows how the left will do anything to take her out. Its total BS. But that is what we expect from the Leftwing Media.

If vitriol were going to get anybody killed I expect that it would be her.
Fortunately for now the left is only interested in character assassination.

If I were a democrat I would be ashamed.

Perhaps it's because she is so very easy to hate....
Palin has, unfortunately for her, set herself up as the Poster Child for everything that is wrong with American politics.
If the rhetoric of hate from Palin's goofball end of the right in any way helped to motivate that kid to pull the trigger then she, and her inflammatory rhetoric is, to some extent, responsible.

The right seems to want to believe that words have no effect on the way people think and act when something bad happens.
Like so many things they get wrong, this is just another example.

Perhaps it's because she is so very easy to hate....
Palin has, unfortunately for her, set herself up as the Poster Child for everything that is wrong with American politics.
If the rhetoric of hate from Palin's goofball end of the right in any way helped to motivate that kid to pull the trigger then she, and her inflammatory rhetoric is, to some extent, responsible.

The right seems to want to believe that words have no effect on the way people think and act when something bad happens.
Like so many things they get wrong, this is just another example.

In many cases inflammatory rhetoric seems to be liberal code for rational objections and arguments.

If you want to study inflammatory rhetoric, Alan Grayson is a great place to start.

I don't believe that mean old "Right" that you are mis-characterizing has indicated that words have no effect on the way people think and act.

In fact we conservatives know all to well the power of words. How many people are dead because of a little book called "the communist manifesto". We remember Al Sharpton's roll in the Crown Heights riots.

We even remember how Obama's words made Chris Matthews leg tingle.

The really sad thing is how the left jumped all over themselves to pin this to the right, when there was zero evidence to support there wild claims.
Like so many things they get wrong, this is just another glaring example.

[jeffkrol]

In many cases inflammatory rhetoric seems to be liberal code for rational objections and arguments.

If you want to study inflammatory rhetoric, Alan Grayson is a great place to start.

I don't believe that mean old "Right" that you are mis-characterizing has indicated that words have no effect on the way people think and act.

In fact we conservatives know all to well the power of words. How many people are dead because of a little book called "the communist manifesto". We remember Al Sharpton's roll in the Crown Heights riots.

We even remember how Obama's words made Chris Matthews leg tingle.

The really sad thing is how the left jumped all over themselves to pin this to the right, when there was zero evidence to support there wild claims.
Like so many things they get wrong, this is just another glaring example.

please explain to me how "death panels", end of our country, and feminazi are "rational objections and arguements", Don't Retreat, instead – RELOAD, ect.........
I Believe you all have forgot what civil means.......
for an exercise.. start here.. see the opening post.. not much there.. go down.. see what happens ending w/

Take it up the hind end Liberal !

.........
Help me make a list of all the conservative buzzwords, catch-phrases, talking points, and epithets...? - Yahoo! Answers
Liberal catch phrases.......
What's your favorite Liberal catch phrase - Zoklet.net

OK not my best writing or research but if you find better please post.........
Here's something..........

What I found was a fairly damning indictment of the way the far right responds to any disagreement. And I have also noticed that the tactics of some from the right are not consistent with what would be considered fair debate. There is a common approach to many attacks on writers that they don't agree with. All at once, an article that was rated in the high 3's or low 4's is rated a 2, and there is a negative comment left with oh, 50 to 70 plus marks next to it. It seems like there must be a hit-list that goes out from someone to the group, because it happens very quickly. Now, that in itself is fair enough, if they all disagree. What I find objectionable is because they don't like that article, they will rate down other pieces not even related to the question at hand. An underhanded tactic, to say the least. In one of the worst examples, a fellow writer with a mostly liberal stance wrote an article about the Valerie Plame outing. Because the "literary death squad" didn't like it, they attacked her very good article about child daycare, leaving hurtful remarks. Another favorite tactic is to lambast the writer of the article for their ability. They are told that their writing sucks and should not be permitted, that they need to get a "real job" and similar comments. In place of real debate, they attack personally and frequently until the point of the article is obscured. Rather than intelligently craft a response, they would rather call names. Personally, I have been called contemptible, immoral, an idiot (that one seems to be a favorite) a terrorist, a jackass, a murderer, Osama Bin-Musall, a shitty writer, a sad, sad person, the list goes on. And other writers have been subjected to the same kind of trash.
They always try to take the argument to a few basic tenets they hold. The war in Iraq is going just fine, and is necessary. That anyone who even considers a pro-choice stance is a murderer. Even when talking about stem cell research.

In his very well written book Conservatives Without Conscience Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean speaks to several key points. He talks about speaking with Barry Goldwater, who tells Dean that he was mystified at the new Republican Party. "John, I don't understand this incivility. I don't understand why the religious right is dominating the Republican Party." Dean quotes Goldwater as saying. Dean goes on to speak about a study that asserts some interesting points about the authoritarian personality. He asserts, with data to back it up, that about 23% of the American public will follow a strong authoritarian right wing leader no matter what. He points out that this group will follow their leader over the proverbial cliff like lemmings. That once a person goes that hardcore, there is little that can be done to change their position. I would include the people of my study in that group. I don't think that Mr. Bush would be held accountable by them for anything. Well, perhaps if he decided to take a pro-choice stance. And another interesting observation is that to comment about one point is taken as an attack on all their points. And again, that happens on all sides. I myself have been guilty of 'lumping in" or assuming because a person has one position, they automatically have other positions that conform to that ideology.

In closing, I would ask for a more informed and civil debate from all concerned. The realist in me knows I will most likely not get it.

Neo-Conservative Rhetoric, Page 2 of 2 - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
Conservatives Without Conscience
Author: John Dean

Conservatives are often illogical, inconsistent and contradictory, but they seldom realize
this about themselves. For instance, social conservatives frequently invoke the idea of
promoting “a culture of life” to protect the unborn. But they see no contradiction in
lending their support to the death penalty; presumably, no executed prisoner could be as
innocent as an aborted fetus.
Forty years of psychological data and sociological studies suggest that people who
identify themselves as conservatives do so because they have a “heightened
psychological need to manage uncertainty and threat.” Among the psychological
characteristics associated with political conservatives are: high levels of fear, an aversion
to ambiguity, overreaction to threats, an inordinate need for structure and a strong desire
to dominate others. This constellation of traits, according to the experts, is not normally
correlated with liberals.
Conservatives, needless to say, have been vociferous in their criticism of such studies.
Nevertheless, researchers maintain that their conclusions are valid. They even claim that
personality surveys of pre-schoolers can predict future political orientation. For instance,
young girls who are fearful, shy, inhibited, compliant and distressed by life’s ambiguities
are more inclined to become political conservatives. Likewise, young boys who are
unadventurous, conformist, moralistic and bossy tend to become conservatives.
Throughout the ‘40s and ‘50s, conservatism stood against communism, socialism and
atheism. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the decline of big government
liberalism in America, conservatives have found themselves deprived of their traditional
adversaries. This has led them to turn their attention to cultural issues, such as gay
marriage, stem cell research and open borders, as rallying points. In short, the culture
war has replaced anti-communism as the battle of our time.................The Politics and Policies of Authoritarian Conservatives
Authoritarian conservatives had been gaining ground in Washington for at least a decade
before Bush and Cheney arrived at the White House, but they have now taken the
movement to a new and dangerous level. The extreme, take-no-prisoners tactics of
politicians like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay, coupled with the brazen corruption
embodied by lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, have signaled the precipitous decline in the
democratic process within Congress.
There is no better example of how authoritarian conservatism is corroding democracy
than the K Street Project. Here, the GOP consolidated its rule by marrying the interests
of powerful Congressional leaders, corporate interests and lobbyists. For example,
corporations were virtually forced to make large political donations to favored
candidates, lest they lose influence over the legislative process, and they were also
required to hire only Republicans as lobbyists. Their contributions, however, bought
them access and many lobbyists ended up drafting legislation under this arrangement.
Such practices reached the heights of obscene absurdity in the case of the disgraced
lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an archconservative, who shook down Indian tribes (operating
casinos) to the tune of $66 million, while privately mocking them as “monkeys” and
“morons.” Abramoff’s scheme was to play competing Indian tribes against another. His
clients never knew how he was manipulating both sides of the issue – stoking up support
for both pro-gambling and anti-gambling agendas – in order to artificially inflate his
importance to them. But that’s just what authoritarian types do; they play other people
like violins. Ultimately, however, their endless aggression and lack of conscience cause
them to self-destruct, which is just what happened to Abramoff when he pled guilty to
fraud.
The Politics of Fear
Bush and Cheney have used 9/11 as an excuse to enact their authoritarian tendencies.
Bush has claimed extraordinary powers and the right to conduct executive activities in
total secrecy and without accountability – all hallmarks of authoritarian thinking – but the
results have not been greater success in the war on terror. Rather, authoritarianism and
secrecy have bred incompetence. Perversely, the dangers that flow from incompetence
are often cited as proof that the authoritarian leader requires even greater powers.
Bush and Cheney, in contrast to other American leaders, have made fear mongering
standard operating procedure. This follows from the playbook of Bush’s brilliant
political strategist, Karl Rove, who believes elections can be won or lost based on how
frightened Americans are about terrorism.
Fear mongering, however, takes reason out of the decision making process. Our history
shows that this is a dangerous route to take. Authoritarianism carries many risks. First, it is a precursor to fascism. Second,
authoritarianism isolates the ruling class in very unhealthy ways. For instance, it is
particularly troubling that the Bush Administration – like La Cosa Nostra – believes it
doesn’t have to follow the law because it is the law. Finally, authoritarian personalities in
government will seek to eliminate checks and balances intended to function as errorcorrecting
mechanisms.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. At present, authoritarian types dominate all three
branches of government. Left unchecked, the authoritarian conservative movement may
dismantle our democratic system of government. It is not too late, however, to alter this
troubling trend. The next several election cycles will be telling.

http://www.defenbaugh.org/basicweb/References/Summaries/summary-102606-conwocon-pngjd.pdf
funny..........just consider some of the "she can do no wrong Palinites"
MAY I remind you law abiding conservatives........

After it became known that George W. Bush authorized NSA wiretaps without warrants, Dean asserted that Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense"

John Dean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lemmings........

, Dean testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during hearings on censuring the president over the issue. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who sponsored the censure resolution, introduced Dean as a "patriot" who put "rule of law above the interests of the president." In his testimony, Dean asserted that Richard Nixon covered up Watergate because he believed it was in the interest of national security. This sparked a sharp debate with Republican South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who repeatedly asserted that Nixon authorized the break-in at Democratic headquarters. Dean finally replied, "You're showing you don't know that subject very well." According to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, "Spectators laughed, and soon the senator was sputtering mad."[11]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say your conservatives are long gone............
very good read.......
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/6/worse_than_watergate_former_nixon_counsel

Bush, in a secret deal with the House of Representatives, agreed to that. The resolution was written, passed and signed by the President. No one really paid any attention to this resolution, and the President in March of 2003 goes to war. 48 hours after, under the resolution, he had to report that he had done that, and he had to submit his formal declaration. His declaration is one of the most—I can’t really find the right word for it, Amy. It’s just—I use all of the modifiers I can think of in the book. It’s a fraud. It is a deliberate, misleading resolution the President himself asked for. It’s a violation of trust to the Congress who granted him very unusual powers. It’s a violation of the trust of the American people. His declaration is phony. His determination, excuse me, is phony. It’s actually bizarre. So I lay that out in the book to explain to people what he has done and how he did it, and how questionable it really is.

Gad you guys have really screwed things up... no wonder your afraid of a Democratic pres.....

[Nesster]

My understanding of the Palin situation is that while her words and opinions may be regrettable or not depending on your political stance, and did not directly cause the shooting, her cavalier acceptance of and even encouragement of the more extreme ideas, emotions, and organized tactics in the past 2 years are anti democratic and serve to undermine our legal process. This shooting has brought out what I believe the majority of us thought might happen, on one level or another, and on all sides of the political landscape: that this could result in violence and insurrection.

Where Palin has a share of the guilt is in her disregard of potential consequences, or perhaps even her acceptance of these consequences. That the entire Republican party was held hostage - is held hostage - does not bode us well.

please explain to me how "death panels", end of our country, and feminazi are "rational objections and arguements", Don't Retreat, instead – RELOAD, ect.........
I Believe you all have forgot what civil means.......
for an exercise.. start here.. see the opening post.. not much there.. go down.. see what happens ending w/

Cherry picking a few pejoratives used by some conservatives is easy to do. Liberals have their share of pejoratives that they use on a regular basis. Are pejoratives inappropriate in political discourse? Generally they are not.

But this is not what this is about. The left has tired old bag of tricks that they dig into every time they feel the right closing in. Conservative meanness and violence is one of them.

That is why they jumped on these murders in AZ. They thought it might fit their "Right wing thought = violence" template.

They jumped to conclusions and politicized murder and death from the get go for their own political gain.

The whole conservative discourse leads to violence is a tired argument that most rational Americans have rejected, the cool-aid drinkers (how is that for a pejorative?) on the left seem to still buy into though, or at least they act like they do...

Using your word Civility has been in short supply on the left for some time.

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!”
— Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ “Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.”
— Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, October 13, 2009.

■ “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! [chuckles] I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”
— Montel Williams talking about Representative Michele Bachmann on Air America’s Montel Across America, September 2, 2009.

■ “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country…. You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.”
— Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.

■ “I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”
— San Francisco radio talk show host Charles Karel Bouley in a March 27, 2007 article at The Huffington Post that was later pulled “at the request of the author.”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”
— Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.”
— Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
— USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I can post page after page of this stuff coming form left.

My understanding of the Palin situation is that while her words and opinions may be regrettable or not depending on your political stance, and did not directly cause the shooting, her cavalier acceptance of and even encouragement of the more extreme ideas, emotions, and organized tactics in the past 2 years are anti democratic and serve to undermine our legal process. This shooting has brought out what I believe the majority of us thought might happen, on one level or another, and on all sides of the political landscape: that this could result in violence and insurrection.

Where Palin has a share of the guilt is in her disregard of potential consequences, or perhaps even her acceptance of these consequences. That the entire Republican party was held hostage - is held hostage - does not bode us well.

Wow! You must have evidence that has alluded every law enforcement officer and investigative reporter in America. Because none of them have been able to turn up any evidence that that attacker was in any way motivated or influenced by political discourse.

Unless you are including any poor grammar that might have been used.

[Ratmagiclady]

Pretty thin, TOdd, but we know there's double standards here. Righties bring assault rifles to campaign rallies and public forums taking about insurrection and claiming the President's a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent and not legitimately President cause a birth certificate isn't good enough for them, and it's 'free speech...'

Ed Schultz rhetorically-wishing for someone to get his Rapture thing early is 'Leftist violence?

Cartoon head-inflation of Rush Limbaugh (by physicaly-impossible means, no less) constitutes some kind of threatening language by 'the Left?'

The 'conservative psychology' is kind of interesting when it comes to these things... No wonder the only 'free speech' you like is bullying and advertising. It's 'bullies' logic.' Right down to the whiny 'It's not me, they 'started' it when they get 'caught.'

You can't even claim to be really actually very nice people, without flinging more accusations at 'The Uber-Powerful And Evil, But Pathetic, Left.'

[Nesster]

Wow! You must have evidence that has alluded every law enforcement officer and investigative reporter in America. Because none of them have been able to turn up any evidence that that attacker was in any way motivated or influenced by political discourse.

Unless you are including any poor grammar that might have been used.

With all due respect, that isn't what I said.

[Sparkle]

My information is that the deranged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, at one time, when he was "disturbed" about people around his area not speaking English, asked Gabrielle (Gabby) Giffords, at a public question and answer session, if she was aware of that circumstance and if she could do anything about it. She brushed him of in Spanish. Can never blame a victim though. Just another instance of a politician preferring votes to addressing any particular individual's concerns. It happens everywhere. They say they want your vote but cater to the swing voters as a group. Democracy has long ago ceased to be majority rule. It is rule by the minority, "Swing Vote Rule". The two party system is ipso facto a multi party system.

[Capslock118]

awww...and here I thought this was going to be a post about music...:-P

Pretty thin, TOdd, but we know there's double standards here. Righties bring assault rifles to campaign rallies and public forums taking about insurrection and claiming the President's a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent and not legitimately President cause a birth certificate isn't good enough for them, and it's 'free speech...'

Ed Schultz rhetorically-wishing for someone to get his Rapture thing early is 'Leftist violence?

Cartoon head-inflation of Rush Limbaugh (by physicaly-impossible means, no less) constitutes some kind of threatening language by 'the Left?'

The 'conservative psychology' is kind of interesting when it comes to these things... No wonder the only 'free speech' you like is bullying and advertising. It's 'bullies' logic.' Right down to the whiny 'It's not me, they 'started' it when they get 'caught.'

You can't even claim to be really actually very nice people, without flinging more accusations at 'The Uber-Powerful And Evil, But Pathetic, Left.'

Thank you for making my case. This another example of the Lefts double standard.

Write about Right wing double standers without indicating what they are and with out substantiating the claim. Post a few irrelevant points about some right wing activity that has not resulted in any violence. According to you guys the people with guns at rallies and protests should have gone on homicidal rampages after having been driven to insanity by mean old Sarah Palin's words. Strangely enough that has not happened.

then go on to explain how when person on the left wishes death on somebody by some improbable means then it is ok, while ignoring the other left wing statements that you can't apologize for. Then turn around and call those on the Right bullies.

You point to bullying by the Right, but is not the left who is using the AZ murders to try and the bully the Right into silence?
The left is trying to demonize the Right for their co called "tone", as though they themselves are in someway innocent, even though there is ample evidence to the contrary. Hypocrisy.

The double standards and outright hypocrisy coming from left is becoming more obvious to the American public.

[Ratmagiclady]

My information is that the deranged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, at one time, when he was "disturbed" about people around his area not speaking English, asked Gabrielle (Gabby) Giffords, at a public question and answer session, if she was aware of that circumstance and if she could do anything about it. She brushed him of in Spanish. Can never blame a victim though. Just another instance of a politician preferring votes to addressing any particular individual's concerns. It happens everywhere. They say they want your vote but cater to the swing voters as a group. Democracy has long ago ceased to be majority rule. It is rule by the minority, "Swing Vote Rule". The two party system is ipso facto a multi party system.

Err, what are you saying, she 'had it coming?' For speaking Spanish?



(And, Todd, I think you're the one proving a point against yourself, here. Someone compares Rush Limbaugh having a 'swelled head' to the villain from Inspector Gadget and you say, 'It's OK when the Right does this stuff, which we do not cause it's really 'The Left' that makes us do this thing, which is awful, that we deny doing while doing more of it.')

People can call for civility and sanity without 'silencing' you.

With all due respect, that isn't what I said.

This shooting has brought out what I believe the majority of us thought might happen, on one level or another, and on all sides of the political landscape: that this could result in violence and insurrection.

This shooting had nothing to do with Americas political discourse.

The only thing this shooting has brought out is:
1.) Psychotic people and guns do not mix well,
2.) The left will stop at nothing to smear the right. Using a multiple homicide is not even beneath them.

This is merely a byproduct of a false claim made by the left. If the left had exercised the same restraint they did when they urged Americans to not "jump to conclusions" about the what role religious motivations might hae played in the Ft. Hood shootings then this conversation would not be happening.

But it seems they could not let a "good crises go to waste".