By Right now it is unknown what motivated the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona, but I figured the media would start to blame the Tea Party for it:
A gunman unloaded a semiautomatic weapon outside a busy supermarket Saturday during a public gathering for Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing Arizona’s chief federal judge and five others in an attempted assassination that left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed the suspect over the edge.
The shooting targeted Giffords and left the three-term congresswoman in critical condition after a bullet passed through her brain. A shaken President Barack Obama called the attack “a tragedy for our entire country.”
Giffords, 40, is a moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election in November against a tea party candidate who sought to throw her from office over her support of the health care law. Anger over her position became violent at times, with her Tucson office vandalized after the House passed the overhaul last March and someone showing up at a recent gathering with a weapon.
Police say the shooter was in custody, and was identified by people familiar with the investigation as Jared Loughner, 22. U.S. officials who provided his name to the AP spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release it publicly.
It’s still not clear if Loughner had the health care debate in mind or was focused on his own unique set of political beliefs, many outlined in rambling videos and postings on the Internet.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described the gunman as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl, an aide for the Democratic lawmaker and U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass. Dupnik said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.
The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.
“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” he said. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” [Associated Press]
Read the rest at the link but the article goes on to discuss the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for targeting the Congresswoman for defeat during the last election and that the killer may have been inspired by this. The Daily Kos is likewise jumping on the bandwagon to pin this on the Tea Party and Palin.
What is interesting is that the online evidence this guy has left for people to read show he is a fan of Hitler, says nothing about Sarah Palin or the health care law, and one of his friends claims he is a left wing radical. Whatever this guy motivations are, what is wrong with people when after something like this happens the first thing they think of is how they can pin the blame on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin? There is really something wrong with the level of hatred in the US.
My condolences to the Giffords family and the other victims of this attack to include a 9 year old girl. Absolutely tragic.
3:18 pm on January 8th, 2011 1
Her brain surgery team was led by Dr. Peter Rhee, a Korean American doctor who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.opa.ahsc.arizona.edu/newsroom/news/200…
3:38 pm on January 8th, 2011 2
The shooter did have some anti-government babel on his YouTube site but they read more like the ramblings of someone whose brain's been fried on meth. Apparently, he applied for and was rejected by the Army at one time. Maybe he was one of the ASVAB ineligible statistics.
I posted elsewhere that the congresswoman is a military spouse. Her husband and his twin brother are both astronauts. The husband is (was?) currently training for the for the last shuttle flight in April where he would have met up with his brother who is currently up in the space station. It would be very understandable if he is too distracted to continue training. Fortunately, it appears she will survive.
4:01 pm on January 8th, 2011 3
Funny how Kos is blaming Palin. He had a target on her too as not being liberal enough. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/7488…
And both the Congresswoman and the judge were probably targets of the drug cartels and those who facilitate illegal border crossings (people and weapons trafficking)…
4:17 pm on January 8th, 2011 4
I heard on the news that this guys favorite two books were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. His train is obviously not rolling on the tracks. For Daily Kos (Daily Kooks is more accurate) or anyone else to use this tragedy to make cheap political points is despicable. Let's pray that the Congresswoman & the other wounded recover & that the Lord will comfort the families of the wounded & the deceased.
4:26 pm on January 8th, 2011 5
As of now, it seems like a little left-on-left violence.
She was a rather moderate Democrat. He was an unhinged leftists.
When I think about it, if you look back on assassins in American history, from John Wilkes Booth to James Earl Ray to Sara Jane More, they were all Democrats… with a few extreme leftists and crazies… or a mix of all three.
Only Timothy McVeigh, not exactly an assassin, doesn't fit the mold.
Can anybody name a conservative or Republican assassin?
4:42 pm on January 8th, 2011 6
Why stop there? The tea-party is responsible for the bailouts, the job loses/outscourcing to china and India and the 14trillion in debt America boasts.
4:53 pm on January 8th, 2011 7
#6
Being sarcastic? Are you saying Tea-party is or is not responsible for the deeds you mentioned?
5:04 pm on January 8th, 2011 8
Mein Kampf? Was Hitler a liberal?
This kid was all over the place. He was an incoherent mess.
5:24 pm on January 8th, 2011 9
This sounds more like a mental health issue than a political issue. Besides, when have political campaigns ever been positive? Negative campaigning goes back centuries. This was a nut.
6:49 pm on January 8th, 2011 10
Regardless of motive, it's clear that many elements on the Right are creating a violent political atmosphere. Whether it be "2nd Amendment remedies" or crosshairs, the fact remains that the level of distrust, hatred and anger towards the cartoon version of the current administration is being fueled by talk radio, conservative news and people like Palin who constantly fail to see (and admit) the connections between what they say and what some people feel urged to do as a result.
What is it going to take? Does someone on the Right have to order a hit on television? How blind have you become?
Secondly, there is no modern (and mainstream) Left movement in the country that promotes violence and hatred like the Right does. Many of you love to demonize Daily Kos (they didn't use crosshairs when they ID'd her as a Blue Dog), but they are spot-on here. It's easy to overlook the elephant in the room when YOU are that elephant.
It really is time that Obama or someone else directly calls out the carelessly dangerous rhetoric that has become hip on the Right. Palin or whatever table-pounding teabagger might not have had anything to do with this case, but the effects of their unhinged rhetoric are sure to be felt eventually. If you support the 2nd Amendment, fine, but there is no reason to show up to rallies with weapons and encourage their use.
***The gun used in the shooting; the gun that was used to murder a nine-year old girl and five other was legally purchased. Good for you, gun nuts.
6:53 pm on January 8th, 2011 11
#5
no it's more like right on right violence. She supported gun rights although a democrat. Support of gun ownership is one big draw of GOP no? Speedy recovery to the wounded and RIP to the killed.
7:39 pm on January 8th, 2011 12
The equation is very easy to solve when you say someone is mentally unstable. Oh he read Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto-ooooooooohhhhhhh that's scary oooooooooohhhhhhh- so that's why his train doesn't run on tracks? Its typical for the masses not to think for themselves and simply listen to Limbaugh and Madow then take it to work.
When something like this happens people always seem to toss a "crazy" grenade. Maybe he was a raving lunatic, but we should all stop and think about how difficult and complex the problems are these days.
Then again, he may just have cast his vote a little late -You know how people are always saying a single vote can change an election…….
7:48 pm on January 8th, 2011 13
ChickenHead 5, Booth and Ray were conservatives. Booth was a confederate sympathizer opposed to the abolition of slavery. Ray was a segregationist. Those positions were becoming less common among democrats in Ray's time, and are very rare among democrats today.
12:01 am on January 9th, 2011 14
Booth and Ray were not "Conservatives". They were radicals, racist Democrats. The same as those who started the KKK and enacted the Jim Crow laws. Really now! What are you smoking that clouds your mind? Governor Wallace was a Democrat, too! Read a History Book for goodness sake.
Glans, you're wrong aboust segragationists. You start asking blacks if they want their son or daughter to marry a white kid and you'll see. Even the Christian liberals are "racist" and "segregationist". I have some dear friends that might be considered "Conservative" and "racist" if they were white and voted Republican–but they're black and vote Democrat.
The CSA was all Democrat… The Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans… What a fine bunch of liars you all are…
The Unibomber was a lefty, too…
Show me someone who listens to Limbaugh, agrees with the Conservative message, and then kills people who disagree. I dare you. There may be a few "Pharisees" (people who'd be better off minding their own business) but no mass killers.
McVeigh was not a Conservative either. And there's some evidence he conspired with Islamic groups. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_views_and_religious_beliefs) In fact he sounds like an AGM nut.
This shooter was just like Oswald. Unhinged. How he got that way is less important than the fact that he liked the idea of a super State-controlled society. That's the message here. He liked Animal Farm; but not for the reasons Conservatives do…
12:08 am on January 9th, 2011 15
#13 Booth was a Democrat from the South. President Lincoln was a Republican.
Now if you want to say the parties roles were reversed, go ahead and say that. But Booth was a Democrat.
Being a Conservative, I agree with what Lincoln wanted. Being a Southern Conservative, I and most born in the South agree that the worst think that happened for the South was Lincoln's assassination.
12:24 am on January 9th, 2011 16
The Sherrif did have a good point, which is that American politicians and media need to rethink their modus operandi.
12:39 am on January 9th, 2011 17
Just listen to Glen Beck who constantly rages on about the need for "Revolution" in the country against the "Evil left". Of course he always follows up with a not so sincere "Now, I'm not telling you to go out there and physically hurt someone; do it peacefully". His constant drum beats of hatred are the key to unhinging the already unstable right wing fanatics that just need a little help getting over the “whack-job” threshold. Also, when talking to many right wingers, they often repeat (Verbatim) the same rhetoric of FOX personalities, often their only news source. Very seldom is there an original thought. More disturbing is the often voiced subtle wish of some sort of demise of left wingers parroted from FOX. But, they quickly follow up with "I'm not advocating violence, I just don't want them around" or something to that effect. Finally, a common tactic for the right to deflect any political tie-in to acts like these is to get out in public, akin to Limbaugh, Beck, and blogs like this one, and declare “You watch the left try to make this a right wing problem.” This set’s them up for the follow-up “See, I told ya so”, which is the clincher for them to dispel any truth solely as “a political stunt to gain support for the left.”
By the way #10, you made a lot of valid points. But, I cannot agree on the gun issue. Whether purchased legally or illegally, if a bad person wants a gun, they will get one. No law will stop them. However, laws can and will stop well-intentioned people like the majority of us from getting them. If someone there had been carrying, they might have been able to stop this sooner. Just my feeling.
1:07 am on January 9th, 2011 18
Someone who was interviewed by the press and knew Loughner said he was a pot smoking, liberal, nutcase.
The Expat: I guess the books and movie calling for the assassination of GW Bush, which were endorsed by the left, were something else other than a call to violence by the left?
1:52 am on January 9th, 2011 19
Anybody remember Randi Rhodes ala Air America with her "just try it..bang bang bang bang." radio bit about President Bush? How many prominent liberals said this was 2nd Ammendment and therefore okay and publically wished the death of the Vice President? How about "we support our troops who kill their officers."? How about Iraqi minutemen ala Michael Moore?
The right has nothing on the left when it comes to death wishes for their opponents or violent incitements. I don't like it on either side of the fence but I am never suprised at the hypocrisy of the left. It's OKAY if they don't like you.
2:04 am on January 9th, 2011 20
In response to #10 & #17, your hypocrisy and attempts to score political points from this tragedy are quite sad. There is a lot of negative rhetoric from both sides of the isle.
Read more below:
http://rokdrop.com/2011/01/09/thoughts-on-politic…
4:56 am on January 9th, 2011 21
John Wilkes Booth was never active in the Democratic Party. During the 1850s, he was a delegate for the anti-immigrant Know-Nothings, which broke away from the American Republican Party.
Republican President Garfield's assassin was a former supporter bitter about being turned down for a diplomatic post.
Neither Moore nor Ray were Democrats. Moore was sympathetic to the SLA and Ray was a white separatist who wanted to immigrate to Rhodesia.
5:24 am on January 9th, 2011 22
#20 – But, it's not sad that any of the right leaning posts (Including yours to begin the thread) are doing the exact same thing? Talk about hypocrisy.
5:29 am on January 9th, 2011 23
Billy G, do you still live off your parent's?
7:15 am on January 9th, 2011 24
L’arbre de la liberté… croît lorsqu’il est arrosé du sang de toute espèce de tyrans
7:32 am on January 9th, 2011 25
25,
Betrand Barère était un associé de Robespierre, qui dit:
Personne n'aime les missionnaires armés ; et le premier conseil que donnent la nature et la prudence, c'est de les repousser comme des ennemis.
10:19 am on January 9th, 2011 26
#10 Yep. Making guns illegal would end all violence in the US. I have an idea. We could have gun prohibition and make all guns illegal. We could even call it, "The War On Guns"! Kick-ass, yeah!
/After all, it has worked so well with drugs. We iradicated all drug use and sales in the US long ago.
//Don't worry about some guys kicking your door in to rape and kill your wife and kids. You don't have to defend them. The police will be there within seconds of the 911 call, before anything can happen.*
*Oh yeah, that sort of stuff never happens.
11:18 am on January 9th, 2011 27
As Leon points out, removing all legal guns would just create a large target-rich environment for criminals.
12:09 pm on January 9th, 2011 28
And “Twinkie Defense” assassin Dan White was a staunch conservative who murdered Democratic mayor George Moscone and liberal politician Harvey Milk.
1:46 pm on January 9th, 2011 29
Washington DC has the toughest anti-gun laws in the US. At least 7 gun murders this year and it's day 10. Why would you take a failed policy and make it worse? Oh yea, that's right…that's what liberals do…but they mean well.
1:59 pm on January 9th, 2011 30
Strict gun laws work well in Mexico. Only criminals commit gun crimes there.
7:21 pm on January 11th, 2011 31
Chickenhad 5 asked, "Can anybody name a conservative or Republican assassin?" I named two conservative assassins, Booth and Ray. Upholding slavery was the conservative position in Booth's time, and upholding segregation was the conservative position in Ray's time.
Retired GI 15 says, "Being a Conservative, I agree with what Lincoln wanted." An enlarged federal government? An increased national debt? Suspension of habeas corpus? Seizure and destruction of private property? The army killing men who kept and bore arms in support of states' rights? Gosh, Retired GI, I never would have dreamed you'd want such things.
9:26 pm on January 11th, 2011 32
Glans,
Hmmm… I think you might just be right.
This requires further consideration.
As an actor, Booth was socially liberal… but it certainly does appear he fits the definition of politically conservative or libertarian… which matches my thinking as well.
The second part of your post was even more troubling… as I can find no fault with your reasoning.
I never considered that Lincoln could have technically had crappier policies than Bush and Obama rolled into one… but you have made a good case for it.
The long-term result of Lincoln's actions was likely for the best… but it certainly may not have seemed that way at the time… as the actions of our current government seems unreasonable in many ways.
Perhaps history will be kind to Bush and Obama as well… as the line between great president and azzclown is measured in success… which is not always immediately clear.
This is quite a dilemma which will take study and consideration to fully resolve… and perhaps a look at how the party platforms and voter bases have changed over the decades.
Glans, your thinking is good here… and I hope others will seriously consider it and comment upon it.
12:58 am on January 12th, 2011 33
#31 What he wanted for the South after the war. If he had lived, it would have been better for the south. JWB did a great wrong to the South.
I don't even agree with Beck 100%.
Nor Bush and I certainly have found little to agree with Obama on. Still waiting for my beer summitt with him.
But I do find myself thinking: what would ChickenHead do.
3:06 am on January 12th, 2011 34
Since this incident happened, the investigation of the killers background it has been irrefutably determined that he was not of sound mind. The kids he went to school with and people that were in contact with him afterwords recognized this FACT. His actions were not in any way motivated by political discourse. Being a politics junky (I am a conservative Republican)and follow the media outlets of that genre on TV and the net opinion pages of the Wash. Post (left wing) and Wash. Times
(right wing). That notion was brought up immediately after the incident
but soon after when a profile began to develop, it was dropped by the conservative press. It was the socialist notables that would not drop
the politics angle and as I write this are still beating that drum. A poll
has been taken, for what ever that is worth, and the majority of Americans
do not buy into the politics connection to this tragedy.
How about taking another poignant avenue of discussion such as why this
clearly mental defect was not in a bug house. In the late sixties when the
progressives were able to institute societal changes, legalizing abortion,
eliminating the death penalty (later over turned), and the mandate that
the mentally ill could not be kept in an institution against their will if
they had not committed an act of mayhem even though they demonstrated a
clear propensity to do just that. Another altruistic, touchy-feely, pointed headed, plastic banana, good ol' rock & roller idea. FLASH: The
homeless are not primarily composed of unfortunate folks that have just
fallen on hard times thru no fault of their own. They are those mentally
ill people, drug addicts, and alcoholics. You would be hard pressed to
anyone in the "just unfortunate" category. This post is my opinion. I do
not consider my opinion to be a metaphysical certitude. Welcome opposing
views.
Washington Post (left wing)and the Wash.Times (right wing).
2:32 am on January 14th, 2011 35
Nice try glans but no, booth was not a conservative. He was a rebel, which by nature is not conservative.
You conveniently forget the US was and is a democracy. Lincoln was upholding the will of the people and he was doing it legally when the South rebelled.
5:27 am on January 14th, 2011 36
NO! We are NOT a democracy. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!
It's a HUGE difference.
6:26 am on January 14th, 2011 37
I was always under the impression we were more of an oligarchy:
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
11:23 am on January 14th, 2011 38
#36, Currently? Yes! You are correct. Sadly.
SUPPOSE to be a Constitutional Republic.
Term Limits anyone?
3:29 pm on January 14th, 2011 39
Thomas Lee #35, You beat me responding to Hamilton's #34 comments but I'm afraid that I agree with Retired GI #37 talking about Dragonfly's #36 comment about the reality of the current situation. Most people didn't want Obamacare yet it passed. Most people didn't want bailouts for corporations & banks yet they happened. Most people don't want millions of illegal aliens streaming across our borders yet nothing is done to stop it. Most people don't want millions of taxpayers dollars going to foreign aid propping up tin horn dictators yet it continues. Most people don't want Congress spending money like drunken sailors yet they do. I must apologize for my last sentence, drunken sailors spend their own money. But ultimately the people are sovereign as the last election has shown. I hope the new Congress remedies the problems that I have listed but if they don't there will be a new crop of Congressmen & Congresswomen on the unemployment line in 2013.
7:36 pm on January 14th, 2011 40
#37 There already are term limits. If people stop voting with their religion and selfish interests at heart, it would be easy to make a change.
/Whoops, actually religion=selfish intersts.
//bummer
10:53 pm on January 14th, 2011 41
Dragonfly and Tom are mostly correct. We do indeed suffer from a political oligarchy. Most American voters do not realize that voting for a candidate from one major party instead of the other is not real change. Change will happen only when more candidates from minor parties get seats in Congress. I'm not completely comfortable with the philosophy of the Libertarian party or some of its members, but they are the only national political party committed to cutting federalism down to size.
11:15 pm on January 14th, 2011 42
It doesn't matter who's in charge people. You guys are doomed.
You are bankrupt and printing paper money is the only way to make you float. 
Look at your cities, they are all broke. That means no fire department, no police department, no garbage collections, no teachers. You are broke. America is a third world. Only in third world, do people shoot their rivals and politicians. America is going down the toilet. Broken roads, buildings crumbling, bridges rusting, 30 percent real unemployment rate, crime soaring. Hello Mexico, here comes the US. At least in Mexico, cities aren't going broke. Nevermind Mexico, that's an insult to Mexico. How about Zimbabwe? That's where you're going with the green printing press doing over time. 
You can vote all you want, but the only thing that your politicians care about are getting reelected and getting paid million dollar salaries off of tent city American tax payer. You guys are bankrupt morally and financially. 
11:18 pm on January 14th, 2011 43
You would think that would humble the ugly American abroad. But no. Their arrogant attitude toward Koreans never change.
12:07 am on January 15th, 2011 44
Tom, Tom, Tom…
Be very, very clear about one thing before you wish too much ill upon America.
If America starts to fail, America will do everything possible to take the rest of the world down with it…
…and, with untapped labor, agriculture, energy, and mineral resources, America will likely recover much faster than, say, countries with small land masses, export-based economies and few resources.
Further, a crisis on the scale you predict will likely force changes upon American society and politics which will make the New America much more productive and competitive… and less caring about the rest of the world drowning in their own failed economies, shortages of food, internal unrest, and regional conflicts.
Once again, Tom, arrogant Americans WILL NOT bow to the rest of the world, mothball their stealth bombers, and humbly say, "Gosh, we screwed up, didn't we?" while the country collapses around them and everyone elses laughs their way to prosperity.
You, of all people, should be painfully aware of this.
12:59 am on January 15th, 2011 45
#43 ChickenHead, I eagerly await the day that Tom predicts. The day America becomes less caring about the rest of the world drowning in their own failed economies, shortages of food, internal unrest, and regional conflicts.
The day when America says to hell with Korea, we can't afford to help theme. Then says the same about the Middle East and allows theme to do what they really want to do—kill each other off.
I don't know the figures. Maybe one of you can help me with this question. How soon would America be able to get the debt under control if it stopped "helping" the middle east, sending troops to Korea and stopped sending "aid" to the Philippines and Mexico.
Aid to Mexico? (not worth it)
Aid to the Philippines? (not worth it)
Cost involved with Kuwait—Iraq—Afghanistan? (done all we can, lets go)
Cost of maintaining Our presents in Korea? (not worth it)
I'm sure that isn't a complete list, but it is a good start.
Then Put term limits of congress and Senate as the President has. (Because the American People are not informed enough to vote someone out)
Cut Politicians pay to that of the (average) of the district they represent.
There! I fixed it.
We can then work of the welfare problem and those pesky invaders from the southern border. I know someone will call be names for that one. 
2:09 am on January 15th, 2011 46
blah blah blah, but first, pay your debt to China first before you talk about "recovery".
2:34 am on January 15th, 2011 47
Retired GI, Retired GI, Retired GI…
Be very, very clear about one thing before you wish too much ill upon the rest of the world.
When "the day that Tom predicts" comes, you know all those people who think food grows on an entitlement card of some sort? Well, they aren't going to sit home and slowly starve to death… especially when they have practice working as a gang… and already have no problem to take things that belong to other people.
An SKS only has an internal 10 round top-loading mag… better get one of those detachable mag kits and a couple extra mags… or, better yet, a nice milled-receiver MAK-90 and a drum or two… but, as a military guy, you realize there really is no Army of One.
Anyway, you know all those people with jobs that keep them alive and keep their credit cards mostly paid off but have no savings? They aren't going to stay home and starve to death either.
In fact, the biggest losers are going to be the people who have something to lose… the basically-good ones who worked hard, thought ahead and played by the rules as they were presented… those with worthless 401Ks and jobs in upper management of companies with no customers… with bay window-filled houses to loot and liberal arts-educated wives to violate and fake city-only SUVs that can't be driven over broken roads… and without many real skills except how to play a game of ratrace where the rules quickly changed to deathrace.
The few who REALLY thought ahead will have food, water, medical supplies, communication equipment, power generation, motorcycles, weapons, a secure shelter far from a city to store it all… and a network of able people who will meet them there with skills and supplies to contibute while things get back together.
That sounds romantic in a way… but it will be shyt compared to life now… where the worst thing we experience is some irritation about politics which we forget about as soon as the stripper loses her top while we enjoy a cold, renuable resource called beer.
That beats trying to take out your own appendix since the hospital was burned down after the opiates were looted and the quadriplegics were raaped and set on fire.
Hell, that kind of whacked stuff happens now and then even without the collapse of civilization. It just gets repaired quickly by a mostly-functioning society.
As for the rest of the world, America could just close its borders while things settle down and not worry… or would the global drums of war start to beat to distract hungry, angry, jobless people?
And a weakened America filled with fighting factions might be an easy target for foreign "peacekeepers" just "trying to help" for "humanitarian reasons" and to "restore democracy"… blah, blah, blah.
Naw… no good can come of any of that.
Better just wish for America to get its poop in a group within the existing framework.
7:43 am on January 15th, 2011 48
ChickenHead, I enjoyed your rundown of the situation. I fear that it will have to become darker before the dawn. I still feel that America should take care of America. The rest of the world is just using us and most in power are too stupid to see it (right, left and center). I wish that your rundown could be avoided. But until we fix ourselves, it is foolish to attempt to help those that only talk to us because of the funds we freely/foolishly give away.
The mentality in American leadership today (right, left and center) is unwilling to make difficult decisions and risk pissing off special interest groups for the sake of the Country.
Sometimes you need to fall, before you can stand again. America has always come away stronger, after hard times.
America has turned into something it was never meant to be. We police the world, with our hands tied. We give funds freely with no thought of a return on the investment. We fear to hurt or offend.
In return, those that know how, use America for whatever it can get. It hasn't worked.
Korea STILL depend on America. Funds sent to the Philippines—for what? Kuwait raising the price of oil. They (like Korea) wouldn't HAVE a country if not for the U.S.
Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing but money sponges.
Mexico should be turned into a free fire training zone for Military training exercises. It is a country in name only. But we pore dollars into that sink hole.
When the fall comes, it will have been earned.
I hope it can be avoided! But I don't see a way.
Now the game is coming on and I wish to watch the Steelers kick some asss.
After all, there is nothing I can do about the situation in America.
Oh, the SKA has four 30 round mags. The second SKS is all original. The M4 has about 20, 30 round mags. I only have the two mags for the Beretta 90 two @ 40 cal. Same for the Glock 17.
9:38 am on January 15th, 2011 49
Sonagi 40, seriously, are Carter, Clinton, and Obama as bad as Reagan, Ford, Bush I and Bush II?
Everybody, since we're discussing foreign aid, why don't we look at aid to Israel?
10:08 am on January 15th, 2011 50
Clinton was better than either Bush and the election of Obama came as a great relief after 8 years of Bush. I would prefer to keep the White House occupied by a member of either major party but want to see more independents and minor party candidates elected to Congress. The ballooning deficit and its effects on the economy favor the Libertarian party. If it got several seats in Congress, it could align with traditional Republicans to vote in fiscally responsible legislation and marginalize Big Government Republicans who like messy wars, ineffective border fences, lucrative private prisons, and keeping gays and lesbians from forcing their lifestyles on everyone by getting married and raising children.
11:42 pm on January 15th, 2011 51
49 Glans. Why talk about it? Just stop it. I prefer action to words. You obviously dislike Israel. I don't even care why.
Stop aid to Israel.
Stop aid to Korea.
Stop aid to the Philippines.
Stop aid to Mexico.
Where else?
Then we can do what Tom wants and pay off China!
See. We fixed it—in a bipartisan way.
Just say NO to international aid.
5:49 am on January 16th, 2011 52
"the election of Obama came as a great relief after 8 years of Bush"
How, specifically?
Was it when Gitmo closed and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended? Or when AGW was prevented? Or the economic recovery and we all saw prosperity? Did he fill your gas tank and pay your mortgage?
What is different? What is better?
Or was that sarcasm?
6:19 am on January 16th, 2011 53
Obama inherited a huge mess, and he's been in office only two years. He did pull combat troops out of Iraq. He doesn't fill my gas tank or pay mortgage. I manage just fine because I live within my means. Big Government Republicans like Bush Jr. are the worst of both worlds: free spending and socially restrictive. It's not that Obama's so great. It's that Bush Jr. was so awful even many in his own party rejected him, calling for a return to traditional Republican values with smaller government and lower taxes and spending as the centerpiece and less attention to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
6:57 am on January 16th, 2011 54
Why do people always point out aid to Israel but leave off the same amount of aid that Egypt gets as part of the Camp David Accords that gave the aid to Israel? Selective information is propaganda. The CDA's gave both Egypt and Israel aid and was signed by and promoted by Carter.
Sonagi… while I agree BHO came into office with a mess, he still hasn't done much of what he claimed he would do. You discount that the surge is what allowed US troops to be eventually drawn down and that was Bush's plan that BHO claimed as his own. I'm not a Bushite or even a Bush fan (as you pointed out, he's been rejected by many of his own party), but lay credit where credit is due and blame where blame is do and don't be selective about how you analyze it. Overall Bush was bad for the country, in my opinion, but BHO hasn't proven to be any better at this point.
7:02 am on January 16th, 2011 55
54 anti-jew? racest? anti-religion? Jew haters? That's what I think. Always comes from the Left.
7:36 am on January 16th, 2011 56
Selective information is propaganda indeed. Now why do you think Carter initiated aid to Egypt after it signed the Camp David accords? Hmmm. Do you suppose aid to Egypt might be linked to peaceful relations with Israel, which long enjoyed close if sometimes strained relations with the US?
8:53 am on January 16th, 2011 57
Obama's stimulus kept the Great Recession from becoming the Second Great Depression.
9:00 am on January 16th, 2011 58
Not sure your point. It's pretty clear that I'm pointing out that aid was provided to both as part of the peace agreement. We're buying off both sides. Your question really baffles me. Either you didn't read what you're replying to or your purposely ignoring that I've already stated what you're acting like you're pointing out for the first time. Anybody that knows what the Camp David Accords are know that they promised aid to BOTH sides and not just one….
9:02 am on January 16th, 2011 59
Perhaps, but it will also likely send us into hyperinflation.
According to Peter Bernholz, whenever you see a government borrow to cover 40% or more of its fiscal expenditures, it’s resulted in hyperinflation. Bernholz wrote about it extensively in his book Monetary Regimes and Inflation: History, Economic and Political Relationships.
The US has recently been as high as 44%.
Unless we see growth upwards of 3-4%, there is an almost 100% chance that we will see hyperinflation.
9:50 am on January 16th, 2011 60
Yes, and anyone familiar with US-Israeli relations knows that prior to the accords, the US supplied Israel with arms and loans and continues to do so today. Israel has 7 million people and gets around $3 billion in direct aid. Egypt has 83 billion people and gets about $2 billion. Sounds fair and balanced, doesn't it? I just can't understand why people rant about aid to Israel and not Egypt, too.
10:00 am on January 16th, 2011 61
Nice deflection Sonagi. I don't post often, but I read this site every day and you just have such an air of arrogance about you. And you tend to look at matters very simplistic. But hey, that's your prerogative.
There are many reasons for the disparity, but you're the type that will never attempt to even understand why, if it doesn't fit your preconceived 'knowledge' about the subject.
If you want to blame anybody, blame Carter. It was his plan and he must have had a reason for it.
10:01 am on January 16th, 2011 62
Sonagi 60 of course meant that Egypt has 83 million people, with an M, not a B.
10:22 am on January 16th, 2011 63
Thank you for the typo correction, Glans.
Resorting to ad hominems already, Thomas?
I was so enjoying our exchange.
10:38 am on January 16th, 2011 64
Glans,
"Obama’s stimulus kept the Great Recession from becoming the Second Great Depression."
Hmmm…
Befire getting too smug, better wait just a little bit longer to see how we will pay back Obama's 2 trillion per year that went to propping up car companies to make more crappy cars and propping up banks to pay bonuses to employees that made crappy loans and went to Walmart-loving Americans to buy more crappy products from China… etc.
You may be right… or there may be something worse that the Second Great Depression.
10:50 am on January 16th, 2011 65
No, just stating an observation.
I was clear in my initial post, but instead of acknowledging what was stated and then either disagreeing (and stating why I'm wrong) or agreeing, you make a statement that was out of place.
At the time the accords were signed, Egypt was aligned with the old Soviet Union and that's one of the reasons the amount was lower. Also, from what I've read of your posts in the past, you're a supporter of the "little guys". However, when it comes to Jews, you don't seem to apply the same standard. See, Israel is a small fish in a big pond and surrounded by enemies. Therefore, at the time the accords were signed, it was recognized they needed more for reasons of defense. Almost all of what Israel receives is spent back in the USA. So see, there's a lot more to it than just numbers. But digging into the details doesn't fit into the anti-Israel cause du jour of your ilk.
11:14 am on January 16th, 2011 66
In comment #54, you wrote (CAPS mine):
As I clarified in #60, Egypt does not nor has it ever gotten the same amount of aid. Pointing this out is not a deflection.
Wow. I'm not sure how to respond to all this. All I did on this thread was point out why aid to Israel gets so much more attention that aid to Egypt, you've leapt to all these conclusions. I don't have a strong opinion about aid to Israel. I just think the issue needs to stay on the table for discussion along with other Iraq, Afghanistan, the Korean peninsula, and other foreign policy hotspots. Since you read this blog every day, perhaps you could refresh my memory about comments I've posted previously which you perceive as reflecting the "anti-Israel cause du jour" of my "ilk."
11:27 am on January 16th, 2011 67
This is already getting old and boring….
You're correct in that I said same and I should not have. However, you didn't reply "it's not the same", you reply was:
12:21 pm on January 16th, 2011 68
Back on #58, you wrote:
This comment treats aid to Israel and Egypt as equal in purpose. I believe it is not. That is why I wrote in # 56:
Though Israel technically started the 1967 war, it was responding to increasingly hostile acts by neighboring countries that were explicitly calling for its destruction. It was Egypt and Syria, of course, that attacked in 1973 and were repelled by Israel. It seems clear to me that while there were two parties at Camp David, the underlying threat has always been that Arab countries would make good on their promise to destroy Israel. Thus, the Camp David accords and subsequent aid were to buy Israel some measure of security. I thought you were either disingenuously pretending otherwise or really believed that Camp David was 50/50 threat buyoff. Aid to Egypt is in a way aid to Israel because the US is paying Egypt not to make trouble as some political commentators have recognized. The US strategy of supporting Israel militarily while paying Egypt to play nice and later bringing Jordan aboard has successfully prevented a major armed conflict in the last three decades, so I don't have a problem with it. I just roll my eyes when defenders of aid to Israel cry, "But what about Egypt?"
Hope my views are clear now, and give me some credit for not responding to you with personal insults, er, observations.
12:28 pm on January 16th, 2011 69
Condescension is so polite… Right?
12:37 pm on January 16th, 2011 70
Right.
1:02 pm on January 16th, 2011 71
Do you really want to play a childish tit for tat? Remember, you replied to my post (regarding aid to Israel) first. I was replying to Glans, asked a simple questions about why everybody points to Israel and you're the one that replied to me with
I guess the "Hmmm" was just you "thinking"….
I did reply to an earlier post you made, but you've seemed to just skip right over it.
I know you'll keep this up until you feel you've 'won' as that is your normal course of action. Therefore, I'll say, "you've won" so we can stop this charade.
2:34 pm on January 16th, 2011 72
Thomas Lee 71, it's gracious of you to tell Sonagi that's she's won, but in 65 you said, "… digging into the details doesn’t fit into the anti-Israel cause du jour of your ilk." There you went beyond an ad hominem attack into the danger zone of the ad ilkem attack. So will you now acknowledge that her entire ilk has won?
9:16 pm on January 16th, 2011 73
Garry Wills has some interesting thoughts on Blood Libel, or, as he says, Blind Libel.
1:52 am on January 17th, 2011 74
Glans, read post 71 again…. the charade is over. Thank you very much.
9:41 am on January 17th, 2011 75
Glans #73, Even super-liberal-democrat-lawyer Alan Dershowitz (I hoped I spelled his last name correctly) has said that the term "blood libel" has evolved from an anti-semitic slur & that he, himself has used the term in a non racist way. BTW Alan Dershowitz is Jewish.
9:54 am on January 17th, 2011 76
Tom Langley 75, a guy who has made the case for torture warrants
is not a super-liberal-democrat-lawyer.
10:12 am on January 17th, 2011 77
Glans #76, Thanks for the link, interesting article.
11:27 am on January 18th, 2011 78
One media-criticism blog stands out for its fair analysis of reporting and commentary. Here Bob Somerby discusses the criticism and the defense of Sarah Palin on cable.
The Logic of Tribal Cable