Thomas Lindaman writes:
During a recent trip to Salt Lake City,
Um... why were you going to Salt Lake City? That has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your post. So it's totally irrelevant. Have you learned nothing from flushing away all that money on Toastmasters? Either at least say why you went there, or don't bring it up.
I got to thinking about the recent Arizona shooting and how the Left has used it to justify some of their pet ideas being brought back to the forefront.
It figures that would be what you would immediately think of when it comes to human tragedy. Must have been a long bus trip to Salt Lake City. After all, you weren't going to pay for two plane seats, were you? lol
Here is a list of the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
- gun control
- revamping health care, especially mental health care
- reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine
- "hate speech" on talk radio
- painting the TEA Party as violent extremists
If I were more conspiratorial, I'd say this was more than just a coincidence.
How can you possibly be more conspiratorial?
However, I don't think it's an orchestrated effort so much as it is the Left trying to take advantage of the Arizona shooting to bring back some ideas they've tried and failed to make the case for previously.
The problem the Left faces in this case is trying to hook too many initiatives to the Arizona shooting when the connections aren't clear or are tenuous at best. For example, gun control advocates say the access to guns by the Arizona shooter proves there's a need for stricter gun control laws. The problem with this argument is it ignores a salient fact: the Arizona shooter was legally allowed to get the gun he used under current federal gun laws.
Put another way, he beat the system.
What the hell?
You're saying that we should not make stricter gun laws... because the current gun control laws allowed the killer to have that gun?
Lindaman, you glorious idiot. You have just created a logic hole that could implode the universe.
Anyways, you're also leaving out a crucial fact (yet again): The 30 round expanded magazine he used would not have been legal if Republicans had not allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire. At the very least, you guys probably helped at least a couple of those victims die just on that fact alone.
So, adding more gun control laws will prevent another Arizona shooting? Not so much, and it's not because of the "gun culture" in Arizona, either. It's because their laws are of no consequence to those who aren't going to follow the laws in the first place. You can pass any number of laws you want, but it won't change the fact there are people who won't follow
them.
Oh, really? So does that mean you're now against the racist anti-immigration laws that Arizona passed? After all, there will be people who won't follow the laws, so why have the laws?
Anyways, this is nothing new from the radical right. They still live in a fantasy world where they think in terms of bumper stickers: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Too bad the evidence shows otherwise.
You guys always weep when mass gun-related killings happen in the United States. Too bad the weeping is not for the victims.
We always know what the right-wing solution to gun violence is.
But don't worry, you guys always scramble when these shootings happen, even though it's really not needed.
Would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine have stopped the Arizona shooter? Nope. Turns out he didn't pay attention to talk radio or the news. What good would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine do in that case? It wouldn't.
You see, it's not the people who got shot who are the victims here! It's the right-wingers that could have rebuttals! Those poor victims! Oh, wait... reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine was never on the table. Never mind.
Improving mental health care? It was suggested the shooter seek professional help on a number of occasions, but it wasn't acted upon. Spending more money on mental health won't help those who refuse help or those who ignore the warning signs that someone may need help.
Good lord, the measures are first aid certification courses to help identify people that have mental health issues. What's wrong with that?
The TEA Party is violent? To date, there have been zero arrests at TEA Party events due to violent crimes. You can point to the video at a Rand Paul rally of a woman being "stomped"
as proof to the contrary, but only if it's taken out of its larger context.
Here's all the updates. What was the larger context? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And while we're here, violence is a staple at Leftist protests (see any G8 protests)
ROFL! Now Lindaman has to go outside the United States to make his point. Funny how he says nothing about the fascist police at those protests.
The political right in the United States spawned a domestic terrorist who killed 168 American citizens, 19 of whom were children.
When you look at violence in the United States, the majority of violence in modern political history.. say, since World War II.. has been right wing. You were not talking about worldwide issues here, you were talking about political violence within the United States. Now you pathetically try to widen it to claim that "lefties are violent" when modern history proves you wrong.
or in response to TEA Party and conservative rallies (a Leftist actually bit an old man who responded to his taunts).
Oh, not this bullshit again. Lindaman yet again leaves out the facts: The "old man" (Bill Rice) punched the "Leftist" in the mouth, twice, before he bit Rice's pinkie. Rice himself admits that.
Honestly, Lindaman, how do you live with yourself?
If the TEA Party is violent, they suck at it.
I for one would love to see the Teabaggers in any kind of violent physical altercation with another opposing party. I'd give them a minute and a half, tops, before they collapsed in a wheezing, gasping pile of sweaty, fat, middle-American flesh.
"Hate speech" on talk radio? A favorite target of the Left in this regard is Glenn Beck, a man who has advocated non-violent protest with regards to Obama's initiatives. Has he said things that could be construed as hateful? Yes, but only if you distort the context, as Media Matters loves to do. Even so, given the fact the shooter didn't listen to talk radio, taking on "hate speech" in talk radio wouldn't have stopped him.
Lindaman, you have spent this entire article distorting and outright lying. This is an undeniable fact.
And when you were asked repeatedly in the past to present any evidence whatsoever that Media Matters distorts or takes Glenn Beck out of context... the best you could do was quote a proven anti-Semite. You couldn't find one goddamn thing that Media Matters said about Beck that was out of context. Not one goddamn thing.
We on the left can take credit for a guy that bit a man's pinkie after getting punched twice in the face, fine. You Becksters will have to take credit for Byron Williams.
So, to review, the Left is advancing ideas that wouldn't help anything related to the Arizona shooting, but would help them politically. And when the next tragedy occurs, something tells me they'll do the same thing.
Lindaman sure is pissed off at the Left for stating horrific things like trying to prevent gun massacres, improving health care, and denouncing violence and hate speech.
Here's an idea... instead of scrambling to defend your fellow lunatics, racists (your "card" metaphor clearly shows why you defend them), and hatemongers... why don't you become a decent human being like us? Then you could possibly move forward in your life and actually make something of yourself.
During a recent trip to Salt Lake City,
Um... why were you going to Salt Lake City? That has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of your post. So it's totally irrelevant. Have you learned nothing from flushing away all that money on Toastmasters? Either at least say why you went there, or don't bring it up.
I got to thinking about the recent Arizona shooting and how the Left has used it to justify some of their pet ideas being brought back to the forefront.
It figures that would be what you would immediately think of when it comes to human tragedy. Must have been a long bus trip to Salt Lake City. After all, you weren't going to pay for two plane seats, were you? lol
Here is a list of the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
- gun control
- revamping health care, especially mental health care
- reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine
- "hate speech" on talk radio
- painting the TEA Party as violent extremists
If I were more conspiratorial, I'd say this was more than just a coincidence.
How can you possibly be more conspiratorial?
However, I don't think it's an orchestrated effort so much as it is the Left trying to take advantage of the Arizona shooting to bring back some ideas they've tried and failed to make the case for previously.
The problem the Left faces in this case is trying to hook too many initiatives to the Arizona shooting when the connections aren't clear or are tenuous at best. For example, gun control advocates say the access to guns by the Arizona shooter proves there's a need for stricter gun control laws. The problem with this argument is it ignores a salient fact: the Arizona shooter was legally allowed to get the gun he used under current federal gun laws.
Put another way, he beat the system.
What the hell?
You're saying that we should not make stricter gun laws... because the current gun control laws allowed the killer to have that gun?
Lindaman, you glorious idiot. You have just created a logic hole that could implode the universe.
Anyways, you're also leaving out a crucial fact (yet again): The 30 round expanded magazine he used would not have been legal if Republicans had not allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire. At the very least, you guys probably helped at least a couple of those victims die just on that fact alone.
So, adding more gun control laws will prevent another Arizona shooting? Not so much, and it's not because of the "gun culture" in Arizona, either. It's because their laws are of no consequence to those who aren't going to follow the laws in the first place. You can pass any number of laws you want, but it won't change the fact there are people who won't follow
them.
Oh, really? So does that mean you're now against the racist anti-immigration laws that Arizona passed? After all, there will be people who won't follow the laws, so why have the laws?
Anyways, this is nothing new from the radical right. They still live in a fantasy world where they think in terms of bumper stickers: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Too bad the evidence shows otherwise.
You guys always weep when mass gun-related killings happen in the United States. Too bad the weeping is not for the victims.
We always know what the right-wing solution to gun violence is.
But don't worry, you guys always scramble when these shootings happen, even though it's really not needed.
Would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine have stopped the Arizona shooter? Nope. Turns out he didn't pay attention to talk radio or the news. What good would reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine do in that case? It wouldn't.
You see, it's not the people who got shot who are the victims here! It's the right-wingers that could have rebuttals! Those poor victims! Oh, wait... reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine was never on the table. Never mind.
Improving mental health care? It was suggested the shooter seek professional help on a number of occasions, but it wasn't acted upon. Spending more money on mental health won't help those who refuse help or those who ignore the warning signs that someone may need help.
Good lord, the measures are first aid certification courses to help identify people that have mental health issues. What's wrong with that?
The TEA Party is violent? To date, there have been zero arrests at TEA Party events due to violent crimes. You can point to the video at a Rand Paul rally of a woman being "stomped"
as proof to the contrary, but only if it's taken out of its larger context.
Here's all the updates. What was the larger context? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And while we're here, violence is a staple at Leftist protests (see any G8 protests)
ROFL! Now Lindaman has to go outside the United States to make his point. Funny how he says nothing about the fascist police at those protests.
The political right in the United States spawned a domestic terrorist who killed 168 American citizens, 19 of whom were children.
When you look at violence in the United States, the majority of violence in modern political history.. say, since World War II.. has been right wing. You were not talking about worldwide issues here, you were talking about political violence within the United States. Now you pathetically try to widen it to claim that "lefties are violent" when modern history proves you wrong.
or in response to TEA Party and conservative rallies (a Leftist actually bit an old man who responded to his taunts).
Oh, not this bullshit again. Lindaman yet again leaves out the facts: The "old man" (Bill Rice) punched the "Leftist" in the mouth, twice, before he bit Rice's pinkie. Rice himself admits that.
Honestly, Lindaman, how do you live with yourself?
If the TEA Party is violent, they suck at it.
I for one would love to see the Teabaggers in any kind of violent physical altercation with another opposing party. I'd give them a minute and a half, tops, before they collapsed in a wheezing, gasping pile of sweaty, fat, middle-American flesh.
"Hate speech" on talk radio? A favorite target of the Left in this regard is Glenn Beck, a man who has advocated non-violent protest with regards to Obama's initiatives. Has he said things that could be construed as hateful? Yes, but only if you distort the context, as Media Matters loves to do. Even so, given the fact the shooter didn't listen to talk radio, taking on "hate speech" in talk radio wouldn't have stopped him.
Lindaman, you have spent this entire article distorting and outright lying. This is an undeniable fact.
And when you were asked repeatedly in the past to present any evidence whatsoever that Media Matters distorts or takes Glenn Beck out of context... the best you could do was quote a proven anti-Semite. You couldn't find one goddamn thing that Media Matters said about Beck that was out of context. Not one goddamn thing.
We on the left can take credit for a guy that bit a man's pinkie after getting punched twice in the face, fine. You Becksters will have to take credit for Byron Williams.
So, to review, the Left is advancing ideas that wouldn't help anything related to the Arizona shooting, but would help them politically. And when the next tragedy occurs, something tells me they'll do the same thing.
Lindaman sure is pissed off at the Left for stating horrific things like trying to prevent gun massacres, improving health care, and denouncing violence and hate speech.
Here's an idea... instead of scrambling to defend your fellow lunatics, racists (your "card" metaphor clearly shows why you defend them), and hatemongers... why don't you become a decent human being like us? Then you could possibly move forward in your life and actually make something of yourself.