AZ Aftermath: Complete Abdication of Responsibility

January 16, 2011 at 9:08 pm 277 comments

“Jared Loughner acted alone and is solely responsible for his actions.” There are a great number of attempted murders that might be dismissed with such an assessment but Loughner’s attempted assassination of AZ Representative Gabrielle Giffords is not such a case. I suspect from the reaction of folks with whom I’ve been arguing that a good number of conservatives would like to see Loughner locked away and his case swept from memory.

Why do I say this? There are three distinct issues raised by the Loughner shooting spree and a corresponding conservative reaction:

1. Our social discourse — Despite the fact that Loughner has said nothing since his arrest, conservatives would have you believe this was not a political shooting. From what we can tell Loughner’s head was full of a mishmash of political influences from the Communist Manifesto to Mein Kampf to some strange right-wing notion of subliminal mind control through the use of grammar. Because his political ideas were incoherent does not mean they were not political. His primary interaction with Giffords a few years ago involved him making a nonsensical socio-political statement to her which she basically ignored. It is one of the things that the authorities think fueled his rage and his obsession. Since it is strongly believed that he is schizophrenic, there is a distinct possibility that our toxic political environment churned the crazy soup brewing in his head. Some conservatives would have you believe that using this event to reconsider how we conduct ourselves is tantamount to “blaming” the reckless speakers. Call it blame if you like but we are responsible for the social environment we create.

2. Gun control — Suggest to some conservatives that there is no reason for Walmart to sell the fire power used by Loughner (a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine) and you get hit over the head with the 2nd Amendment. “Fine, limit him to a 10 round clip and then he’ll just buy two guns and bring both to the party.” It is like talking to a child where you try to lay down reasonable ground rules and they tell you all the ways they can get around them. Does that mean that we simply abandon the ground rules? Who needs to go hunting with a semi-automatic pistol firing 30 bullets without reloading? Who needs to defend themselves with that much fire power? Most folks get mugged by one to three assailants. Seldom does a group of 30 punks come up to you to rob you or threaten you (unless you’re in Afghanistan). So why is self-defense a legitimate excuse for this much fire power? Part of the problem is we are arguing with wingnuts who believe they might one day have to fight off the government. Calls for legitimate self-defense against criminals are baloney. It’s this nutty right-wing paranoia run amok.

3. Mental health system reform — The one thing just about everyone agrees upon is that Loughner is mentally ill. Yet little over a week after this assassination attempt, Congress will vote on repealing the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 which contains provisions for improvement in mental health care payment and  administration.

The phrase “teachable moment” tends to gag me. I find it awfully saccharine. That said, the fact that a sizable number of people in this country wish to take NOTHING from this tragedy to make it less likely to be repeated is disgusting. On the contrary, some folks have the nerve to be offended if you suggest that trash talk can influence sick minds, or that easy availability of assault weapons invites misuse of them or that we need to do more than just pay lip service to better mental health care initiatives. They say to discuss the factors that might influence a tragedy is to exploit that tragedy for political gain. This is pure crap, plain and simple.

So, if Loughner is solely responsible for the actions that took place in front of the Safeway in Tucson, Arizona, then I guess all we need to do is lock him up and the problem goes away. That is, until the next Loughner comes along and puts a bullet in a politician’s head.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Politics, Social commentary, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , .

“Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People” — Still Stupid Bangkok Comes to the Super Bowl and other Tidbits

277 Comments Add your own

  • 1. dead rabbit  |  January 17, 2011 at 1:58 am

    “some strange right-wing notion of subliminal mind control through the use of grammar.”

    Huh? Care to explain your latest broad stroked slur?

    Self righteous Sally. Not an ounce of reflection since your last bad apple cart full of utter bull shit?

    Why don’t you provide a link to your blog about the guy who worked for the census. Go to your series on the Tea Party. End with with one calling for Sara Palin’s advisors to be fired due to her role in the killings. Throw in the one about Palin’s kid.

    Association is a bitch, remember?

    You false flag waving con. You act like you’re an exasperated saint, as your calls for a new era in political discourse fall on deaf ears. Is that what you call the stunt you took part in?

    Keep trying to shut us up this way, wretch. It won’t work. The American people didn’t fall for it.

    Don’t worry, as I told fakename, I will have your back when they come to shut you up.

    Until then, I will show up on this site until you ban me, exposing you to be the Monster of McCarthyism that you truly are.

    So keep going down this road, King of Hypocrites. Last weekend was an eye opener for me too.

    You couldn’t win in the forum of ideas. You couldn’t win on this November’s election day. So, the only thing you have left is to paint that angry senior citizen at an Obamacare town forum to be evil.

    Just wait until Obamacare and inflation kicks in, thanks to Obama’s Goldman Sachs money machine buddies .

    You don’t even know what pissed off sounds like.

  • 2. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 17, 2011 at 3:35 am

    “Since it is strongly believed that he is schizophrenic, there is a distinct possibility that our toxic political environment churned the crazy soup brewing in his head. Some conservatives would have you believe that using this event to reconsider how we conduct ourselves is tantamount to “blaming” the reckless speakers. Call it blame if you like but we are responsible for the social environment we create.”

    Rutherford, if someone is paranoid enough, you can look at them wrong and send them over the edge.

    If people want to argue for a more civil discourse, fine. It’s an argument that has been going on for a while. But don’t base it on the actions of a madman and the fear of how other madmen might interpret what we say or how we say it.

    “3. Mental health system reform — The one thing just about everyone agrees upon is that Loughner is mentally ill. Yet little over a week after this assassination attempt, Congress will vote on repealing the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 which contains provisions for improvement in mental health care payment and administration.”

    Why bring up ObamaCare? This guy wasn’t not getting care because his parents couldn’t afford it. He wasn’t getting care because nobody would help them. That includes that worthless, shit-talking cop you that you keep letting off the hook.

    This has nothing to do with health care reform. But let’s not accuse you of politicizing this, or anything. Because, since a politician was shot, it means you can bring up any political agenda you want, right?

    What’s next? Tax increases on the wealthy might have paid for his mental health care? Maybe cap and trade might have made him breathe less crap that polluted his brain? Or maybe he might have found comfort in a particular illegal immigrant we are forcing to live in the shadows?

    Why don’t you just get them all out now. No need to let this opportunity go to waste.

  • 3. an800lbgorilla  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:03 am

    I guess now it’s fairly obvious why I’m not around much…

  • 4. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Collective guilt. A most potent weapon for the left. And here I thought I was just a racist. Turns out I’m responsible for murders too.

    Again. Thanks for bringing us this teachable moment. Let’s fix your intro: “There are three distinct issues raised by [Rutheford] in response to the Loughner shooting spree and a corresponding conservative reaction.”

    You made you case with the same level of proof and logic as the case that chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.

    God, you want so desperately for this to be something different than what it was.

  • 5. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:17 am

    And now the Times reports that Loughner had an intense dislike of Bush — just like the hate-spewing left.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

  • 6. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:36 am

    On November 27, 2009, Rutherford writes:

    “The second slice of humble pie involves some intellectual dishonesty on my part. Such dishonesty usually comes back to kick one in the ass and this week I did indeed get my ass kicked. Back in September, I published an article about a census taker in Kentucky who was found hanged under mysterious circumstances. I used the event to prove that the evil right-wing was on the march. The worst offense was the following claim:

    Much of the media is approaching this story with caution. Clearly, the investigation is just beginning and this could be either a very bizarre suicide or a “prank” homicide completely unrelated to any political agenda. If either case proves to be true, we should still stop and contemplate this moment. Regardless of what really happened, what are many of us thinking right now and why?

    Well, I should have approached the story with much more caution, like not have written about it in the first place. It turns out that the terminally ill census taker staged his own murder so his son could get the insurance. The best part is when I say that regardless of the facts we should still contemplate what happened. This kind of reminds me of when my buddy Rush Limbaugh found out that an Obama thesis story he had covered was a hoax and then said the fiction was consistent with fact and therefore didn’t deserve a retraction.

    Well friends, sometimes emotional fervor interferes with clear thinking. When the facts of the case dictate that some right-wing looney tune has gone off the deep end, then and only then is it appropriate to get one’s bowels in an uproar about it. You probably won’t see Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow say “my bad” about this one, but you will see me say it.”

    Who’d have thunk this was just your “latest” Brtiney Spears Moment.

    Teachable moment indeed!

  • 7. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:29 am

    The phrase “teachable moment” tends to gag me. I find it awfully saccharine. That said, the fact that a sizable number of people in this country wish to take NOTHING from this tragedy to make it less likely to be repeated is disgusting.

    I think I can say with a reasonable degree of assuredness that there are at least five of us that have determined the Gifford’s tragedy has been a very teachable moment. It has has been anything but saccharine in the experience, as the taste most bitter.

    Some of us have determined that we were wrong about you. I am personally disgusted with you. You have eloquently demonstrated for the last nine days the biggest political problem in this country – dishonesty and gamesmanship in dialogue. You have reminded me and confirmed for me why in the summer of 2008, I thought your party of far left Democrats far more dangerous to me personally than radical Islam. That statement is not for showmanship or dramatic effect – that is a fact.

    For more than two years I’ve considered you a friend of sorts and always likable, even if we are polar opposites about the basic tenets faith and politic. I thought because of our age, our education and credentials, our shared corporate history and work experience, even our interests and tastes, that we might accomplish something of value – the very least, perhaps a little in understanding of a different viewpoint.

    You have been more than fair in your letting me express my opinions – and sometimes I have been purposely over the top just to read the reaction. It has been fun most of the time. I apologize for a few of the statements, most said in jest even when in poor taste. Your forum has been for me a give and take, the one window of liberalism I allow myself to witness daily. I’ve learned a lot.

    However, what I have taken, especially the last three months and specifically the last ten days, is that you Rutherford are a conniving bastard that is far more like KOS or Paul Krugman than I wanted to believe, more hack than mediator.

    I’ll admit I was wrong. I should have known better when you played the race card not 90 days into Obama’s divisive and abysmal first two years as President. You’ve foolishly invested yourself in a fraud and narcissistic opportunist, and now that he has failed you, instead of admitting your mistakes you’ve chosen to lash out in the most reprehensible of ways. And that is typical of modern day liberalism.

    I chose to blindly ignore the obvious because I enjoyed the debate and the match of wits. The Rutherford Lawson blog has filled a void for me because of the situation I have found myself in. I always thought you were better, smarter, more refined than the Graychin and Yeller Dawgs of the world. But you’re not. You’re just a well written Ivy league representative of the many lost souls.

    Everyone of the comments from above speak for me.

  • 8. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery.

  • 9. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Poolman, I’m not entirely sure who that comment was directed at. Me? All of us?

  • 10. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Tigre, I know you think you’ve got me in some sort of gotcha moment but I beg to differ.

    The census guy and the Giffords shooting simply are not the same. With the census guy, I went off half baked on a deception rather than waiting for the facts to come out.

    In this case, I have based my argument on facts that are indisputable. You simply don’t like my bringing up the arguments in the wake of this tragedy. You call it exploitation. I might add, that as I recall, only the crazy left rushed to judgment on the census worker. On the other hand, every reasonable media outlet has discussed all three of the points I’ve made above in connection with the Giffords shooting.

    You’ve drawn a false equivalency.

  • 11. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    The census guy and the Giffords shooting simply are not the same. With the census guy, I went off half baked on a deception rather than waiting for the facts to come out.

    I think you’re right Rutherford. Similar but not the same. The hideous nature in your accusation of the census worker pales in comparison to the reprehensible nature of your accusations the last ten days. The last ten days have not been half baked. They have been coordinated, purposeful, well thought out, and sheer evil.

    You’ve drawn a false equivalency.

    The same false equivalency of suggesting Sarah Palin’s disputed “cross hairs” on a map leads to murder, while refusing to mention she was but one of many using military symbolism to identify political targets; the demands that Palin’s administrative staff be fired though the Democratic National Committee did similar; the suggestion this type of rhetoric led to planting an idea of a crazed madman shooting 20+ people, killing six; a madman who far more resembles a Bush hating anarchist from the Left than a militia from the Right, ignoring that none of knew who Sarah Palin was in 2007 when Loughner’s hatred of Giffords was initiated.

    And you want to tell us that your argument based on facts that are indisputable?

    The last ten days have been nothing but political exploitation, from tacit suggestions of Palin being accompliance to murder, to more gun control. Pure political demagoguery and exploitation of the absolute most despicable kind. McCarthyism on steroids.

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt for 24 hours that you were in shock, confused, and angry. Everyone was. After 48 hours you were without any excuse, your intent was made all too obvious.

    Lower than the seventh layer of whale shit in the Mariana Trench low.

  • 12. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Poolman, I’m not entirely sure who that comment was directed at. Me? All of us?

    All of us. It is pertinent today as we celebrate MLK day, the only American we have ever honored with a national holiday who was not a president of this nation. We have not progressed past this in point in our nation. This speech is as relevant as it was when first spoken 44 years ago.

    I posted one of Kennedy’s speech last thread. I felt it apropos to post this, one of my favs today. Both these great men were shot in the head. It seems to be the way we treat our prophets and our “enemies”.

    “There is something particularly horrifying when someone is shot in the head. Perhaps it’s the gruesome image, the destruction of the brain, the clear intent to kill.”

  • 13. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    “You’ve drawn a false equivalency.”

    A use of “guilt by association” in lieu of an actual connection in both instances is not a false equivalency.

    Running your mouth before any facts were developed in both instances is not a false equivalency.

    Beating your chest to gain political mileage on the heels of a tragedy in both instances is not a false equivalency.

    Hoping that something different happened than what really did in order to validate your views in both instances is not a false equivalency.

    Your demands that a dialogue concerning your opponent’s rhetoric take place as a reaction to the tragedy in both instances is not a false equivalency.

    And your indisputable facts:

    “Since it is strongly believed that he is schizophrenic, there is a distinct possibility that our toxic political environment churned the crazy soup brewing in his head.”

    Yeah. Indisputable in dispute I guess.

    The only false equivalency was that you claimed to have “facts” before. You’ve avoided that problem altogether here by prretending that “facts” are irrelevant.

  • 14. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    “Indisputably in dispute, I guess.”

  • 15. dead rabbit  |  January 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    As I told you guys last weekend, discourse with this shriveled cuck is pointless. Let him write little notes to fakename and Greychin and call it a blog. The best thing we could do is ignore him.

  • 16. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    I can’t wait until someone plows their car into a crowd of politicians and Rutherford uses it as an excuse to call for lowering our reliance on foreign oil….

  • 17. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Hey, remember when we were called racists for speaking out against the scary black man spewing hate?

  • 18. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “I can’t wait until…”

    …we invade another country because supposedly they harbor terrorists, or contain a base for Al Qaeda (the base), or supposedly have WMDs.

    Nevermind that this very country meets all the above criteria.

  • 19. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    As I told you guys last weekend, discourse with this shriveled cuck is pointless. Let him write little notes to fakename and Greychin and call it a blog. The best thing we could do is ignore him.

    The way that Rutherford has responded the last several months, or should I say hasn’t responded in kind to much besides some random lunacy, leaves me to believe that is what he may want. We ran Graychin off, his excuse being we were too mean and illegitimate. He slithered back to the Two Useful Idiot’s Blog.

    Let’s face it Rabbit – when you and I first came here and it was just Rutherford plus the rare “Ecclesiastes (aka The Rigorist), the yin to Rutherford’s yang”, “R” was flying high and unchallenged.

    Obama had just been elected, the Republicans were going the way of the Whigs, Conservatives nothing but a washed up, regional party no longer of much regard – the generation of Obama and what America had been waiting for.

    We met Rutherford at his most opportune time and were willing to take him on anyway. Rutherford hasn’t been able to rise to the occasion for the last several months like we did – especially after Jim Dougan died. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, perhaps this “open forum” isn’t what Rutherford expected.

    Isn’t much fun to always be on the defensive, is it “R”? Tastes pretty bitter when your political adversaries can now tell you, “I told you so…” A little more difficult to perform than criticize like Obama is quickly learning. GITMO, the economy, war, transparency, racial reconciliation, calming of the seas – all those things you guys promised would be set right; vanished like a fart in the wind.

    Throw in the BP oil spill handled more poorly than Hurricane Katrina, global warming being exposed as a huge fraud, a stimulus package worth almost a trillion and nothing to show for it, an unpopular Health Care plan rammed down the throats of the citizenry, and the absolute Republican rout in November – might be more than even the strongest lefty back to lift.

    Leaves you with nothing but throwing wild punches, charges of accusations to commit murder.

    Maybe it’s time for Rutherford to utter these words: “Frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m tired of defending you… My wife and I thought we were beyond the hot dog and beans of our lives.” …

  • 21. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    That is, until the next Loughner comes along and puts a bullet in a politician’s head.

    And now that it is clear that dragging a young girl’s body into your heady brew of hypocrisy and blame got you nothing, you return to the meme that launched a thousand slanders.

    *golf clap*

    Thank you for once again giving us the glimpse into the mind of Rutherford, where a government life that was not snuffed out is worth more than six who were. You want this to politically motivated. You need it to be. And no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to sway you from the belief. You join in your five minuites of rage broadcast by those you allow to think for you at PMSNBC, and simply cannot comprehend that everything they warned you about simply has not come to pass, and in the interim, you have allowed their hate to so twist you and your thinking that blame, slander, and libel are your first reactions to such a thing.

    I think we’re done here. There is nothing more to say, other than good luck to you. I hope when reality comes calling with all of the weight it bears, that your world can survive the impact, if only for the sake of your sanity.

  • 22. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Rutherford,

    Maybe Rabbit is right. Maybe it is time to call off the dogs.

    I give you a measure of credit Rutherford – maybe not the type you seek, but a measure of credit anyway. You’ve outlasted them all – the cowards have for the most part abandoned you. Those sissies you called friends or at the very least WordPress cohorts of like mind, have pretty much departed once it got a whole lot tougher and they had to defend the record. Chen, that Revolting Pawn asshole, Deanna, Curator, Mark, Sensico, Graychin, though he was late to the game and Dawg too stupid to count, all pretty much gone. Many that those you linked no longer participate, too lame to stand the heat once they were finally asked to perform. Jim Dougan, the closest I’ve met to your persuasion and like you a little more likable, has passed away which still saddens me.

    You’re left with Fakename2 and Poolman who are not nearly as political as those I’ve listed and support you more than your ideas; MeriBeth who for most things, pretty neutral except Sarah Palin.

    Should we call it a day and leave it at that? Everyone get back to our lives, and leave you liberals time to stew in the misery of your own making? Admit there is no reconciliation, no moderation possible, that there has to be a winner and a loser in every battle, every war?

    I can’t speak for everyone, but I came here for one reason and one reason only. To let you have a taste of your own medicine, to outlast everyone of you bastards and witches who acted so poorly during Bush, and heaven only knows that you weren’t the worst of the bunch.

    There have been times lately, I actually thought I was piling on.

    No patronizing here. It was never my intent to depress you or make you really angry – just to make you squirm – it was done with the intent to teach you a lesson. Do you need a break? We’ve beat you up pretty good the last several months, and I feel like my mission has pretty much been accomplished. At least for the time being, you’ve lost.

    Let me know here or elsewhere.

  • 23. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Time magazine apolitical? :lol: Never have been, nor could they be. Time is still a left-wing rag, mostly of ill repute now with circulation numbers swirling the drain, and I read your article carefully. It leaves with a question, but in reality the question already provides the answer. Poor attempt at sublimination…and I’m not talking the physical aspects of chemistry either. Friedrich Nietzsche personified.

    You want me to tell you what the author really thinks? The jig is up. The Right learned our lessons well during the Bush era. Bush made the mistake of trying to stay above the fray and lost the fight. He never learned this lesson until too late, and his daddy made the same mistake which made Jr’s meekness incomprehensible.

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”~ Joseph Goebbels

    With the advent of FOX News, talk radio and mostly the Army of Davids called the internet, the days of American Pravda for the Left are over with – from this day forward, expect the lies to be challenged.

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over’ ~ Joseph Goebbels

    Two words for you personally Rutherford – Sarah Palin.

  • 24. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over

    Mmmmm, you mean like “death panels”, “health care job killing bill”, “Obama is a socialist”? Yes I do know propaganda when I see it.

    As for Poniewozik’s article, I wasn’t saying Time was apolitical, I was saying that particular article was apolitical. James goes to great trouble to stay out of the “should she or shouldn’t she” debate (which he actually delves into in another article), but simply points out that this may be the new media strategy … one of confrontation vs reconciliation.

  • 25. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    In response to some of #22, I have said in the past that libs don’t seem to have much staying power. I’ve been very surprised at the near total absence of Gray and Dog on the past three posts. Maybe they just don’t agree with me and don’t want to embarrass me with a correction? Curator dropped out long ago to focus on his studies. I don’t know what became of Pawn or Deanna. But you have a good memory Tex, I’d forgotten some of the names you mentioned.

    I think part of what may have happened over the past three posts (I’m not sure where Tex is getting his past three MONTHS from) is that I’ve come to some Tex-like conclusions. For years I’ve been lectured here about the utter failure of liberal politics. For me, two Saturday’s ago encapsulated the utter failure of conservative politics. The politics of “you’re on your own sucker.” The politics of free speech drenched in paranoia. The hypocritical politics of defending the establishment while all the time mistrusting it (“don’t take my guns away cos I may need to kill an overzealous ATF agent or some criminal cos we know I can’t depend on the cops … oh yeah but don’t you dare say a bad word about America or our hard working police officers”).

    Conservative politics is not the answer. The first six years of Bush proved that and the next two years of Obama will prove likewise with the caveat that Obama will pull the right further toward the center.

    It’s quite a depressing state of affairs really. I can’t say liberal politics has realized its promise but conservative politics is no alternative. Quite the stalemate really.

    Maybe when all is said and done, I’ll just become an anarchist. :neutral:

  • 26. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Actually the author went to some lengths but not great lengths of Sarah Palin. His question has already been answered, though.

    This is the way it is and will stay that way. Every lie from the Left must be challenged, every battle matched an fought, every stone turned, every form of liberal propaganda now answered. The repeat of the lies of the Iraqi War must be obliterated and made personal.

    Stay on the attack, my offer to you amongst friends. :smile:

  • 27. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    of “his disdain” for Sarah Palin…oops.

  • 28. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Correction…the middle four years of Bush were outstanding and we won the “unwinnable war.” The market never higher and full employment was maintained for close to 52 months.

    Can’t spin it Rutherford. I won’t let you. :wink:

  • 29. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Maybe when all is said and done, I’ll just become an anarchist.

    Fastest growing demographic in Amerika and most censored.

    …the middle four years of Bush were outstanding and we won the “unwinnable war.”

    What war is that?

  • 30. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “Conservative politics is not the answer.”

    I don’t think you even know what conservative politics is or really care. The last several posts is proof of that.

  • 31. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    By the way, for those accusing me of obsession, BiW has devoted four of his last six articles to the AZ shooting and has expounded far longer on the topic by word count than I have. But that’s ok since his take is “move along, nothing to see here … oh and don’t f*ck with my first or second amendment”.

    From what I read of his latest post, he doesn’t get the fact that last week Obama – 1, Palin – 0. Obama told us to calm the f*ck down (including me). BiW shows himself to be a partisan hack when he cynically dismisses Obama’s speech and in his non-elitist way, thinks he has the right to dictate the behavior of folks at a memorial.

    If they want tee shirts and hoots and hollers, that’s their prerogative and BiW can, in his words, get bent.

  • 32. dead rabbit  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Damn, Loughner is quite the influence on your sheltered life, Gollum.

    Rutherford, I’m sorry you finally got to meet Chaos. Don’t know where you’ve been over the last 40 years. But, oh well.

    If it soothes you to shield yourself from Chaos with your MSNBC mass produced constructs, I say go for it.

    The Dead Rabbit will hold you, rub your head and ignore the drool. You can blame the Dead Rabbit or Sara Palin or Adam Smith or the Tea Party.

    Sure it’s interesting that Poolman, video games, gangsta rap or Obama’s guns at the knife fight don’t make the list.

    But I’ll keep it to myself. After all, this isn’t about me. It’s about you.

    Come here, lil’ fugly. Sit on my lap and tell me about your day and about the bad people. We’ll still tell the wife and kid your’e a man. No worries. You’re secret is good with the Rabbit.

    Now, now…don’t bite, fugly. Just let me rock you.

  • 33. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Tigre, do you consider Bachmann, Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh ambassadors of conservative politics? If so, I rest my case.

  • 34. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Fastest growing demographic in Amerika and most censored.

    Atheists no doubt run a close second.

    By the way, since we’re having so much fun here …. did you guys know the dude who kept Giffords from bleeding to death is gay? Yeah, but don’t let him enlist in the army honestly cos he’ll try to f*ck his bunk-mate.

    My earlier statement needs more subtlety. Conservative politics doesn’t work but social conservatism REALLY doesn’t work!

  • 35. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Rabbit, even when you’re vicious you’re funny as hell.

    If my reliance on the police and my refusal to buy a gun and learn how to use it makes me a sissy, I’d venture to guess I’m in the company of lots of sissies. By the way, I weigh less than 90 lbs. Do you know what the kickback of a gun would do to me? I’d probably blast myself through the back window of my house.

    So, for anyone who cares to put up or shut up, how many of you own a gun and know how to use it?

    I already know the answer is yes for Rabbit and Gorilla. Anyone else care to offer their macho credentials?

  • 36. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    “Tigre, do you consider Bachmann, Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh ambassadors of conservative politics? If so, I rest my case.”

    I don’t know what “ambassadors of conservative politics” means. But in any event, I don’t pay attention to any of them, so I guess “no.”

  • 37. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    I don’t own a gun, nor do I want to.

    Do Rabbitt and Gorilla have a right to onw gun? Abso-fucking-luetly. Even Obama admits that.

  • 38. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    “[D]id you guys know the dude who kept Giffords from bleeding to death is gay?”

    Yeah, yeah. We’re all homophobic. We get it. . .

  • 39. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    You think somebody that would dare go by “Tex” doesn’t know how to use a gun? Are you crazy? Yes, I own a gun and am itching to use it. My wife hates it, so it stays out of sight, out of mind – still within reach of home defense.

  • 40. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    I never said Rabbit and G don’t have the right to own a gun. But quite frankly I don’t see why they need a semi-automatic with a 30 round magazine. And I have no problem telling them they CAN’T have that. Abso-f*cking-lutely.

  • 41. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    “[D]id you guys know the dude who kept Giffords from bleeding to death is gay?

    He’s also morbidly obese. Squeal like a pig!!! What was your point?

  • 42. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I have done plenty of target shooting in the past with rifles, but don’t presently own any guns. My dad’s side of the family were avid hunters and his brothers regularly traveled to Alaska to hunt. I spent much time on property they owned in Bridgewater Vermont. It was a hunting lodge on 60 acres of mountainside where white tail deer would come up and feed on the grass in the front. I never hunted but enjoyed the trout fishing there. I also enjoyed the venison from their successes.

    I personally do not choose to put my faith in a gun for protection. I don’t have a problem with others doing so, as it is a personal decision. I don’t enjoy the feel of a pistol in my hand. The thought of shooting another human being and ending their life or even crippling them is enough to keep me from handling them regularly.

    I have plenty of friends that own and carry guns. Some are collectors. A few have been in situations where they were used for self-defense, and they are grateful they had them. I have known two people that wish they never owned guns due to accidental deaths of children getting into them. Both cases they were handguns. Several other similar incidents have occurred in the different areas I grew up in to people of those communities that I did not know personally.

    I also knew some people that were suicides that did themselves in with their own guns.

    Still, we live with guns everyday in Arizona. We should try harder to keep them away from the mentally unstable. But it seems that we will be letting more of the mentally unstable out on the streets. The governor just instigated new cuts to funds for the mental health care programs. Yet the gun laws are very lax here. Even our legislators are starting to freak out, since security is very lax in the state legislature. We have had 2 moderate republicans resign since the Giffords’ incident.

  • 43. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    By the way, for those accusing me of obsession, BiW has devoted four of his last six articles to the AZ shooting and has expounded far longer on the topic by word count than I have. But that’s ok since his take is “move along, nothing to see here … oh and don’t f*ck with my first or second amendment”.

    I hate myself for coming back, but as long as I had to read this drivel, I thought a response would be appropriate, much as the posts he complains of were responses to the ever-morphing panapoly of blame that Rutherford and his message masters were cycling through, starting before the bodies hit the floor to the utter clurlessness being flogged yet today. Maybe it was growing up so close to an urban area that was, per capita, the murder capital of the country for much of my youth, but having heard all the gun control arguments before, and knowing that they did nothing to reduce the amount of deaths due to guns, I wasn’t about to stand by and silently witness an attempt to afix blame that failed serve another long-standing agenda item for people whose only answer to anything is “More government, please.”

    From what I read of his latest post, he doesn’t get the fact that last week Obama – 1, Palin – 0. Obama told us to calm the f*ck down (including me).

    From what I’ve read here, you have no clue how insulting it is to hear a call for civility from someone drowning in his own hypocrisy on the subject. But then it has nothing to do with civility and everything to do with wanted those who disagree to shut up, and when they don’t, to be tarred as not having anything to contribute to the national “dailogue” on…well, anything.

    BiW shows himself to be a partisan hack when he cynically dismisses Obama’s speech and in his non-elitist way, thinks he has the right to dictate the behavior of folks at a memorial.

    Dictate? Never. Criticize? Absolutely. It wasn’t a wake, and it wasn’t a dixeland procession. It was an event that the President chose to lend his gravitas to, and much in the way that he has treated the office with respect in the past, he chose to cheapen it again, tacitly approving of a campaign pep rally rather than a sober reflection on the victims.

    If they want tee shirts and hoots and hollers, that’s their prerogative and BiW can, in his words, get bent.

    Yes, because nothing conveys seriousness like t-shirts and raucous outbursts by barely post-pubescent kids who will gladly don a free shirt and clap like seals upon visual prompts.
    Scratch that. At least seals sell their performance for a fish. These young sophisticates did it for free.

  • 44. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Oh, and I own more than one firearm, Rutherford. On a rifle with a magazine that holds (gasp!) TEN! ROUNDS!!!!!

    Why? Why would I own one that holds TEN ROUNDS?????

    Because I CAN!, that’s why.

  • 45. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    “But quite frankly I don’t see why they need a semi-automatic with a 30 round magazine. And I have no problem telling them they CAN’T have that. Abso-f*cking-lutely.”

    Sorry. I misunderstood the question then.

    I do not own a gun. I prefer to kill with my bare hands. So these other guys are pussies, I guess. No wonder they own guns.

  • 46. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Sarah Palin’s coming south to hunt some skunk…

  • 47. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Damn BiW. You, along with all conservatives, were supposed to be dispirited because of the shooting. You know. . . the lesson here was for you to “shut up.” And you didn’t comply, damn it!!!! We were supposed to have a dialogue about how you were supposed to shut up. Remember? Because of a shooting in Tucson? Hellooooo???

  • 48. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Poolman, for all of his bullshit, Rutherford should have to watch that video Clockwork Orange style.

  • 49. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    “clap like seals by visual prompt”

    Ah BiW you’re gonna repeat that baseless claim that a jumbotron prompted audience response? It was close captioning for the deaf. Libs believe in accommodation and inclusion. ;-)

  • 50. Rutherford  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    I misquoted. It should have read “clap like seals upon visual prompts”

  • 51. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

  • 52. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Among the books that Loughner would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.”

    Starting to sound a little like Poolman.

  • 53. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    “clap like seals by visual prompt”

    Ah BiW you’re gonna repeat that baseless claim that a jumbotron prompted audience response? It was close captioning for the deaf. Libs believe in accommodation and inclusion.

    No, I’m talking about the “pauses for effect” and upturned countenence and nod reminicent of Il Duce. Besides, they’re deaf, not blind. They can see the fools clapping.

  • 54. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    In his speech to the nation, President Barack Obama, acting as the healer in chief, called on all Americans to rise above the nonsense of making politics a rhetorical blood sport and instead have a civil debate on the issues.

    I’ve never been one who has shied away from being passionate about an issue, but as a responsible individual, I always accept the reality that what I say matters. People do listen. Folks form opinions based on what is said. And we can ramp up their blood pressure higher and higher or we can say, “That was a spirited debate.

    Now let’s go and get a drink.”

  • 55. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Damn BiW. You, along with all conservatives, were supposed to be dispirited because of the shooting. You know. . . the lesson here was for you to “shut up.” And you didn’t comply, damn it!!!! We were supposed to have a dialogue about how you were supposed to shut up. Remember? Because of a shooting in Tucson? Hellooooo???

    I know it. Call me a rebel. In the last week I have been officially declared an “extremist” and today I scored a “political hack”. I’d like my multi-million dollar book deal, radio show, occaisional appearance on FOX, before I get the plethora of leftist orginated death threats, please.

  • 56. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Oh Tex, it is so funny (haha) that you post that crazy man. I remember seeing that video shortly after it was produced. Yeah, that is beautiful, dude :roll: No hate speech there.

    Manning is proud to call himself an extreme right winger and is beloved of birthers, survivalists, Obama haters, the NRA and other assorted wingnuts.

  • 57. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Loughner became intrigued by anti-government conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

    “I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”

    Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.”

    Tell me this doesn’t resemble Poolman, minus the atheism. That part is Rutherford. You guys thought I was joking.

    ——–

    I am very familiar with this kind of idiot: I saw them all the time at the anti-war rallies I covered between 2003 and 2008. They hate Bush, they hate America, and they “hate war” in that America is usually the dominant combatant in any war and thus it’s an endeavor that tends to solidify American strength.

    And yes, they’re also “anti-government,” but not in the way the Tea Party advocates for a smaller, more efficient government; instead, the Loughners of the world want no government; they’re anarchists.

    Conspiracy theories run rampant in these circles, 9/11 Truthism being most prominent. But you’ll find these same people ranting about the Bohemian Grove, the grassy knoll, Skull and Bones, etc. At the very fringes of this conspiracy scene, you might find a small overlap with the extreme far-right kook zone, but mostly it’s the domain of leftist crazies.

    Not that Loughner was sane, or part of a “scene.” We know that now. But to the extent that he was “informed” by a political worldview, it was that of the left-leaning anarchists — at the exact opposite pole from Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. ~ Zombie>

    More Poolman. :smile: Oh, and Poolman – that’s from PJM and Zombie is the author’s pen name, but he’s a devout atheist and PHD in Science at a California university. Doesn’t sound like a Zionist to me.

  • 58. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    Poolman, I always knew it:

  • 59. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Too bad Loughner was apolitical and Zombie is obviously extreme right. Notice how he pushes the blame to the left. What makes this okay and yet when the left pushes the blame to the right, it isn’t tolerable. Hypocrisy much? Yes, Loughner was into 9/11 “conspiracy” theories it seems, some I am even familiar with. We could probably have agreed on some common ground. But unlike your “expert” claims, Loughner was a loner. And Zombie calls him the polar opposite of Sarah Palin and the tea party. Has he ever watched Beck and some of his “conspiracy” theories? I can link you some pretty off-the-wall shit from Beck. Your “expert” just isn’t.

    And whether he supports Zionism or not, the owners of the PJ media do. Zionism is more like nationalism than Judaism. True Judaism does not support Christianity. It sees it as a cult. Afterall, true Christianity records the Jews killing Jesus. Jesus’s diety threatens the very validity of Judaism. You are still lumping Jews in with Zionism and Judaism. They are not the same.

  • 60. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    Poolman, what’s the hangup with zionism?

  • 61. Meribeth  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Hi all. Poolman–you know I like you very much. But I think you are wrong about Judaism viewing Christianity as a cult. Would you mind providing your sources for that statement?

  • 62. dead rabbit  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    “I already know the answer is yes for Rabbit and Gorilla. Anyone else care to offer their macho credentials?” Rutherford

    You kind of got me pegged wrong here to some extent.

    I currently only own one gun: A speed pump Winchester 12 gage. Although the Rabbit family trades guns with one another like a tribe of Pashtuns, so, that could change. 3 of my brothers have a conceal permit.

    This may surprise you, but in my current situation, I don’t deem guns to be a very good option for protection.

    There was once a time when I slept with my gun next to me on the dresser. Those days and that crack infested apartment complex are long past me, thank God.

    I have strategically placed baseball bats through out the house. With a toddler around, my gun is locked up. It stays there until hunting season or anarchy breaks out.

    Now, you may smirk when I bring up anarchy.

    I’m telling you, i have seen anarchy more then once in my life time.

    To some extent, I used to see it every Devil’s Night.

    I also was trapped down town during the World Series Riot of ’84. I remember sensing the fear in my parents and was a severely freaked out 6th grader, as I watched flipped over cars burn.

    My family fought hard (literally….as in shooting motherfuckers) to keep their business from being torched in ’67. ’67 teared my Grandma up to the day she died.

    There are other times.

    For instance, during the black out a few years ago, my neighborhood was one more night away from slipping into anarchy.

    Everyone knew it.

    Everyone also knew if you fuck with the Rabbit’s house, there would be 4 or 5 motherfuckers armed to the teeth. Back then, it was just my wife and I. But our house was kind of the epicenter amongst family and friends. Loved that house….I could buy it back for 15 Grand…..but I digress.

    Now, i almost set my garage on fire, drunkenly trying to deep fry a formerly frozen Turkey, but I digress again. Guns would have kept the peace on my block, even if my Turkey fryer didn’t.

    I don’t really think your a wimp if you chose not to own a gun. Guns aren’t for everyone. They really aren’t for me right now. I think you are a wimp for what you’ve decided to do over this last week.

  • 63. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Zionism is the reason we have troops in Muslim countries fighting “terrorists”. It would be wise to know what it is about and its agenda, since we devote so much of our assets and children’s lives to it.

  • 64. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

  • 65. El Tigre  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    Sounds a lot like hate speech Poolman. . .

  • 66. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Sometimes its the comedians that hold the real wisdom…

  • 67. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Poolman is definitely a goose stepper.

    Rabbit, that statement about deep frying a turkey reminds me of a funny story (kind of) with my own brother-in-laws. Several years ago before it became cool to deep fry your turkey, we were already making the attempt.

    My brother-in-law measures with water and marks the pot. Only he forgot to put the turkey in before marking the fryer. So we get the peanut oil boiling about to about 350 or 400, however hot that stuff gets. And I could tell about half way down with the turkey, he had too much oil in the thing.

    Greg’s got a blue painter’s tarp underneath, and I mean when that grease hits it, it disintegrates and scorches the shed door. You’ve never seen five grown dance so fast when that grease came pouring out.

  • 68. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Poolman, what’s the hangup with zionism?

    He and his Stormfront buddies don’t want to be behind the curve. Otherwise Mel Gibson and others will have hated on all the best jooooooooooos first.

  • 69. poolman  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    I think you are wrong about Judaism viewing Christianity as a cult. Would you mind providing your sources for that statement?

    Cult has several definitions, this from one of the free online dictionaries…
    1.
    a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
    b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
    2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
    3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

    Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history.

    In its very earliest days, Christianity was seen by the Jewish teachers as a Jewish heresy; its adherents were Jews who believed in the divinity of Christ [and considered Christianity a Jewish sect].

  • 70. Meribeth  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    OK, perhaps in the earliest days of Christianity that was the case. But with all due respect, you phrased it as “True Judaism” and spoke in the present tense. Perhaps you did not mean to do that?
    In any event, that’s an awfully broad generalization.

  • 71. dead rabbit  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Meribeth, ask Poolman about 9/11 or government mind control found in the Simpson’s cartoon. It actually makes his tired world wide Jew conspiracy seem kind of stale.

  • 72. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    “In any event, that’s an awfully broad generalization.”

    Silly Poolman. Those are reserved for 1 religion only…

  • 73. Tex Taylor  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Of all the crazy things Poolman believes and says MeriBeth, I’m not sure one of those would be Jews believe Christianity a cult.

    Of course, Jews are the ones that also started and spread Christianity and Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus continue to spread the good news to this day.

    But I consider Poolman’s assessment an accurate one. I have called Mormonism a cult before, so I have to assume practicing Jews would think much the same as I do of Mormonism.

    And l still find Mormons some of the nicest, finest people I’ve met too. I admire the way most of them carry their lives.

  • 74. Meribeth  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    OK–I may be reading something more negative into the word “cult” than was intended. How is Mormonism a cult? (I actually know virtually nothing about it).

  • 75. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 17, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    How is Mormonism a cult? (I actually know virtually nothing about it).

    Because they believe that Christ also came to the Americas, and the testament of that visitation and its effects is the Book of Mormon. They have also raised statements of faith and practice that they believe to have been inspired by God and given to them by prophets to the level of scripture as well. So they also include the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants in what they count as scripture. Don’t even get me started on the “Inspired version” of the Bible.

  • 76. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:00 am

    He and his Stormfront buddies don’t want to be behind the curve. Otherwise Mel Gibson and others will have hated on all the best jooooooooooos first.

    LMAO. I guess you don’t understand zionism, either. But personal insults? Tsk, tsk. This from someone who references a 450 page book to define the term “fascism”. It would take a lawyer to use many words to describe a fairly basic concept.

    Lying lips conceal hatred, and whoever utters slander is a fool. When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but the prudent are restrained in speech.

    (Proverbs 10:18,19)

    One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too.” And he said, “Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.

    (Luke 11: 45,46)

  • 77. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Lying lips conceal hatred, and whoever utters slander is a fool. When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but the prudent are restrained in speech.

    (Proverbs 10:18,19)

    Whassamattah? That plank in your eye bothering you, jooooooo hater?

    One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too.” And he said, “Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.

    (Luke 11: 45,46)

    Of course by lawyer, he meant a scribe who was an expert in God’s law, and not a person versed in man’s law, but I’m sure that it wasn’t what you had in mind, now was it?

    This from someone who references a 450 page book to define the term “fascism”. It would take a lawyer to use many words to describe a fairly basic concept.

    Except it was more a study in willful blindness and projection than it was a “definition”. But then again, had you read the book, you’d know that. Oh, wait, it was written by one of those jooooooooossss, wasn’t it?

  • 78. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:14 am

    Meribeth,

    A cult is only an insulting term to those who are considered a part of one. There are many Christian cults, Mormonism is likely the largest and best known in America. The Branch Davidians are/were another. Jim Jones, another. The word sect (to a lesser degree) also might describe these ideological differences. No one holding a firm belief thinks their doctrine or faith is false. It doesn’t mean we condemn the other religious factions. Nor does it mean we cannot live in harmony. Only oppressive factions (like the Taliban) insist on emposing their beliefs on the rest of the population. That is why Sharia law is practiced in many strict Muslim cultures. It doesn’t vary too much from some of the stricter Jewish sects.

    Some Christians believe the Law of the OT, the same followed by many Jewish sects, is what we are called to follow today. Many of these fundamentalists use this belief to support the death penalty and war. I don’t know if there are as many factions in the Jewish and Muslim faiths as there are in Christianity. Christianity has hundreds of variations.

  • 79. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:28 am

    That is why Sharia law is practiced in many strict Muslim cultures. It doesn’t vary too much from some of the stricter Jewish sects.

    Now I am disagreeing – that’s baloney.

    Deuteronomy 28
    19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    No way is that Sharia Law…how many times have we heard, “we love death as much as you love life.”?

  • 80. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:40 am

    ROTFL … Good lawd, maybe Tex has been right all along? Maybe Palin and Obama ARE two sides of the same coin? I mean you guys lost your lunch over kids singing the praises of Obama and now thanks to Poolman, we see the elderly singing the praises of Sarah in the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn.

    Well I do thank Poolman for reminding me what “real America” looks like. Sometimes I forget, cloistered as I am in the elitist Northeast. :-D

  • 81. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:41 am

    James Manning is an embarrassment to mankind. Thank you Tex for sharing your notion of an intelligent black man.

  • 82. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:49 am

    Interesting development …. repeal of Obamacare losing support among … wait for it ….

    Republicans From 61% before elections to 49% now!

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :lol:

  • 83. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    But to the extent that he was “informed” by a political worldview, it was that of the left-leaning anarchists — at the exact opposite pole from Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

    Nice try. One of his influences seems quite clearly to have been the sovereign citizen’s movement, a far right wing nutjob movement that believed in grammar being used as mind control. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner

    Do your damnedest to make him a leftist … it ain’t gonna work. His head is full of a potpourri of foolishness so diverse and complex as to make any normal man’s head explode.

  • 84. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Rutherford,

    I just love James Manning – he is my notion of an incredibly intelligent “black” man and there are so few of them. I always think of the ghetto, basketball court, crack house or the cotton field normally. :twisted: (speaking of stereotypes).

    Damn Rutherford, you people on the Northeast corridor are just dumber than shit about the rest of the United States – especially the white bread part. I hope you were joking about that last statement. Boston and Connecticut are the absolute worst I’ve met for ignorance. We’d eat you alive down here.

    However, I have a more important question. When did you start wearing glasses? You getting old?

  • 85. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    “we love death as much as you love life.”

    That’s not Sharia law, either.

  • 86. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    Do your damnedest to make him a leftist … it ain’t gonna work. His head is full of a potpourri of foolishness so diverse and complex as to make any normal man’s head explode.

    Bull oney…Loughner – atheist, Bush hater, Jew hater, anarchist. Pure leftist. Mother Jones?. :roll: Have another toke and wash your Che shirt. Loughner can’t be a pure lefty though, or he would have bought shotgun shells for his pistol. You got me there.

    Perhaps Loughner was a smarter than average Lib.

  • 87. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:15 am

    “we love death as much as you love life.”

    That’s not Sharia law, either.

    Maybe not, but there’s a whole lot of Imams and Mullahs saying as much right here in America. I got the videos to prove it….

  • 88. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:16 am

    While I’m not much of a conspiracy nut, Poolman’s video offering of Carlin and Hicks does resonate.

  • 89. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:17 am

    http://www.islam-watch.org/AmilImani/Iran-Mullahs-Turning-Universities-into-Graveyards.htm

    Not American campuses, but I can find them if need be.

  • 90. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Silly Poolman. Those are reserved for 1 religion only…

    Despite the bashing I get on this blog, and days when I don’t know why I bother, I hit threads that are just entertaining as hell to read.

    Yeah, Huck hard as it is to believe, gross generalizations are made about others besides Muslims. :-)

  • 91. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:23 am

    I imagine Poolman is going “deeper” than this but on the surface isn’t it true that “real Jews” don’t believe Jesus is divine? If this is the case, it sure makes Tex’s rabid defense of Jews rather fascinating when he has been on record saying he doesn’t understand anyone for whom the divinity of Jesus isn’t obvious and visible in everyday life. (Oh I’m sorry … or was that the existence of God? … oh wait … Jesus is God … but not according to Jews.)

    Wow this gets confusing!

  • 92. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:25 am

    Of course by lawyer, he meant a scribe who was an expert in God’s law, and not a person versed in man’s law, but I’m sure that it wasn’t what you had in mind, now was it?

    By God’s law do you mean the written law of Moses or the oral traditions and recorded interpretations? I’m certain you could well blur that distinction.

    Scribe, expert in the law, lawyer… they seem to be the same basic job description to me. This diversion you toss out misses the point. I realize all lawyers have their own special area of expertise. Lawyers have increased in number since then and have secured their own jobs as we have complicated our laws and lives. We employ plenty in our governments and in corporate circles.

    As Christians, God’s law is to be written in our hearts. It is the practicle application of the law and a way for it to benefit us in our daily lives. That is why Jesus was none too happy with the ways of the “scribes”. They kept the truth from the people. They used it for their own purpose and maintaining their own elevated position in their society.

    Except it was more a study in willful blindness and projection than it was a “definition”.

    Then it was a misrepresentation since the description and origin of the term fascism was how it was sold.

  • 93. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:27 am

    I admire the way most of them carry their lives.

    And their many wives. ;-) Now THAT’s the great feature of Mormonism … all the nookie you want under the blessing of holy matrimony! :-D

  • 94. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:27 am

    Tex’s rabid defense of Jews is based on a Fear of the Lord, and the fact I am instructed to straight out of scripture. You better be glad Tex defends the Jews.

    When the Tex types are taken out, and all you Jew haters are the only ones left, you’ll be sucking wind Bubbles.

    Muslim sympathizers and appeasing Dhimmi types like you, do confuse me however. If killing 3,000 of your countrymen didn’t do it, I’m not sure what will (unless it is your little ass hanging out in the breeze :smile: )

  • 95. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:31 am

    Hymn #365

    A minister was completing a temperance sermon. With great emphasis he said, “If I had all the beer in the world, I’d take it and pour it into the river.”

    With even greater emphasis he said, “And if I had
    all the wine in the world, I’d take it and pour it into the river.”

    And then finally, shaking his fist in the air, he
    Said, “And if I had all the whiskey in the world,
    I’d take it and pour it into the river.”

    Sermon complete, he sat down.

    The song leader stood very cautiously and announced
    With a smile, “For our closing song,

    Let us sing Hymn #365, ‘Shall We Gather at the River.’”

  • 96. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:37 am

    How is Mormonism a cult?

    Meribeth, Depending on whom you listen to, Mormonism was a scam religion started by a con artist named Joseph Smith Jr. in the 19th century. It is that VERY rare example of a take on Christianity that was invented out of whole cloth in the modern age and instead of being dismissed, actually gained loyal followers to the point that it exists today. There are still loads of Christians who consider it bogus. It’s why Mitt Romney’s chances of a Presidential nomination are at least slightly diminished.

    They famously have polygamy in their past (still practiced by some secretly today) but they had to denounce it as official church doctrine to keep getting that free tax ride from the government. They also have a real mean racist streak in their past, the story being that blacks are whites who sinned in a former life. I believe one of them had a revelation that changed this doctrine also.

    My buddy, crazy Larry (aka Lawrence O’Donnell) made his last appearance on the “McLaughlin Group” when he went on a rant calling out Mormonism for its worst qualities.

    The way I look at it, consider Joseph Smith the L. Ron Hubbard of his day. :-)

    P.S. Now that I’ve given you a very skewed perspective, go read up on it yourself.

  • 97. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Now I am disagreeing – that’s baloney.

    Plenty of sources, but let’s go with wikipedia…

    Historically in the diaspora, Halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of civil and religious law. Since the Age of Enlightenment, emancipation, and haskalah in the modern era, Jewish citizens are bound to Halakha only by their voluntary consent. Under contemporary Israeli law, however, certain areas of Israeli family and personal status law are under the authority of the rabbinic courts and are therefore treated according to Halakha. Some differences in Halakha itself are found among Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Yemenite Jews, which are reflective of the historic and geographic diversity of various Jewish communities within the Diaspora.
    ~~~
    The Halakha is a comprehensive guide to all aspects of human life, both corporeal and spiritual. Its laws, guidelines, and opinions cover a vast range of situations and principles, in the attempt to realize what is implied by the central Biblical commandment to “be holy as I your God am holy”. They cover what are better ways for a Jew to live, when commandments conflict how one may choose correctly, what is implicit and understood but not stated explicitly in the Bible, and what has been deduced by implication though not visible on the surface.
    ~~~
    Today, then, one’s accounts are reckoned solely by God. The Talmud says that although courts capable of executing sinners no longer exist, the prescribed penalties continue to be applied by Providence. For instance, someone who has a committed a sin punishable by stoning might fall off a roof, or someone who ought to be executed by strangulation might drown.

    Wait until they get that new temple built, if it hasn’t been already. There are plenty in the nation of Israel who are advocating returning to these stricter codes.

  • 98. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:44 am

    Tex, I’ve been wearing glasses since the 10th grade. Used to wear aviator frames. Now it’s more along the lines of Lennon frames although a bit more elliptical, less round.

  • 99. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:47 am

    LOL on hymn 365 :-)

  • 100. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:52 am

    This joke which will not appeal to the devout was told to me by an old co-worker friend of mine who was from Mississippi.

    A leper walks into the middle of a church service. As he slowly limps down the center aisle, he asks “Why me?”

    The worshipers full of pity, in unison ask “Why him?”

    Even the preacher looks to the sky and asks “Why him?”

    Suddenly the building begins to shake and a huge hand smashes through the roof of the church and points at the leper and a deep voice from above says …

    Because, he pissed me off!

  • 101. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 18, 2011 at 2:34 am

    “Maybe not, but there’s a whole lot of Imams and Mullahs saying as much right here in America. I got the videos to prove it….”

    Yes, but the topic was comparing religious law to religious law not religious law to religious rhetoric.

  • 102. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 2:41 am

    Well Huck, when I keep hearing it, “We love death more than life”, and it is not some fringe but virtually every college campus with a Muslim student union coming straight from the mouths of Imams and Mullahs, perhaps it is you that have misunderstood the real precepts of Sharia Law. Kind of like “Islam is a religion of peace.” (cough cough)

    And I suppose that women are respected under Sharia Law too? That is after all what the “moderates” are telling me.

  • 103. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 3:26 am

    Tex’s rabid defense of Jews is based on a Fear of the Lord, and the fact I am instructed to straight out of scripture. You better be glad Tex defends the Jews.

    Allah be praised = Praise God Don’t trust your Scofield. Better to brush up on your Hebrew.

    When the Tex types are taken out, and all you Jew haters are the only ones left, you’ll be sucking wind Bubbles.

    Pre-trib rapture jargon, eh? When the “stars of the sky start falling down to earth” maybe you’ll change your mind. Do you agree only 144,000 Jews will be “saved”?

  • 104. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 18, 2011 at 3:37 am

    I’m just telling you that what you alluded to being Islamic law isn’t.

  • 105. El Tigre  |  January 18, 2011 at 10:36 am

    “Well I do thank Poolman for reminding me what “real America” looks like. Sometimes I forget, cloistered as I am in the elitist Northeast.”

    Shall we break out the now vintage inner-city Obama-praise videos to see what others are reminded of when discussing “real America?”

  • 106. El Tigre  |  January 18, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Poolman, I’m dumb as shit. So I’m not getting the Zionism/ PJ Media/ War on Terror/ I’m ignorant commentary. Really. If it’s so simple (and I’m one of those 4,000-word lawyers), can you give me the one or two liner so I can follow along?

  • 107. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Poolman, the only thing I agree is you ain’t going to be going with me, contrary to your “Praise the Lord and I’m the pool boy routine.”

    Stormfront, baby. Stoke up those ovens in the backyard near the hot tub. :wink:

  • 108. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:20 am

    I never watch network TV – I mean never. I’ve never seen an episode of Seinfeld, the Office, or Lost. Don’t know a damn thing about them, nor do I care. I’ll watch the Discovery or History Channel – more like ESPN and some sports, or occasionally FOX News and the rare night of sadism when the news bad for MSNBC – great entertainment.

    Why do I post this? I have new found respect for comedy. This Ricky Gervais? Whatever he is in, I am watching from here on out. I just watched a few clips of hosting another one of those ego bursting Golden Globes, or whatever?

    Ricky spent several hours holding the mirror up to Hollywood and pin pricking some inflated balloon heads. Now that was great humor to watch the world’s most worthless (feckess), most overrated, overpaid, overhyped scumbags insulted for a national audience.

    Excellent work Ricky! You’re my new hero.

  • 109. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Poolman, the only thing I agree is you ain’t going to be going with me

    Tex, how can you be so sure? You and Poolman are both believers in the Word.

    LOL Tex, if you’re right about all this religious “stuff” I think you’ll be surprised as hell to find out who you’ll be keeping company with in the hereafter. Heck, you might end up sharing a room with Ted Kennedy! :lol:

  • 110. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Ahhh Tex my friend, your memory is very short. Your new hero nuked the Noah’s ark story … remember that argument we had from another thread?

    And he closed the Golden Globes with this line:

    “And thank you God for making me an atheist.”

    Your hero indeed! Bwahahahahahahahhahaha :lol:

  • 111. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:33 am

    By the way Tex, I submit you’d have a much sweeter disposition and general good humor if you did partake of the occasional network sitcom. Laughter is good medicine. And if you don’t like the white collar focus of so many shows, I recommend “Mike and Molly” about two ordinary (albeit obese) people falling in love with very real dialog. It’s two characters you can’t help but like and they’re treated with respect.

  • 112. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Is that who that was? :lol: Oh yeah, and you were just complimenting me about my memory. Look, I don’t take people who can’t pronounce Zoology to awfully seriously about science. The man was a complete zero in that skit.

    Listen, when scumbags kill other scumbags, they are my friend. It’s like if Flake were to shoot Graychin. She’d have my admiration for a short time. The fact that chubby boy showed his true colors on the show too, only means he will be left with nothing – not even his plastic friends. In the meantime, he can continue to insult Hollywood for me.

    I wouldn’t watch those POS on TV if somebody paid me. Bodily function humor, sexual innuendo, and the rest? Are you kidding? That’s not what is serving America. That’s what is wrong with America.

    If I want to listen to something funny, I’ll watch Rita Rudner. Now she is funny.

  • 113. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Bye the way Rutherford. Stormfront and Christianity?

    I guess you don’t see the irony.

  • 114. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Tigre, I doubt you’re dumb. I’ll go with sarcastic. But if sincere, I’m happy to try to clarify. Here is the jist…

    If you get that Jews, Zionists, and Judaism are not one in the same, the same way Arabs, Jihadists, and Islam are not one in the same. Much like Gentiles, Crusaders, and Christianity are not one in the same. Then you can begin to see that criticism of Zionists, Jihadists, and Crusaders, doesn’t constitute anti-semitism or racial bigotry. That is the first step.

    Zionism = nationalism. Originated in 19th century. The right of Israel to exist as a nation on land that was supposedly given to them by God in the Old Testament.

    PJ Media = Zionist owned and purposed, neocon friendly, politically right wing skewed, anti-Islam media outlet.

    War on Terror = propaganda campaign paid for by US taxes to help Israel fight their “enemies” – primarily to break up the Muslim nation states that surround them. Also as a bonus designed to usurp Americans’ liberties and rights.

  • 115. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    “R”, one question. Sorry, got a phone call.

    I submit you’d have a much sweeter disposition and general good humor if you did partake of the occasional network sitcom. Laughter is good medicine

    Look at what all those sitcoms have done for your “sweet” demeanor recently. I have to assume you watch a lot of TV?

    Why aren’t you the happiest man on earth? :smile:

  • 116. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Poolman,

    One question for you. Modern day Israel – whose land is it? Whose land is Jerusalem?

  • 117. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    One question for you. Modern day Israel – whose land is it? Whose land is Jerusalem?

    The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it. (Psalm 24:1)

    If you want man’s answer, possession is nine-tenths of the law. I understand the Rothschild family purchased the land last century. Conquering peoples have always claimed land ownership and rights. Look around. You’re on land someone else thought was their domain. Yet actual ownership of the earth was not a part of their belief system.

  • 118. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    You conveniently avoided the question Poolman. I think that makes you uncomfortable in your neo pagan domain.

    I’ll rephrase. Who does the capital of Jerusalem belong to? A proper name – not a divine reference. We know God owns the land. Who has God granted Jerusalem’s heir?

    If possession is 9/10 of the law, then by your definition I will assume the Jews’ land.

  • 119. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    So if possession is 9/10 of the law then Israel was in violation of the law when it took Palestinian lands in 1947, just as it was when it took all of Jerusalem in 1967, right?

  • 120. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Who does the capital of Jerusalem belong to? A proper name – not a divine reference. We know God owns the land. Who has God granted Jerusalem’s heir?

    I’ll assume you mean the city and present site of Jerusalem. The Jews, the Muslims, and the Vatican all claim those ownership rights. Since this is a very controversial subject, I don’t think you will get any of these factions to cede “ownership”. It won’t be resolved until the return of Christ and the “New Jerusalem” comes into being.

    The present day city won’t be there in the same capacity. The scriptures tell us it will be in conflict. In Luke 21 we read : “Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

    This states that Gentiles essentially own it. I’m certain you have been led to believe it belongs to the Jews. If true, where do you get that from? Part of the Zionist manifesto?

  • 121. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    So if possession is 9/10 of the law then Israel was in violation of the law when it took Palestinian lands in 1947, just as it was when it took all of Jerusalem in 1967, right?

    Spoils of war. Stealing property and lands. Not a part of the law but of the lawlessness of mankind. The strong oppress the weak. Israel was made strong by our backing. Palestinians had/have no chance.

  • 122. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Tex, you are continually claiming I conveniently avoid answering questions. As I look back over the posts, it is you who have avoided answering dozens of questions. Keep that in mind when you falsely claim you want honest debate.

  • 123. El Tigre  |  January 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    “Tigre, I doubt you’re dumb. I’ll go with sarcastic. But if sincere, I’m happy to try to clarify. Here is the jist…”

    Thanks, I am a sarcastic guy — but tht seems to be the langauge of poltical debate these days. It does help me understand (but not necessarily agree ) with your point.

    p.s. “Gist.”

  • 124. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Since this is a very controversial subject, I don’t think you will get any of these factions to cede “ownership”.

    That’s not the question. I’ve avoided your ignorance, because I find you as a supposed Christian appalling in your dealing with Jews. You might as well wear a Klan hood, from your reference of Stormfront, to you stupidity in spelling America with a ‘K’.

    I didn’t ask who was supposed to cede this or that – what people hold which opinions. Huck is worldly and nothing else. I don’t expect him to be able to answer or comprehend this question. I’m asking you Poolman.

    Who did Jehovah deem Jerusalem belongs to by divine decree? You call yourself a Christian, claim wisdom of the Word. Answer the question…

  • 125. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Kent Conrad to retire…announced today.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/kent-conrad-to-retire.html

    Looks like the Senate just took another step toward seeing Red.

    Muwahahahahhahaha..

  • 126. El Tigre  |  January 18, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Ruhterford says in a tweet: “U know it’s time to turn the TV off when your choices are Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney.”

    Rutherford, I challenge you to do just that. In fact, I think it would be interesting if cut yourself free from all biased reporting if for no other reason than to see if it changed your perspective.

    John Carrey’s character in the Cable Guy is not meant to be an aspiration.

  • 127. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Why aren’t you the happiest man on earth? :smile:

    Watching too much MSNBC. Although I realized last night watching 20 minutes of Hannity, that Fox is a 24/7 sitcom. I should watch Fox more often. (Hannity reminds me of Lou Costello. I expect any minute he will scream “Hey Abbooooooooooooottttttttt”. :-D )

    My viewing taste runs the gamut, although I must admit full of guilty pleasures. You should at least sample a couple Tex to lighten your spirit. I never did picture you the culture snob … I guess I was wrong there.

    Big Bang Theory
    Mike and Molly
    The Defenders
    Detroit 1-8-7
    Modern Family
    The Office
    Men of a Certain Age (a must-see for men approaching 50)
    Downton Abbey (Masterpiece Classic PBS)
    Real Housewives of Atlanta
    Millionaire Matchmaker
    Worst Cooks in America

    I’ve left off the political shows, The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher.

  • 128. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Culture snob? I think I’m cultured? Hell no. You watch Real Housewives of Atlanta? Rutherford, what the hell is wrong with you? :smile: Have you gone soft, or something?

    Last night I watched the Original True Grit. Pretty good too. Tonight, I’ll watch “Hoffa”, which I never saw in the ’90s over NetFlix.

    But I’ll be damned if I am going to watch something with “Real Housewives” in the title, unless they run around naked.

  • 129. El Tigre  |  January 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Didn’t think so.

  • 130. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    I’ve avoided your ignorance, because I find you as a supposed Christian appalling in your dealing with Jews.

    Which Jews? I love Jews. I love Arabs. I have no problem with any particular race or nationality of people. All contain both good and evil hearts. I feel the same about Oklahomans. Okies to my buds.

    Are you referring to the 144,000 that will be saved according to Revelation chapter 7? Are you talking about the ones in Jesus lifetime that had Him crucified? Or those that accepted Him? Are you talking about the American secular Jews? Are the ones in Israel what you are referring to? Maybe those with dual citizenship? Is it the practicing Jews? The Orthodox Jewry? The Edomites posing as Jews? The converts?

    You are going to have to be more specific. What “dealing” with Jews are you talking about. Or can we not judge the actions or statements of any Jew, thereby placing them above the rest of humanity as in some kind of double standard? Like the double standard you seem to impose. I don’t even think you realize it, though others have pointed it out.

  • 131. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    I’m a little confused bible scholar. I don’t remember God differentiating between the ones who had Him crucified, or accepted Him, secular or religious, practicing or orthodoxy, or converts.

    But if you can point me in the right direction between where God did differentiate in Genesis 12, I will be more than happy to changed my mind. That is, unless you’re telling me you the Poolman know better.

    2 Chronicles 6:5-6 ‘Since the day that I brought My people from the land of Egypt, I did not choose a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that My name might be there, nor did I choose any man for a leader over My people Israel; but I have chosen Jerusalem that My name might be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’

    And that God is not the God of the Muslims…unless Muslims are claiming lineage to David too. Who knows? They tell me Phoenix, AZ, is the 925 holiest site of Islam. Perhaps you should will your house to Abdul…

    If there are double standards, there of God’s making. You can take it up with Him when the opportunity arises. And that opportunity will come about sooner or later. :wink:

  • 132. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Not there Tex…they’re. :oops:

  • 133. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Tex, maybe it’s the gay guy in me trying to come out but I have to admit I do enjoy watching women cat-fight … now that depends on whether I like their personality in the first place. I just find the Atlanta housewives a bit more real than the other localities. Considering the straights I am in, the way these women live a wasteful extravagant lifestyle should piss me off but curiously it does not.

  • 134. Rutherford  |  January 18, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Well I’m always amused to witness these convos between Poolman and Tex.

    There is no doubt that Israel is the third rail of political discourse in this country … right up there with gun control :-) If you dare say that Israel should be held to the same foreign policy standard of any other country you are immediately labeled antisemitic.

    Of course, I have said many times I don’t trust devout Christian’s interest in Israel since Jews ain’t going to Heaven and they play a role in the rapture that I still don’t quite understand but I sense they get the short end of the stick on that one too. :neutral:

  • 135. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    I’m a little confused bible scholar.

    I know. But don’t let that trouble you.

    I don’t remember God differentiating between the ones who had Him crucified, or accepted Him, secular or religious, practicing or orthodoxy, or converts.

    The “brood of vipers” speech didn’t clue you? Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33, or Luke 3:7

    Or how about “synagogue of satan” from Revelations 2:9, 3:9

    Of course, those are the words of Jesus. He is/was God, I believe.

    But if you can point me in the right direction between where God did differentiate in Genesis 12, I will be more than happy to changed my mind.

    No problemo. God was speaking to Abram. He wasn’t yet Abraham. He later became father of Arabs first and a lot later, Jews. Remember Ishmael? Yeah. This blessing applies to his decendents, too.

  • 136. Tex Taylor  |  January 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    What do you you Poolman? Make things up as you go? Brood of vipers applied to the Pharisees, but in no way did it break covenant with God and the Jews. I’m always a little suspect of people that consider themselves biblical experts, but spell like an illiterate.

    Being your biblical history is as bad as your spelling, I’m afraid the covenant has nothing to do with Ishmael my friend, as Jacob only called him Uncle – and that before Jacob’s name changed Israel.. :smile:

    Believe we’ve discussed that. I suppose next you’ll be telling me it was Ishmael sacrificed on the altar instead of Isaac, right? Maybe a little 12th Mahdi thrown in in Revelation too? Perhaps Christ a great prophet?

    You read like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more than a Christian.

  • 137. poolman  |  January 18, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    What do you you Poolman? Make things up as you go? Brood of vipers applied to the Pharisees, but in no way did it break covenant with God and the Jews.

    I believe the Pharisees were Jews. The old covenant was being replaced with the new, more perfect one around that time. If the old one was still applicable, what was the point of the new one.

    I’m always a little suspect of people that consider themselves biblical experts, but spell like an illiterate.

    Again with the personal attacks. I read the Bible plenty. I never claimed to be a biblical expert. Proof apparently has no bearing on your deep-seated opinions. Opinions that must have been spoon-fed to you by some charlatan masquerading as a Bible preacher. Or maybe he was using the Scofield reference Bible and believed it to be infallible.

    If you can’t see that Abram was the father of Ishmael and Isaac (along with others after Sarah died) then I can’t help you. You confuse it with talk about a covenant. The covenant was through Isaac, through Jacob (the deceiver), on down to Jesus. This is not the same as the blessing you referenced in Genesis 12. If you are following Genesis 12, you better repent from what you have said about Arabs. They consider Abraham their ancestor too, and rightly so.

    Did you watch that video in 103? There was a Jew explaining how Allah IS God. It claims that both the Muslims and Jews pray to the same God and in much the same way. He even said that Jews are allowed to pray in a mosque in lands where there is no synagogue. But they can never go to a Christian church.

    I suppose next you’ll be telling me it was Ishmael sacrificed on the altar instead of Isaac, right?

    Actually no. Neither were sacrificed. A ram was. Remember? God provided.

  • 138. Meribeth  |  January 18, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    you guys still at this? And here I was, hoping for a little football talk or something equally festive.

  • 139. dead rabbit  |  January 18, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Birther nation about to get loud again. I’m convinced there is no birth certificate. What that means, I do not know.

  • 140. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:29 am

    Meribeth, I’ve got a new post brewing about football but I’m afraid it won’t be too festive. It’ll probably hit the net sometime tomorrow.

  • 141. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:32 am

    Rabbit, when you talk like that, you’ve got no business ranking on Poolman.

    In case you haven’t kept up, the HI Governor knew Obama’s parents and was around when the dude was born. He’s trying as we speak to get more definitive documentation released.

    Of course, it won’t mean a thing. Birthers will believe what they want to believe. There is no convincing them and I have always maintained it is beneath the dignity of the presidency to even try to accommodate them.

  • 142. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:34 am

    Meribeth, the debate between Tex and Poolman just drives me closer and closer to outright atheism. It’s like watching two nerds argue the “facts” of the Star Wars saga.

  • 143. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Pay no heed Rutherford. As far as I’m concerned, your “performance” the last week has demonstrated to me, though likable, you’re an incredibly shallow individual, and not capable of much critical thought. Like Obama. :smile:

    The fact that you watch a “Housewives” flick further confirmed that I’m not arguing with Einstein the blog owner here.

    But I know my football. I hope its a good one. I myself am ready for something light. Though not really an NFL fan as I much prefer college football, I followed all these punks playing before they became multi-millionaires with half a P.E. degree.

  • 144. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 1:41 am

    So nothing much happened here today, I see.

  • 146. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 8:57 am

    BiW, what do you mean? See the link I posted above showing the fruit of Rutherford’s labors. Policing Newspeak infractions was mighty lax until the shootings in Tucson. :roll:

  • 147. Meribeth  |  January 19, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Love college football–huge Auburn fan and thought the Tigers/Ducks game was outstanding.

  • 148. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Sorry Tex, but the football post won’t be “light”.

  • 149. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 10:28 am

    This must be political football then, hey?

    MeriBeth, I was pulling for Auburn too. Don’t like Oregon – don’t like the libs in Oregon.

    Politics makes choosing teams so much easier. And here’s the best part. Ever since I started choosing who to root for based on their Presidential vote in 2008, I have not lost yet either. :smile:

    New Orleans, Auburn, you name it. The Obama curse is everywhere! :twisted:

  • 150. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 10:35 am

    When is the post criticizing MLK? Damn cowboy!

    Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

    William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King’s parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King’s home as “an arsenal.”

    As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King’s house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

  • 151. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Ever since I started choosing who to root for based on their Presidential vote in 2008 …

    Damn, shame that technique can’t work somehow for the stock market.

    By the way, am I the only one here kicking myself for not buying Ford at a buck a share? Coulda made some nice cash. :-(

  • 152. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Tex, the funny part is that back in the day, if King did kill in self-defense, no white jury would buy it and he’d have gone to jail the rest of his life. I’m sure glad he never used any of his arsenal.

  • 153. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Yeah, I have thought about Ford too “R” and was tempted at the time it was sitting $8 a share to buy some. But at that time, everything else was so suppressed and I had lost so much in the 401Ks and the like, I was too chicken.

    And speaking of Ford’s, I just found out this morning my old Ford Truck is on the fritz and the repair is too expensive to fix to make it worthwhile.

    I’ll be donating it to the cause…some cause, wherever those things go. I can’t hardly stand to part with it because there are so many good memories in that thing, including my beloved dog riding around with me who was killed last summer.

  • 154. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    suppressed…that’s not what I meant to say. How about depressed (I am), thinking about my old truck?

  • 155. dead rabbit  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    I just read that the liberal PC police have now deemed the word “cross hairs” a major offense.

    Some dude used the term on CNN and the host apologized profusely for the crime.

    Never mind that CNN used the term 7 times last month.

    Never mind in one of the cases it was directed at Palin.

    Never mind that the killer didn’t use cross hairs and didn’t take part in the right/left debate. Or watch the news. Or give a shit about Palin’s website.

    The left is exasperated why it doesn’t resonate with working stiffs?

    Rutherford’s lack of an apology, despite ostrich egg glistening on his face along with the PC police sums it all up.

    The left makes me go from pissed off to pissing my pants with laughter.

    You guys are insane.

  • 156. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Rabbitt, I linked to it at 145. I’m sure Rutherford didn’t look at it either. Next time I’ll label the link Atlanta Houswives.

  • 157. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Irony Headline of the Day:

    Australian Teens Rescued After Using Sex Doll as Raft

    Picture include. Not recommended as floating device… :lol:

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/18/australian-teens-rescued-after-using-sex-doll-as-raft/?test=latestnews

    Reason #21 Sex Dolls are Superior to Women – They float.

    P.S. – Rutherford, you ever tell my wife I posted these messages, I swear I’ll hunt you down. :smile:

  • 158. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Next time I’ll label the link Atlanta Housewives.

    Yup, that might do the trick. :-)

    One reason I didn’t click the link nor comment on it was that context is everything. I’ve never said ban “cross hairs” from speech. It’s a typical technique (is it called strawmen?) to take a reasonable position, caricature it, make it totally absurd, and then claim that is my position when it isn’t.

    But you boy’s ain’t stupid. You know what you’re doing. Next thing you’ll be telling me that my position is that Target department stores need to change their name. :neutral:

  • 159. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 19, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    “Next thing you’ll be telling me that my position is that Target department stores need to change their name.”

    If Palin shopped there , you’d be all over that like stink on shit.

    Tell me I’m wrong….

  • 160. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Rutherford, I knew what I was doing. It was obviously hyperbolic. But It’s the natural consequence of what you were advocating and reflected the diminishment of speech BiW criticized that you think so ridiculous.

    Pretty dumb isn’t it? But if MSNBC had done it, you’d have stood behind it 100% and worked the same contortions you did to claim Palin was responsible for the shooting.

    And for the record, your stated positions concerning the shooting are totally absurd. You have proved yourself a truly useful idiot.

  • 161. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    In a tweet, Rutherfod says “Lawrence O’Donnell comes as close as possible to calling Trent Franks of AZ an assh*le without actually doing it. BRAVO!”

    Why is Trent Franks an asshole, Rutherford?

  • 162. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    … you did to claim Palin was responsible for the shooting

    Saying that over and over doesn’t make that my position.

    Huck, I don’t care where Sarah shops. Now if Target carried a line of Sarah Palin Steak Knives, THAT might piss me off a bit. :-)

  • 163. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Tigre …. because Trent Franks seems to think that every ordinary citizen should be able to carry the same fire power as a cop. Despite repeated attempts by Lawrence O’Donnell to get Franks to admit that a 10 bullet magazine would have done less damage than the one used, Franks stuck to his guns (pun intended). In my book, that makes him not just an assh*le but part of the problem.

  • 164. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    By the way, in the same episode, O’Donnell shows Michael Reagan to be a butthead as well. Reagan claims that every medical test performed on President Reagan in his second term showed him to be fit. Although on an Alzheimer’s council of some sort, Michael is woefully ignorant. Alzheimer’s can only be definitively diagnosed post-mortem. And particularly in the late 80′s it was typical for very early signs of the disease to be dismissed as mere age-related forgetfulness rather than a full blown disease.

    I might admire Michael’s desire to protect his father’s memory if he didn’t have a book to sell just like his brother. I think this is battle of the books, not battle of the brothers. Pretty pathetic.

    P.S. I expect any minute now Dr. Taylor will challenge this comment … waiting … 3 ….. 2 ….. 1 ….

  • 165. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    BTW, “Dr. Taylor” has quite a nice ring to it. Sounds kinda like a country doctor who does house calls. :-)

  • 166. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Huck, I don’t care where Sarah shops. Now if Target carried a line of Sarah Palin Steak Knives, THAT might piss me off a bit.

    I’m waiting for her own line of outdoor gear at Cabela’s. That will be teh awesome.

  • 167. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    I like what Michael Reagan had to say about his queer brother Ronnie Jr.

    “Ron was an embarrassment to my father while my father was alive, and Ron is now an embarrassment to his mother as well.”

    If Reagan had Alzheimer’s while President, it’s a damn shame that Obama doesn’t get a form of the disease, because Obama couldn’t be any worse. Maybe it would snap some sense into him, and maybe even get rid of Obama’s parasites.

    When I said Obama looked diseased-ridden, I didn’t realize just how right I was. :twisted:

  • 168. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    “Saying that over and over doesn’t make that my position.”

    So too with saying you “didn’t say that” over and over.

    Thankfully, it’s all there. Rabbitt (I think) quoted you in response to Fakename’s attempt to defend you by saying the same thing.

  • 169. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I didn’t see the Frank’s interrogation. Your definition of an asshole is just what I thought though. Your comments about him sure prove what you took away from the tragedy when it comes to the type of rhetoric you condemn.

    Yup. I’m having a hard time letting go of what you touched off over all of this.

  • 170. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Perfect timing to stumble across this Real Atlanta Housewives bit:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/abc-news-jonathan-karl-reports-the-newfound-civility-didnt-last-long-political-rhetoric-in-congress-doesnt-get-much.html

  • 171. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    And when she comes out with that product line, its gonna have some FANTASTIC TOOLS, like the Omnipotence™ Scope, which automatically sets its crosshairs on people who live in states thousands of miiles away, and then when you’re ready to take the shot, it influences a local madman to step up and do it for you. (Total Accuracy not guaranteed.)

  • 172. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Your comments about him sure prove what you took away from the tragedy

    Trent Franks, who I am sure is a fine and decent man, has an opinion on gun control with which I strongly disagree.

    Better? ;-)

  • 173. Rutherford  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Regarding 171 ahhhhh so THAT’s what she used on Loughner! You need to blog about it BiW. :-)

  • 174. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    And then there is the Vitriol™ hunting knife, equally adequate to skin a Caribou on the tundra, or fillet the ridiculous claims of your most obessessed fans.

    Finally, there is the Irresponsible Rhetoric™ magazine. Just when you think it’s time to reload, the dvider disintegrates, providing you with instant access to 30 more rounds before you have to change the “clip”.

  • 175. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    “Trent Franks, who I am sure is a fine and decent man, has an opinion on gun control with which I strongly disagree.”

    Nope. You can call him an asshole if you’d like. I think it’s your right. Which is why all of this crap you’ve espoused is just that: an agenda driven effort to stifle political adversaries.

  • 176. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I can’t believe I didn’t get a response on #157!!!

    Come on! That’s pretty damn funny, I don’t care who you are (even a lib).

  • 177. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Re 157:

    Tex, you wouldn’t find that funny if it happened to you like it did to me.

  • 178. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    You had to use a sex doll as a life preserver?

    *pulls chair closer*

    This is a story I HAVE to hear.

    *readies story about being shot at in response*

  • 179. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    BiW, sorry to disappoint. I was kidding. :shock:

  • 180. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    What surprised me is not that “doll” saved the poor schmuck, but that is girlfriend, lover, wife, whatever hanging in the tree seemed to be having a grand time of it.

    Maybe she likes the doll too.

  • 181. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    Fine. I won’t tell you the story about being shot at, then.

  • 182. poolman  |  January 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Trent Franks has a long history of being an asshole. We elect them here in Arizona. If you guys are freaked by white supremists, stay away from Arizona. We got plenty in and out of office here.

  • 183. poolman  |  January 19, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    *supremacists*

    Since we got a spell checker fairy in residence. Don’t want to be accused of being eggnarent. :lol:

  • 184. Tex Taylor  |  January 19, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    Beats West Memphis – they got Congress critters there accusing Republican of being Joseph Goebbels because of the attempt to revoke Health Care. :roll:

    Anyone stupid enough to make some comments like that on the house floor should be executed.

  • 185. dead rabbit  |  January 19, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    “Yup. I’m having a hard time letting go of what you touched off over all of this.” Tigre

    Me too, dude.

    Rutherford, we can read your shit. Its posted right there for us all to see.

    Would you mind explaining how we can respect you, after all this. Again, its all there for us to read.

    At the very least, don’t you owe your readers a explanation.

    Yes or no, should Sara Palin’s advisers be fired because of the unique role Palin’s website had in influencing the guy to kill? This is your former stance. Hell, you sang it from the mountain tops. Am I miss understanding you? If so, how?

    Is “guilt by association” a bitch?

  • 186. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Saw the Franks interview you were so enamored with, Rutherford. They’re practically looping it on MSLSD.

    Yeah. Quite and examination by O’Donnell. Boy, I wouldn’t want to meet him in the courtroom. Very sifting. :roll:

    What a joke.

    Q: Do you or do you not believe that Loughner should have been permitted to have a 30 round magazine?

    A: I don’t think he should have been permnitted to have a gun at all.

    Q: Let me repeat my question.

    A: I hold the shooter repsonsible for the his actions, not the gun.

    Q: I hold the shooter responsible for the first ten shots, the next 21 I hold the laws responsible.

    That’s pursausive examination to you? Damn that’s embarassing. And the tenor represents the civil discourse that might have prevented the tragedy? O’Donnells an asshole and an idiot.

    Anyway, we all know it was Palin that should be responsible for the whole tragedy anyway. We wouldn’t be talking about magazines if she didn’t use cross-hairs on her map.

    Rutherford, you really need to turn off the damn television. That’s not even theater. That’s stand up comedy.

    If I were a gun toting man, I would hope that my magazine holds more bullets than the magazine of the criminal I’m looking to gun down.

    Anyway, I seem to remember it was hollow point bullets that were the problem in some prior shooting the left’s claimed was proof of a need for gun control. Geee, the argument always changes to fit the tragedy? I wonder why that is. What if the shooter was able to keep shooting because he was wearing a bullet proof vest?

    Logical fallacy begets logical fallacy.

    BiW, I’m ready to give you a story about a blow-up doll and Rutherford’s flooded basement if I can hear about shots being fired at you. Truth is no longer important around here anyway.

  • 187. El Tigre  |  January 19, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Bravo O”Donnell. Comedy gold!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41146169#41146169

  • 188. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Actually, it wasn’t about “shots fired”, but being shot at.

    Christmas Vacation, 198NeverYouMind.
    It is a few days after Christmas. I’m in High School, and I just got home at 9 am after spending the night at a friend’s house.

    I sat down in the living room on the couch, which sat in front of a big picture window, so my back was to the window. I turned on the TV, and was watching a movie (Vision Quest), when all of a sudden, there was a shattering sound, and glass peppered me.

    I thought that Mom had hung something up for the holidays which had fallen. I didn’t see anything, other than the glass, that was out of place, so I stood up to look around, and saw an arrow sticking out of the back of the couch, about an inch below where my head was, after it went through the two panes of glass.

    I looked up, and across the street and three yards down, I saw a guy I knew who was a few years older than me duck into his house.

    He actually had the balls to come and try to retrieve it. My Dad met him with it in his hand. He lived to tell the tale, and he lucked out. His Dad was a glasscutter.

    Apparently he had gotten a new 80 lb. bow for Christmas, and was trying it out without setting up bales.

    It took years before I would sit with my back to a window.

  • 189. poolman  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:32 am

    Gabriel Giffords was able to stand up today and look out the window. She was also able to view comments made about her on a computer screen and read some cards. She is going to begin therapy and chances of her returning to “normal” are great, though her doctor doesn’t expect 100 percent recovery.

    They watched the video from the Safeway and it shows Loughner walking right up to her and aiming the gun at her face and firing from a distance of 24 to 36 inches away. The judge was fast to protect another victim and used his body to shield them which caused him to receive 2 shots in his back.

    Gun restrictions are not going to help. It still boils down to this guy should not have been eligible to even purchase one. That is where I think the system failed. Likely though, he could have gotten one illegally. It isn’t that hard to do out here.

    But now our state is releasing more mentally ill back into society due to budget constraints. They will be accepting less as a result also. Of course we have more than doubled our state’s border patrol agents. That was a result of the last “crisis”. Though it is federal dollars being spent, this latest “crisis” will likely have national impact. Too bad we can’t get this one billion dollars essentially wasted back. The crappy economy did more to halt border crossings than any fence, virtual or otherwise, has.

  • 190. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:38 am

    It took years before I would sit with my back to a window.

    Sheesh…I can understand why. Sometime I’ll tell the story of me being a passenger in a car that went backwards over a 30ft edge of the Arkansas River.

    Fortunately, the dam was shut and the river dry in many places. :neutral:

  • 191. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Good one BiC. I’d always have my back to the wall if that happened to me, even on the top floow of a skyscraper.

    Now you’ve got me thinking of a few near-death experiences I might have to share.

    BTW, that O”Donnell whining session literally had me chuckling outloud last night. My wife (who is damn near apolitical) asked what was so funny. I showed her. New favorite? To score points, O”Donnell asks, “you know the majority of shots fired by cops miss their target, don’t you?” She burst out laughing — “and that might beg the question. . . .?”

    Really BiW. I know you do some trial work. If haven’t seen the clip, give it 5 minutes. I would love to see some first year lawyer try to work a witness with the stupidity of O’Donnell. Provided the witness wasn’t retarded or his mom, the jury would be belly laughing.

  • 192. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 20, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Ok. I watched it. I’m glad I didn’t have any coffee in my mouth.

    Larry gets points for persistance, but the stupid is strong in that one.

    I’d have a better response for his “Its 1993″ scenario, that being that it presupposes that there was no way for him to obtain such a magaziune vs. no LEGAL way to obtain such a magazine. Dude. He’s a CRIMINAL. Do you think he gives a shit about the law? What if he knew someone who HAD one prior to the law.

    Like most of PMSNBC, it was a waste of time, and not as much fun as watching the look on Sgt. Schultz’s face when he asked his panel of clergy if Jesus would have supported the health care takeover bill. I felt genuinely sorry of him as I laughed my ass off. You think he would have asked them the question BEFORE having them on the show.

  • 193. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    I watched that clip of Crazy Larry O’Donnell just for grins because I knew him a complete asshole and fool.

    Two questions arise: (1) Why would any Republican go on his show? You know the asshole O’Donnell in his little forum is going to be a bully, rude and patronizing. Why do Republicans insist on giving imbeciles like O’Donnell the time of day? and (2) What makes Crazy Larry think someone doesn’t just bring three guns next time? By the way, I’m a rank amateur when it comes to hand guns, wouldn’t consider myself proficient in any way except aiming, and I can change a clip in a matter of a few seconds. With practice, I could do in the blink of eye, I bet.

    These libs are the dumbest, most sanctimonious people on earth.

  • 194. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    O’Donnell’s persistence itself is funny to me. He works through hypothetical, then says “don’t you pretend like we don’t what actually happened here” when he receives a response/retort. Obviously, O’Donnell is trying to imitate a cross-examination. I just can’t help but visualize how witness with an IQ over 100 would actually respond to his terrifyingly stupid questions, even innocently. He’s like the P.D. in My Cousin Vinny. And Rutherford is impressed by this. :roll:

    O’Donnell needs to go back to picking on the likes of Levi Johnston where wits are more evenly matched and the audience can feed their sense of superiority through the exploitation of a dumb teenager that poses no threat.

    I need to see the Schultz video. Do you have a link?

    BTW, Coulter had another good shot at all the Rutherfords out there. http://www.anncoulter.com/

  • 195. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Where’s President Obama, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Rutherford’s condemnation concerning our new civility? Is it to early for me to call each of you two-faced fibbers yet? :smile:

    A week after President Obama’s stirring remarks at the Tucson memorial service comes an important Civility Test for liberals.

    ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports that Democratic Representative Steve Cohen went to the well of the House and compared what Republicans are saying on health care to the work of the infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

    “They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like ‘blood libel.’ That’s the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and the people believed it and you had the Holocaust. You tell a lie over and over again. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care.”

    In our post-Tucson world, I’m eager to see people like E.J. Dionne Jr., Dana Milbank, and Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post; George Packer of the New Yorker; James Fallows of the Atlantic; Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and the editorial page of the New York Times; Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Ed Schultz of MSNBC, and scores of other commentators and reporters all across America both publicize and condemn Representative Cohen’s slander.

    Each of them will have plenty of opportunities to do so. I hope they take advantage of it. I hope, too, that reporters ask White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs what his reaction is. And I trust President Obama, who spoke so eloquently last week about the importance of civility in our national life, has something to say about this ugly episode as well. If the president were to repudiate Mr. Cohen quickly and publicly, it would be good for him, good for politics, and good for the nation.

    But if the president and his liberal allies remain silent or criticize Cohen in the gentlest way possible, it’s only reasonable to conclude that their expressions of concern about incivility in public discourse are partisan rather than genuine, that what they care about isn’t public discourse but gamesmanship, not restoring civility but gaining power.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/387145

  • 196. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    :oops: too early…(Yes it is).

  • 197. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Tex, you’re a little late. I got to that at 170.

    I called it Real Atlanta Housewives to titillate Rutherford (who would prefer to stick his head in the sand rather than read something that challenges his stupidity on this).

    By God, they are determined to make conservatives responsible for the shooting one way or another. Hypocrisy be damned!

  • 198. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Tigre, I saw it. And Rutherford failed to address it, so I wanted to reinforce your legitimate question.

    Notice how anything but innuendo and nuance is never addressed anymore? Rutherford knows both his recent responses and the call for civility are baloney, because he knows the liberal party is nothing but bullshit.

    He just can’t bring himself to admit he’s spent a lifetime of being wrong. :neutral:

  • 199. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Yeah. I just marvel that Rutherford can watch spit flying from a rage-filled Lawrence O’Donnell whom he gives s Bravo for attacking an “asshole” in one breath, and still reflect on the need to lecture about civil discourse from the right. And still talk about “Faux News” telling the right what to think while he plugs into MSNBC all day, every day.

  • 200. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    My friend Rutherford can spin FAUX News all he wants, but the market has already determined favored status – FOX News is dominating and has already surpassed the network news as far as the power to formulate opinion – not even close. Along with the WSJ, the days of lib spinning are over with and one day, even the NYTimes will recognize it.

    MSNBC is the Jerry Springer show in suits. Only the curious, deranged, deviants, and major league losers get anything from it. It’s the same basic audience of misfits as the body piercing crowd, anarchists, socialists, and communists you see marching in rage.

    Nobody of importance gives a shit about them unless the start throwing rocks. Let them die on the vine.

    I mean, seriously who but a bunch of rejects could take Ed Schultz or Lawrence O’Donnell seriously? Jared Loughners of TV?. I wouldn’t doubt one day, they’ll go ballistic and pull some stunt like Charles Whitman from the 38 floor of the NBC building.

  • 201. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    I’m disillusioned, I guess. Rutherford clearly hasn’t got a clue of the depths he’s reached with this. If he gave it any serious consideration to what he participated in, its actual purpose, who was hurt, and what it reflects, Rutherford would feel shame. But he won’t. And that sucks.

  • 202. dead rabbit  |  January 20, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    It does suck. He should either quit blogging or defend the stuff he said. I’m one mouse click away from the shit he pretends he didn’t write.

    Like I’ve said before, the only hope is that this place turns into a ghost town.

    Let’s say Rutherford made the shooting about gun control. I would have disagreed, but this place would have remained a forum.

    Let’s say Rutherford made the shooting about civil discourse. While this would have been harder to swallow, I suppose we could have had an exchange of ideas on the issue.

    But, Sara fucking Palin? 15 minutes into the murders? The carnage carried out by a gunman who had nothing to do with her?

    He fucked up so bad that he feels he will lose too much face to come clean.

    He ruined his own blog two saturdays ago.

  • 204. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    The false allegation that Palin or any associated with the right contributed to this was made first.

    Then when it became obvious every single fact pointed to the opposite, he attacks Palin’s delay in offering a response/apology.

    Then when she does respond, Rutherford criticizes her response.

    Now it’s gun control. Again, no proof that it contributed to the tragedy at all, just the implication that did based on self-serving surmising. But of course the right are 2nd amendment types, so they must be responsible (or was it just Franks).

    Not once does Rutherford account for what it means to accuse others of causing or contributing to the shootings of innocent people, including a little girl. All without any evidence of any kind to support it. None.

    That’s heavy duty. And Rutherford continues on with his smug blame-casting, oblivious to what it says about him to delight and encourage to associate this tragedy with people whom he disagrees on a political level (and for Palin irrationally hates to the core).

    Rabbit, I feel you.

  • 205. Rutherford  |  January 20, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    I’ll be brief ‘cos the Lawsons are recovering from a mini-crisis with a happy ending.

    I had to chuckle at how you guys defended Trent Franks. You’re good guys. You defend a guy when he is clearly getting his ass kicked. Because, in your view a man can’t possibly have enough guns Lawrence’s message could not possibly get through your thick heads. That’s one reason he started shouting at Franks … the only way to penetrate, and he failed.

    I’ll answer Rabbit’s question later. Like I said the past 24 hours have been a bitch.

  • 206. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Rutherford, you never cease to amaze. Ass kicked. Right.

    I never even heard of Trent Franks before this. We criticized O’Donnell — a complete buffoon for an idiotic segment that any critical thinker would’ve found the opposite point he wanted.

    We criticize you for refusing to find anything wrong with the hate-filled rant — the antithesis of what you preached was the cause of this.

    Criticizing O’Donnell is the same as defending Franks; just like criticizing you is defending Palin.

    “In your view a man can’t possibly have enough guns Lawrence’s message could not possibly get through your thick heads.”

    Yeah that’s why Frank’s said, “Loughner shouldn’t have had access to a gun at all.”

    Police miss their mark most of time is a damn good reason to carry a gun and more bulletts to protect yourself. And if his stupid point was that psychos are better shots, then I should have more bullets because it might take two or three to stop him. Seriously, how f&*%ing dumb can this get?

    So the only way to penetrate a thick skull is to shout? Kind of like. . . those crazy Tea Parties and right-wing radio personalities?

    There is no hope for you Rutherford. It’s no wonder you find O”Donnell a real crackerjack.

    BTW, from what I can tell, O’Donnell yells at everyone for your amusement. Not just Franks. Civil discourse. Yeah.

  • 207. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Ass kicked? Idiot Larry was red in the face! :lol: That didn’t look like an ass kicking to me. Looked to me like one step from a stroke (we couldn’t be so lucky).

    Great theater, and no loss considering O’Donnell has been a irrelevant hack for at least 15 years. He should have stayed on the McLaughlin hour…

    He’s a confessed socialist – except for his millions, of course, which we grabbed on West Wing.

  • 208. poolman  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I watched the MSNBC clip with O’Donnell and Franks. Lawrence was such a dick in that segment. I actually thought Franks came out looking much more intelligent and made better sense. I know Franks record and usually he gets the dick award. But not here. He was the better man. He only said one thing I had to giggle about. Something like, “If everyone had the same respect for innocent human life as Sarah Palin had…” Sorry. That was funny.

    I followed the Coulter link. Typical Coulter. That is as bad as anything the left put out attacking the right. Not much reality there, either. I do love her sarcasm, though, I must admit. I have always thought her wicked sarcasm was her best talent. I can only take it in small doses however.

    Meaningless, meaningless. Ahhh, such political amusement. Pass the popcorn… :grin:

  • 209. Rutherford  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Well Poolman the other thing Franks said that would be funny were it not so tragic is that there was nothing special about that gun because it’s used by cops all the time. THAT’S the defense?Why exactly should we expect the average Joe to carry the same fire power as a cop?

    Why don’t we save lots of money on a local level and just eliminate the police? Since you all find cops so slow and incompetent let’s just arm everyone. Each man for himself.

    If you’re talking tone, Franks won the debate. His opponent was Crazy Larry after all. But the math was on Larry’s side. Loughner got tackled in between magazines. So if 1993 laws were still in place, 10 bullets would have been fired, not 30.

    Like the subject of the article says: TOTAL ABDICATION OF REPONSIBILITY. Loughner alone is to blame. Helps you sleep at night.

  • 210. poolman  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    I love Jon Stewart. He gets it. This is classic. Sorry Sarah.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37931

  • 211. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    “Why exactly should we expect the average Joe to carry the same fire power as a cop?”

    To make up for the missed shots.

    Bwahahahahahaha!

  • 212. Tex Taylor  |  January 20, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Little Green Footballs? Good grief, Charles Johnson is the biggest joke on the internet.

    They’ve got entire sites that do nothing but mock LGF, General Chen, an old friend of Rutherford and mine being one of the lead instigators.

  • 213. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    “So if 1993 laws were still in place, 10 bullets would have been fired, not 30.”

    And had he not had a gun, no bullets would’ve been fired.

  • 214. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    Like the subject of the article says: TOTAL ABDICATION OF REPONSIBILITY.

    Thankfully, you took responsibility. Oh wait. You didn’t. You leveled blame. Helps you sleep at night.

  • 215. poolman  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Loughner got tackled in between magazines. So if 1993 laws were still in place, 10 bullets would have been fired, not 30.

    Rutherford, though I can agree in principle I cannot necessarily agree that a smaller “clip” would have been saved lives here. If he only had ten shots, they might have ALL been fatal. He could have been able to change them fast enough after 10 rounds if the confusion level was still where it was after the first 10. He could have had two guns like BiW claimed. Without the bigger “clip” he might have practiced quick clip changes instead of just target practice. He was determined to kill Giffords. The rest were just there. Wrong place at the wrong time. Destiny. Fate. Call it what you like.

    The “what ifs” and “would have/could haves” always show an alternate reality. The cop that stopped him that morning could have changed the whole history. His dad could have stopped him. All these possibilities don’t change anything. Bottom line, he should not have been able to legally purchase the gun. He should have been in a mental facility. None of that changes what happened.

    O’Donnell was railroading Franks and Franks wasn’t having it. He was being quoted out of context and Lawrence was on a tirade to direct the response. He was using the same tactic a lot of these pundits end up doing much of the time. He wanted to drive his point that these high capacity “clips” were the culprit and that if this would have happened in 2003, we wouldn’t see as many victims. I don’t buy it. The world today is not the same one we had in 2003.

    Hopefully we will learn from this. But not just by overreacting and making stupid laws. Unfortunately it doesn’t appear we will. No one is accepting blame for their words or actions. It is ironic that Giffords was trying to do just that even the night before this tragedy. Everyone is pointing fingers across the aisle. It really is childish. I don’t have much confidence in the human race today. I don’t know if we can truly become civilized. I think we peaked and are on the downhill.

  • 216. poolman  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Little Green Footballs? Good grief, Charles Johnson is the biggest joke on the internet.

    The clip was from Comedy Central’s Daily Show. It just happened to be linked/embedded on LGF site. I don’t frequent LGF and really don’t know much about them. I could have just as easily linked from the Comedy Central site. The only thing is that usually loads slower and you get more commercials.

    Oh, and Tex, I had no idea who Charles Johnson was, until now. Likely from your comment he would make a good foil to your “expert” Zombie.

  • 217. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    THAT’S the defense?Why exactly should we expect the average Joe to carry the same fire power as a cop?

    Do you have any notion of how completely stupid you sound when you say things like this?

    Rutherford, as I pointed out to you a week ago when you said much the same thing, I, or ANYOTHER “average joe” can LEGALLY pack a hell of a lot MORE firepower than a cop.

    The “cop” gun at issue here? A 9mm. Do you know why it is used by many police forces?
    1. They are inexpensive.
    2. The ammo is usually comparatiuvely cheap.
    3. They are usually compact/easy to carry.
    4. You can get high capacity magazines, as opposed to having six shots in a revolver.
    5. They are inexpensive.

    Can you buy comething that has “more firepower”? Absolutely.
    A .40 cal. makes a bigger hole than a nine (and is louder), and a .45 will make a HUGE hole. The drawbacks are that they cost more and the ammo costs a LOT more. However, just to see the look on your face and witness you wetting your pants when a Desert Eagle .45 is drawn and fired in your presence would be PRICELESS.

  • 218. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Loughner got tackled in between magazines. So if 1993 laws were still in place, 10 bullets would have been fired, not 30.

    Yeah. Because no one ever owned a high capacity magazine from before that ban. And criminals are ALWAYS prevented from from possessing firearms and accessories simply because they are illegal to purchase/possess…just ask any Chicago/New York City gunshot victim…OH WAIT!

    You and “Crazy Larry” (an apt nick if ever there was one) can wish cast this all you like, but two can play that that game, and I can come up with many more scenarios where my point is made more effectively than yours…if indeed “hypothetical” navelgazing is persuasive at all.

  • 219. El Tigre  |  January 20, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Perhps if Giffords were not a supporter of gun rights, she wouldn’t have been elected and never been at the Safeway or been the object Lougner’s disaffection.

    See, gun laws can be the problem in other ways when you deal in hypotheticals.

    Or there again, maybe that young guy that was carrying a gun might have chosen not to buy cigaretts and could’ve shot Loughner down right on the spot.

  • 220. dead rabbit  |  January 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Like my Dad says, “If my uncle had tits, he’d be my aunt”.

  • 221. dead rabbit  |  January 20, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    “To make up for the missed shots.”

    Seriously….it’s true. I don’t even fuck with a Glock. I can’t hit shit with one. I’ve spent hours at the range, too. I seriously wouldn’t remotely trust myself taking down a home invader with one. I’d miss or hit him and just piss him off.

    A pump from hell and Bird Shot. You can’t go wrong. Blow his fucking head off while limiting the chance of my round going through walls.

  • 222. dead rabbit  |  January 20, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I own my Gran pappies Jack Ruby Snub Nose 38.

    It’s weird how gun control corn balls always yap about fire power.

    If I was a gun control guy, I’d bitch about my snub nose more then any other weapon. No safety. No shells on the ground. Easy to conceal. And a bullet that will rattle up your arm into your heart.

    I got it out of my house for the time being.

  • 223. an800lbgorilla  |  January 20, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    I’ve been pretty busy with work, but did manage to crank something out IRT this post, and the general stupidity of the Left. I’ll try to get to some of the comments later…

    http://an800lbgorilla.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/a-teachable-moment/

  • 224. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:16 am

    Yes or no, should Sara Palin’s advisers be fired because of the unique role Palin’s website had in influencing the guy to kill? This is your former stance. Hell, you sang it from the mountain tops. Am I miss understanding you? If so, how?

    Yup you’re misunderstanding me. You went wrong on “influencing this guy to kill”. I posted an article link earlier from James Poniewozik Time’s TV critic where he said, and I paraphrase, “if you consider posting an image and the question arises, how would this image look if someone got shot in the head, then maybe you shouldn’t post the image.” I couldn’t have said it better. That was the entire point of the “Open Letter to Sarah Palin”.

    I can’t swear Palin even writes her own tweets or Facebook updates but I’m pretty damn sure she didn’t design the crosshairs map. Whether you like the idea or not, a bullseye (used in archery as well as plain old darts) does NOT convey the violence of a crosshairs symbol. So the “why don’t you yell at Markos Moultisas” argument doesn’t work here. Palin, I assume, approved the ad. Her advisors approved the ad. No one thought, maybe this is over the top. Even if we accept the false equivalency of the Daily Kos bullseye, no one in Sarah’s camp said, “let’s be better than that.”

    So fast forward to January 2011. One of her 20 “targets” get shot in the head. There is NO reason to believe the shooter ever saw the map. But that doesn’t matter. The map is still out there in the public consciousness. The video of Giffords complaining about the map is still out there. The Palin camp reaction: a quick concealment of the map and a stilted “official” statement of sympathy posted on a social media site.

    What do lots of folks expect including me? We expect Sarah to rise to the occasion and say “I know I used a campaign ad that in the light of this tragedy looks distasteful and with 20/20 hindsight, I regret having used it.” She’d be a f*cking hero. Her opponents would be completely deflated. I would have had a brain aneurysm completely unable to criticize the move. It didn’t happen.

    So let’s get this straight once and for all. Can anyone seriously say Sarah influenced the shooting of Gabby Giffords? No. I never said it. Not even on Twitter. Can anyone say that the Giffords shooting reminded us of how caustic and offensive Palin could be? Damn straight it did. Can any other politician in this country be linked to Giffords by way of an offensive crosshairs graphic other than Palin? No. She alone has that distinction. If she is too stupid to distance herself from it, then her staff should have demanded that she do so.

    Post-script: from what I understand there were two camps involved in Palin’s video that was released on the morning of the Memorial. One camp was Washington insiders who said “don’t do it. Shut your mouth and let this thing blow over.” The other camp said “you GO Mama Grizzly, tell them what assh*les they are! Quote Ronald Reagan!” She took the wrong advice (again). Then she tripled down on Hannity. Hannity specifically asked her about Jews who were offended by “blood libel” and even to the Jews, she issued no apology. We’re not talking the lame stream media or her liberal enemies …. we’re talking f*cking Jews who were offended. She told them to take a hike. (Alan Dershowitz does not speak for all Jews.)

    She has no class. In the normal course of events, she merits disdain and derision from the likes of me (albeit too much in my case … I admit to being over the top) … but in an event of such tragedy where her name was going to surface, sooner or later, her response and every move she’s made since, merits complete and utter condemnation.

    While I find it hard to believe I’m saying this, even Michele Bachmann fared better. The first words out of her mouth were “tears are flowing down my face”. A human real response. I give her kudos for it.

  • 225. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:26 am

    While I find it hard to believe I’m saying this, even Michele Bachmann fared better. The first words out of her mouth were “tears are flowing down my face”. A human real response. I give her kudos for it.

    Bachmann is a collegue, you tool.

  • 226. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Rutherford is now to the point of trying to convince us that a bulls eye has no connotation of violence but the infamous cross hairs do. WTH?

    Rutherford, I don’t know what is lamer. Your posts trying to implicit Sarah Palin somehow, someway. Or you double standards trying to appease the other mindless drones you watch nightly – do you lefty bloggers have a union? A brotherhood?

    Teamsnerds? Association of Feckless Libs?

    This gets more pitiful with each passing comment.

  • 227. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:39 am

    BiW will you EVER run out of excuses? A colleague could have issued a soulless response to the tragedy just as Palin did. Bachmann, to my surprise, rose to the occasion and spoke from the heart.

  • 228. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Blood libel… :lol:

    Don’t think that wasn’t thrown out there by accident so libs would wet themselves. Sarah Palin has figured out these Progressives are like toddlers, and plays them like the whiners they are.

    Useful idiots and tools for Lucifer..

  • 229. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Regarding 226, yes Tex it’s a club.

  • 230. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:44 am

    LOL Tex … Sarah and her speech writer used “blood libel” cos they saw it used in some conservative article earlier in the week and thought it sounded good. Woman hasn’t had an original thought since she passed the Q&A segment of the Miss Alaska beauty pageant and doesn’t have the good sense to know what sh*t to parrot and what stuff to leave on the cutting room floor.

  • 231. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Rutherford, you couldn’t look any lamer if you were making the attempt. Scuttle the ship while you still can brother and grab the life boat of silence. Change the subject – do something.

    You shit your pants 12 days ago and still haven’t changed. You’re stinking your own blog up.

  • 232. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:50 am

    Mmmmmm Tex, if you think ole Palin has a right to issue a video defending herself, why can’t I defend myself? Rabbit asked me a very specific question. I gave him an answer.

    I did have every intention of changing the subject today with a new post but my wife thought she was having a heart attack yesterday afternoon and spent the night in the hospital. So we’re all a bit shaken up. (Turns out it wasn’t a heart attack …. doc says could be hormones or “something electrical”. She’s on some meds until they can give her a more thorough workup. And yes, she’s back home and feeling ok, albeit a bit tired.)

    I’m going to bed. More tomorrow.

  • 233. dead rabbit  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Rutherford never heard of “blood libel” in his fucking life. Some Jews, think its not cool, others think its the perfect description. Who gives a fuck.

  • 234. poolman  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:54 am

    Well you guys can beat around the bushes all you want. Who over-reacted, who isn’t to blame, etc., etc., etc.

    The FACT still remains that REAL DOCUMENTED DEATH THREATS increased THREEFOLD SINCE Palin posted the crosshair map.

    Argue that.

  • 235. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:59 am

    The FACT still remains that REAL DOCUMENTED DEATH THREATS increased THREEFOLD SINCE Palin posted the crosshair map.

    Oh baloney? By who’s account? Stormfront? MSNBC? Little Green Footballs?

    The only death threats I’ve heard increasing since the tragedy are on Sarah Palin. And it can’t be Conservatives that are making the threats – most of have been too busy laughing and pointing fingers at the Rutherfords of the world when it was determined Loughner part anarchist, part run of the mill Lib.

  • 236. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:02 am

    Poolman,

    Do you believe everything you read? If the cross hairs increased death threats, how do we know bulls eyes didn’t contribute to the cause?

    What are you? The missing member of Heaven’s Gate? The suggestion war language, cross hairs, bullseyes, and the like is responsible for more death threats is so pathetic, that I am now stating I think the real threat was Clinton’s “War Room” being responsible for 9/11 after Bin Laden perceived that as declaring war on Islam.

  • 237. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:10 am

    Hey Bro. “R”,

    Glad to hear your wife is okay. I know that she has to be under a fair amount of stress so you better be taking care of her first.

    You do know that cortisol and epinephrine levels will do strange things to a heart – tachycardia, and the like? Take your wife to do something fun this weekend and forget about watching the jackasses on MSNBC. That strains the strongest of hearts.

    Go see the matinee of a “The Kings Speech” if you haven’t already gone. You two will enjoy it.

  • 238. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Great article…it’s about Rutherford. :smile:

    Palinoia, the Destroyer

    What’s behind the left’s deranged hatred.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091962633206964.html

  • 239. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:24 am

    What about male Palin-hatred? It seems to us that it is of decidedly secondary importance. Liberal men, like Rutherford :twisted: ,put down Palin as a cheap way to score points with the women in their lives, or they use her as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express. ~ James Taranto

    Any of those lib women thrown up their skirts as payment for your PDS yet Rutherford (besides your wife)? If so, I might try it for awhile too. :smile:

  • 240. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:34 am

    BiW will you EVER run out of excuses? A colleague could have issued a soulless response to the tragedy just as Palin did. Bachmann, to my surprise, rose to the occasion and spoke from the heart.

    You ARE thick tonight, aren’t you?
    My point is that real people, like Bachmann, will grow close to people they work with, especially ones that are as well-liked as Giffords appears to be. If the roles were reversed, I doubt Tony Weeener would show as much emotion for Bachmann.

    I would, however, lay odds on laughter and derision from him, not that I think he can help it. He’s a small man (and I don’t mean his height or build).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBAQMuPTbg&feature=related

    Skip ahead to 11:42, because Mr. Shunderson said it better than I can.

    BTW, R.

    Set aside the time and watch the whole movie. It is hands down on of the top 5 Cary Grant films.

  • 241. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 21, 2011 at 2:06 am

    “The FACT still remains that REAL DOCUMENTED DEATH THREATS increased THREEFOLD SINCE Palin posted the crosshair map.”

    Yeah this is about the time I start saying “show me.”

  • 242. poolman  |  January 21, 2011 at 2:42 am

    Tex, Palin put up her map March 23rd, 2010. It is still on FB. Here is the link:

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434

    Here are comments from her supporters posted there dated in March. There are almost 6000 comments. A few I found pretty quickly that warn of potential danger. There are many more. I didn’t go through them all. But these four are from her FB friends – folks that friended her.

    I hope you know what you’re doing, folks. I watched you all this morning on msnbc and cringed. I am all for your right to assemble and I don’t condone the hecklers for one second. However, talk is one thing. Nutcases are something else. Putting cross-hairs on our Nation’s map is stupid. That might only encourage a madman to do something even MORE stupid. Sarah, I like you. I don’t agree with your politics but I like you. Please be mindful of how your group presents things.
    ~~~~~~~
    This is definetly terroristic threats. Made on facebook, breaking facebook rules. If anyone else posted something like her poster we would be convicted of terroristic threats by our own government. I have lost all respect for Sarah Palin.
    ~~~~~~~
    I have supported many of Sarah’s policies. The fact that Sarah is using this sort of images to target states is disconcerning. I am obviously an African American and is very sensitive to the use of violence to sway opinions. Now, many of my peers and I will need to rethink our support.
    ~~~~~~~
    it is despicable to use the imagery of domestic terrorists such as anti abortion bombers and white supremacists as your latest attention grabber. using targets in this way is a clear call to violence whether directly or referentially. shame on you and all of your lackeys sarah palin

    Here is an article claiming threats tripled since then. This FB posting likely contributed. Giffords even asked for the symbolism and language be toned down and even noted this same map. I posted the link to the video where she said as much earlier this thread or the last. There are plenty of left leaning sites with this info, but since you are blinded to any truth they might hold, I found one that might be a source you could accept.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-09-ariz-shooting-political-rhetoric_N.htm

    When you want words and actions to have purpose and weight, they do, along with any consequences. Why is this any different?

  • 243. El Tigre  |  January 21, 2011 at 8:35 am

    “REAL DOCUMENTED DEATH THREATS increased THREEFOLD SINCE Palin posted the crosshair map.”

    Against who?

  • 244. El Tigre  |  January 21, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Which is worse, implying that Palin was to blame in any way for Giffords’ shooting, or pretending after the fact you didn’t?

    And here I thought words have meaning. Turns out everyone was wrong. There was no inference. Everyone here and the guy on the street were hallucinating. Looking to Palin for some kind of an apology in responce to the shooting was just random. No attempt to imply cause and effect. God we’re dumb for thinking that Rutherford would do such a thing.

    Is it possible that your intellectual dishonesty on this knows no limtis or are we being gaslighted?

  • 245. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    There was no inference.

    Oh, on the contrary there was indeed an inference on your part that I created a direct cause-effect relationship between Sarah Palin’s rhetoric and Loughner’s act. No such thing ever happened. What happened was that Loughner’s act raised the specter of the possible consequences of violent rhetoric and imagery and in the immediate aftermath of the act, Sarah Palin went into damage control mode, thereby immediately ceding the argument to her opponents. If the map was not in poor taste, why take it down so quickly? If there was true sympathy for the dead and wounded, why the superficial statement on Facebook? My statement was and remains the map was not cool and looked even less cool in the light of one of its “targets” getting shot. That lack of coolness requires a response from Palin that was not forthcoming.

    Finally, and I really do mean finally (I’m writing a new post today) this take of mine has been compared to the IRS worker article I wrote. When the facts of the suicidal IRS worker were discovered, I immediately wrote a “my bad” article. I DID jump the gun on that one. That was some dude out of the blue dying a suspicious death out of any real context. THAT is not the case with Tucson. The context was immediate. It was a political assassination attempt. Try as you like, it was not John Hinckley trying to impress Jodie Foster. So, with a political assassination, we look to the political climate to see what the hell is going on. And it behooves every sensible politician who might have said something damning about the victim, to distance themselves from those statements damn quickly. That is the premise plain and simple and no facts will ever come to light that will demand a retraction article from me. The facts as I’ve said before are indisputable. (That is unless you throw in all your extremist politics inferences.)

    But what burns my undies even more is that if I surrendered the toxic climate point, you guys would still be bitching about guns not being the problem. It begins and ends with Loughner. I just don’t understand how you leave it at such an easy, and useless conclusion.

    As I said to my wife this morning, Tucson was so f*cked up that someone has to be accountable beyond some random madman.

  • 246. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Poolman,

    After 9/11, bombing threats went up substantially for a time. Thrill seekers, anarchists, punks, etc…

    Ron Paul was leading in every Republican straw poll taken on the internet before the 2008 Presidential election. Back then, when people of sound mind contrary to the new hysteria of Obamatown and Chicken Little, everyone knew the polling rigged, the electronic box stuffed.

    If I believed every poll and every “discovery”, every finding and every prediction I read on the internet, I’d be forced to conclude times up – we were supposed to have burned up by now too, swallowed by rising seas and accompanied by massive hurricanes. Read that in 2004 that we had five years to make changes, or we would be doomed by the end of the decade.

    ——–

    Maybe you can justify why crosshairs on a map would increase chaos and mayhem, but Ed Schultz of MSNBC fame screaming, “Shoot the bastards…” doesn’t? Nobody is making a big deal of Ed Schultz. He’s more an object of ridicule than scorn.

    You should read that WSJ article beautifully explaining the Palin Derangement Syndrome malady so many of you suffer. Ingratiating yourself in with the feminists at Fat Grannies for attention may provide some warm fuzzies.

    That may fly there, but here most of us are laughing at the hysteria of the left, believing it another indicator of liberalism being a mental illness.

  • 247. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Rutherford,

    How’s your wife? What was the diagnosis and what did they prescribe for her medication, if that’s not too personal.

    If so, tell me to buzz off and I’ll understand.

  • 248. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Set aside the time and watch the whole movie. It is hands down on of the top 5 Cary Grant films.

    Tex, the minute I saw Shunderson pet his dog, I knew that had you hook line and sinker. :-)

    I’ll put that movie on my to do list, the ending does make me curious what got us there.

  • 249. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Think that was supposed to be directed to BIC Mr. Rutherford.

  • 250. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Poolman obviously posts links figuring that none of us will click them and read.

    “The FBI reports that death threats to members of Congress tripled in the second half of 2010, mostly tied to the issue of health care.”

    Where is the correlation to Palin’s map in that? Where is the connection to Giffords?

  • 251. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Regarding 247, bizarre vibes in the air as my next comment was going to answer your question before you asked it.

    She was already on 10mg of lisanopril (pardon my spelling). They reduced that to 2.5 mg and threw in toprol xl for good measure. I don’t recall how large a dose of toprol. As I said in an earlier comment, there is no definitive diagnosis yet. Hormonal, “electrical” (whatever the hell that means … I don’t want my 42 year old wife on a pacemaker this early in the game) and “not life threatening” which is why they let her come home.

    In the hospital they administered nitro three times (actually once in the ambulance on the way). They had her on heparin for a bit there too until they ruled out a blood clot in the lungs which was one of their original theories.

    I did learn one thing though. When I was in the ER five years ago I forgot to tell the staff that I use a bipap at night. As a result I fell unconscious, which the nimrods mistook for sleeping. If it weren’t for my PCP visiting me the next morning and not being able to wake me up, I would’ve died in the ER. One tracheotomy and WALA I was back on my feet in 7 weeks.

    Anyway, my wife just started using a bipap a couple of months ago. I made damn f*cking sure that everyone in that ER knew to get my wife on a bipap before she went to sleep. Try to kill a Lawson once, shame on you … try to kill a Lawson twice, shame on me. :evil:

  • 252. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Also, you claim that threats had tripled, which suggests that there were death threats before Palin posted her map.

    Who caused those threats…Glenn Beck? O’ Reilly? Who’s next on your list?

  • 253. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Anyway, my wife just started using a bipap a couple of months ago. I made damn f*cking sure that everyone in that ER knew to get my wife on a bipap before she went to sleep. Try to kill a Lawson once, shame on you … try to kill a Lawson twice, shame on me.

    Just wait until those ERs are overloaded and understaffed due to the magic of Obamacare.

    And yes, Rutherford, you can watch the movie, but I don’t hold out hope that you’ll actually “get it”.

  • 254. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Also, you claim that threats had tripled, which suggests that there were death threats before Palin posted her map.

    Who caused those threats…Glenn Beck? O’ Reilly? Who’s next on your list?

    But Huck! You don’t understand! It HAS to be true! It was reported by the legacy media. You know. The guys with the journalism degrees and the elevnty million layers of fact checkers!

  • 255. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Just wait until those ERs are overloaded and understaffed due to the magic of Obamacare.

    Now BiW … you wouldn’t be politicizing my tragedy would you? ;-)

  • 256. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Think that was supposed to be directed to BIC Mr. Rutherford.

    LOL Sorry Tex, you’re right, BiW recommended the flick. I’ve got it on my netflix queue anyway. :-) (Shame they’re not streaming it.) (Yes, yes I could watch it on YouTube but it’s not quite the same thing.)

  • 257. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Now BiW … you wouldn’t be politicizing my tragedy would you?

    No sir. Just providing some food for your thought as you and the MNrs. move a little further down the “Complete Lives” path.

    Seriously, I hope that she will be ok, and I’ll add her to the nightly knee mail list, even over your objections. And not by way of wishing the worst, but out of genuine concern because you, like me, have a young child, the two of you have up to date wills, right?

  • 258. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    (Yes, yes I could watch it on YouTube but it’s not quite the same thing.

    No, but I was shocked at the quality of the video.

  • 259. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    BiW, yeah I agree that video quality was fantastic. I didn’t even notice any network logos or anything. Must have been ripped from a DVD somehow.

    Believe it or not, I’m touched when folks pray for me and my family. Because I don’t share your belief system does not mean I doubt the sincerity of it. (Well at least in the case of the folks in this forum. Yes, I do think there are folks who are insincere.)

    No, to my great embarrassment there are no wills in place. I know it’s stupid. I know you’ve told me before. And what makes me a worse hypocrite is I’m annoyed at my Dad for not putting matters on paper yet I haven’t done so myself. Who knows, maybe this last event will scare us into it.

  • 260. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    R, get it taken care of. There are a number of decisions that you DO NOT want to leave to the state.

    My Dad refused to do one, and as a result, my Mom is STILL dealing with some issues, and its been 6 years now.

    Get it done, man.

  • 261. dead rabbit  |  January 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Back when my wife was having miscarriages, something bad happened in my brain. The longer she stayed pregnant, the more stressed I would get.

    Thus, the pregnancy that stuck made me temporarily crazy. I didn’t know it, of course. I was convinced I was having a heart attack.

    It got so bad I made a buddy pull off the road and call an ambulance.

    When the doctors suggested I was having a panic attack, I got pissed off.

    They gave me one Xanax and it all went away, for good. I realized they were correct.

    It was like my internal throttle was stuck. Fight or flight, 24/7.

    I’m not saying this is happening to your wife, but if it is, let me assure you, the misery is real.

    I never understood how physical a chemical imbalance in the mind can be.

    It was the worst experience of my life. One pink little pill fixed it.

  • 262. El Tigre  |  January 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    “So, with a political assassination, we look to the political climate to see what the hell is going on.”

    I thought the facts were the first place to start. My bad.

    The political climate I viewed was the left’s effort to exploit the tragedy. Krugman was up and running in 2 hours. You followed suit. Interesting you found your way to Palin. Perfectly logical. Pfffft.

    So when you said, “on the contrary there was indeed an inference on your part that I created a direct cause-effect relationship between Sarah Palin’s rhetoric and Loughner’s act,” I should’ve understood that “political climate” is a code word for Sara Palin. And of course, the “political climate” is to blame. Got it.

    You haven’t shown that the “political climate” that “Sara Palin created” (which according to the left is a call to violence against fellow American political opponents) had anything to do with this.

    Cut the shit Rutherford. You tortured explanations are internally inconsistent. You unwillingness to even admit your true purpose and meaning is precisely why you have such an aversion to examining or considering “vitriolic rhetoric” from the left (like O’Donnell screaming at Frank’s who of course was partly to blame too because of his stance on gun control).

    Simply put, everything you’ve said is necessarily premised on a “cause and effect” (regardless of your direct or indirect distinction without a difference) — in order to have a point at all. It’s not like you started by even questioning, much less caring about, the shooters nationality, upbringing, mental state, or whether the ban on toys in Happy Meals or carbon emissions might have set him off. “Guilt by Association,” remember? Those are “the facts” you relied on here — Pailin’s “guilt” and “association.”

    You ain’t fooling anyone.

    In any event, I hope everything works out okay for your wife. I’m sorry you had to go through it. I know it was exhausting, physically and mentally. I’ve has similar experiences.

  • 263. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    I hear you Rabbit. There is no doubt in my mind that the stress in the Lawson home right now is contributing to my wife’s health. But to nail your point down even further, when she’s in the hospital and now I’m mommy and daddy, I literally get physically sick. Too much stress. Drove to the hospital Wednesday night with a throat so dry and tight I could hardly swallow. The next morning, waking up with top priority to not miss the school bus, I had a wretching fit. My body doesn’t do stress well.

    Heck when my sister went into labor for the first time, I completely lost my appetite and didn’t get back to normal until I got the news she and son #1 were ok.

    Anyway, point well taken.

  • 264. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Tigre, thanks for the kind words regarding my better half. Odd thing, reading 262 I was suddenly reminded I was arguing with an attorney. Something about you guys that makes you relentless opponents. Are you that way before Law School or in the words of Professor Kingsley, do you enter Law School “with a mind full of mush” and leave “thinking like a laaaaaaaaaaaawyer.” :-)

  • 266. dead rabbit  |  January 21, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    Comment 262 had nothing to do with law school or lawyers. Tigre was not throwing technicalities or moldy books on English Common Law at you.

    He speaks a clean, streamlined truth.
    Your name is mud, Rutherford.

  • 267. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Panic attacks are miserable. I’ve had two, both times waking up with my heart racing about a mile a minute. And I don’t want to hear that crap about mind over matter. It doesn’t work. I drove my truck with the windows down at 80mph trying to let the wind blow in my face to convince myself I could breathe. I finally wound myself down after a few hours.

    If it ever happens to you again Rabbit, here is the only thing I have found that works, and it worked for my mother too after I suggested it. Cool yourself around the head – wet rags, stick your head in the freezer, or if it is cool outside walk around outside nude if you have to. For some reason that seems to slow the respiration and stop the adrenaline.

    Rutherford, is your wife suffering high blood pressure, or has she had a heart attack before? The heparin was because they thought your wife had a pulmonary embolism – a bigger killer of people than anyone ever dreamed possible until they starting diagnosing it correctly.

    A friend’s wife died from one when they took a cast off her foot. Clot went straight to the heart and into the pulmonary arteries. Dead within minutes.

  • 268. poolman  |  January 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Where is the correlation to Palin’s map in that? Where is the connection to Giffords?

    I don’t think there is a direct connection between Palin’s map and Giffords’ shooter. None has been established. Palin posted the map identifying the targets to focus on and as political opponents to eliminate. All but two (Giffords being one of those) were defeated in the last elections.

    The manner in which Palin went about opposing these 20 candidates, visually and verbally was immediately questioned. Cautions and warnings were made even in the comments of that very post. I listed only four. Giffords herself came out publicly warning of potential consequences to the same. Even the day before she was shot she was setting up a meeting with the GOP to discuss the very same concern.

    Also, you claim that threats had tripled, which suggests that there were death threats before Palin posted her map.

    The death threats increased since the time Palin posted the map. That was also related to the same time healthcare legislation passed. I don’t know how many death threats are considered “normal” or “average” or “who” instigated them. I only know their occurences tripled. And it was not only directed at Giffords.

    Who caused those threats…Glenn Beck? O’ Reilly? Who’s next on your list?

    Nobody is on “my list”. Everyone is on “my list”. Anyone calling for violence, left or right, is on “my list”. Words have weight. Words and actions have consequences. That IS my point. If I put something out in public that can cause harm to others, it IS my responsibility. Whether I dodge the bullet (pun intended) or not. If someone points out the possibilities of my actions being harmful to others and I ignore their warning, it makes me all the more culpable of any consequences that those actions might affect.

    Much like the Beck video I just watched where he says, “…you’re gonna have to shoot them in the head.”

  • 269. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Somebody cut from the Rutherford cloth also thinks Rutherford is full of bull…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-baum/after-tucson-stricter-gun_b_811696.html

  • 270. poolman  |  January 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Huck, you seem to be the most knowledgeable about Islam and most Muslim countries. I am interested in your opinion about this article by Jonathan Azaziah, an Iraqi Morrocan-Hebrew from New York. I have read several articles by him in the past and find his perspective fascinating and his information enlightening. His recent post from his blog is here:

    Mask of Zion

    Nearly 8 years into the most inhumane, horrific and devastating occupation in modern history, and the people of Iraq still know nothing of even the smallest glimpse of peace.

    If you have the time and/or interest, please give it a read.

  • 271. poolman  |  January 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Tex,

    that was actually someone I can agree with. I don’t think stricter gun laws ARE the answer. I do, however, think we need a better background check system, whether it is the state or the fed or even the NRA to help keep legal gun ownership out of the hands of crazies and criminals. I do think our state needs to do more for the mentally deranged also, though we don’t have the budget, especially in this economic climate. Criminals will still get around laws, as they are “criminals”. But as a society we should set a higher standard, IMO.

    I was surprised you read Huffpo. :shock:
    How mighty liberal of you! :grin:

  • 272. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Tex, high blood pressure yes, previous heart attack no, family history, yes. I’m assuming a pulmonary embolism is a blood clot in the lung? They CT scanned her and ruled that out.

    Actually after two days on tropol xl, she realizes just how messed up she was. She just told me, “wow this is the first day I haven’t felt my heart beating in my chest for a couple of months.” She had kinda reached a “new normal” with it. Didn’t know that it sure as hell wasn’t normal. It’s amazing what we can get used to. i live with all sorts of crap that I’ve just incorporated into my life (like gut problems) instead of getting it fixed. Yikes!

  • 273. Rutherford  |  January 21, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    On the social discourse point, Poolman “gets it”. Thank goodness someone does.

    By the way I don’t remember who I heard say this, but right after Giffords was shot someone said that most politicians receive death threats on a regular basis. That’s the current state of affairs. :neutral:

  • 274. Tex Taylor  |  January 21, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    I’m assuming a pulmonary embolism is a blood clot in the lung?

    For all intents and purposes, yes. The clot is generally in the pulmonary artery (the only arteries in the body with deoxygenated blood) and what happens is the there isn’t sufficient oxygen pumped back through the pulmonary veins to the heart – which is generally accompanied by shortness of breath and tachycardia (fast heart beat). It can be lethal, and often times in the elderly.

    Take care of her.

  • 275. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 22, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Poolman, that article is way too long and way too slanted for me. “Zionist war criminal” was about as far as I got.

    My initial thought was it reminded me of some of the stuff I read at the Hamas website I visit occasionally for research.

  • 276. poolman  |  January 22, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Okay Huck, thanks for playing. Other than the obvious slant it appeared to connect the dots quite well.

  • 277. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    I am curious why you mentioned Islam in your comment asking me to read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


January 2011
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 713 other followers

%d bloggers like this: