The Times tried to create a distraction by printing facts? They only went 40 years in the past because Ayers is still part of the scene NOW. Yes, you may claim that, since he is a model citizen now, it's no harm, no foul, but wouldn't you consider it just a little strange that a man involved in bombing the Pentagon and other things would ever be a close friend of a President? The thing is that he is not the only one. There are other such radicals right there with him, close to the President. If you can't find that a little strange, especially in light of the fact Obama is making moves in the direction these past radicals endorse, then I won't try to convince you any further.
And which past do you say that Ayers endorses, Mike? Bombing? Nonsense! That's an outside the system tactic. It was when the SDS advocated it 40 years ago and it still is. Ayers is an inside the system guy, and his solutions may or may not be as radical on the left as yours are on the right. How do you measure that?
The facts that The Times chose to dredge up have little to do with the way the Republicans have run their opposition over the past year or so and the way that it's turned around on them over the past few weeks. It's old stuff dredged up from the election, trying to rally the radical right base of the party. It seems to work well at doing so. How well it will continue to work will depend on the level of violence that shows up in the country and how actively the Right Wing continues to encourage it.
Your plan seems to attempt to target the Times. I believe you have said in the past "Don't shoot the messenger" and "Just because the source may be one you don't favor doesn't mean they can't print true statements.", or thoughts along those lines. Apparently you don't give such leeway to the Times.
I asked about the reality of what The Washington Times had to say. That's hardly "an assault." And when you supplied data, which they should have supplied themselves, I acknowledged my mistaken assumption and the gaps in my own information, as was appropriate for me to do. Their information was better than mine, and I acknowledged my ignorance. I believe that is offering Leeway to The Washington Times. If you don't believe so, you might suggest why that's the case.
I certainly didn't kill the messinger. I questioned the messinger.
I also found the messinger lacking in some areas, as you might have noticed. I said that as well.
It's interesting that you won't accept the deliberate firing of a bullet into the congressman's office because there were no witnesses and yet to accept with faith the other congressman's allegation that tea-partiers hurled racial insults at him. This allegedly occured with cameras and microphones everywhere, especially on congressmen, and yet it was never caught either on video or tape. That appears to you to be a done deal while a bullet in the wall doesn't.
Why would I accept "the deliberate firing of a bullet" into Congressman Eric Cantor's Richmond office when the police investigation said that it appeared accidental. I believe the initial reports said it was into the Congressman's office, but that there were other reports that say it was into the building where the Congressman had his offices. Am I incorrect here? This seems to be begging the question, overall.
Beyond all of this, I deplore anybody shooting a gun into the air anywhere. It's terrible gun safety. Any member or former member of the NRA should agree with me and should want whoever did this arrested for such idiocy. It endangers public safety. If it was on purpose, as a political gesture, it is even worse, no matter who did it. It certainly raises the issue of gun control at a time when The Republican Party should be uncomfortable having it raised, and the Democratic party, trying to appease the right wing members in its own ranks can't be happy either.
As for the aim of Cameras and microphones, as any sound recordist or camera man can tell you, you have to be pretty lucky to get things on film that you even plan to get on film, let alone get them on film and on sound recording in any way that can be deciphered later. Once again, the folks who write these sort of talking points seem to trust you not to trust your own experience and not to think, all at the same time. Hearing the questions raised once again simply makes the questions sound silly once again. Sound check! Sound check! Hello! Hello!
I don't know Leboon's political affiliation, either. That's not the point. It doesn't matter. The point was not that democrats were firing at republicans. The point was that republicans are getting the same insults and actions against them as democrats are.
You'd think that everybody would love the Republicans, wouldn't you, given the amount of help they've offered in governing the nation, and the way they've tried to help bring the country together after the election. Certainly, everybody thinks of the Republicans as the Party of Amity and concilliation, which is why the hostility toward them is such a big shock. Not to mention the way they were able to make so many people so happy during the previous eight years.
Of course people are unhappy with the Republicans too, Mike.
The country is unhappy with everybody in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, and we need to stop blaming each other and have a good solid look at our political process and start thinking deeply about why that is. I think it's got a lot to do with the feeling that the government is for sale to the highest bidder, and a lot of that has crystalized with the recent supreme court decision. I don't know that people actually consciously link it with that decision, but since that time, I've felt a real sense of fatalism and futility in the air. Money equals speech.
Corporations are people.
You may continue to feel that this hysteria is being fueled by republicans but you are in a large minority. The democrats have been doing everything in their power to make sure every incident gets full coverage, complete with them pointing fingers at republicans. This is understandable, since Obama has made finger-pointing so popular as a way of avoiding blame for anything. They are doing everything possible to keep the fires burning and, in doing so, foster more of the same. The public is not buying it and neither do I.
You may be noticing which direction my finger is pointing. My finger is pointing at the infusion of money into the electoral process. Anybody's money. Chinese money, mafia money, wall street money, defense contractor money, union money, you name it money. It doesn't even have to be American money that can be used to buy an American election. Saudi Money has an interesting and to my mind at least, a historical ring to it.
Not everything has to be partisan, Bob. Democrats are under attack and so are republicans. Instead of democrats spending their time pointing fingers, they should be spending it downplaying the incidents and working towards having them stop. Undoubtedly, the Times felt the need to print what they did because of the democrats' actions and constant accusations in one direction. One can only be falsely accused so many time before the other responds.
We have agreement, though we are looking, I think, in opposite directions.