Saturday, January 8, 2011




Anonymous said...

I went back and forth with asshole Megan on her wonderful "guns at protests are okay!" thread:

But all of my super-mean comments are deleted.

Oh well.

Now is the time to crank up the pressure on the Atlantic publisher to fire the stupid, irresponsible bitch.

Susan of Texas said...

There's no way she'd ever acknowledge that what she said was dangerous or irresponsible. She said that people should be able to express support for the second amendment by openly carrying guns at protests and no doubt in her mind that will have nothing whatsoever to do with a nut shooting a politician.

I am going to write about her use of doomsday rhetoric regarding the health care bill tomorrow.

Susan of Texas said...

The woman twitted: "If this was, say, a stalker or a disgruntled employee, not sure why we'd focus on violent rhetoric rather than actual violence."

Because the rhetoric sowed the seeds of actual violence--how about that reason?

Toxic idiot.

brad said...

If, and it's a big if, Megan goes anywhere near this what she'll do is find some lefty blogger mentioning her own idiocy around this topic in the recent past and get indignant. No logic, no self-examination, she'll, like Palin's supporters across the net, get mad at the one pointing out her own flaws and make herself into the victim. High end, Himalayan, projection. "It wasn't a protest and he's not a teabagger, Peter checked, blahblahfuckingblah.
And the msm will engage in lots of false equivalence and call him a lone nut and move on. Some old man on MSNBC this afternoon brought up the fucking SDS in the 60s as a counterbalance.

brad said...

Oh, missed Susan's second comment.
I guess Megan is stupid enough to wade into this, I honestly thought she might stay silent. I might have to come out of retirement if she writes a full post.

NutellaonToast said...

I dunno. there's a lot of ppl straight up pullin' triggers in Washington the past few decades. Not sure why ole Pallie Wagon's getting singled out just for cracking wise about.

Why, here, our own Miss Gifford got an F16 right on her front page there in the banner. That's what she thinks represents this country: a fighter jet! The most advance piece of killing things we done ever made!

Susan of Texas said...

Because you strike when the iron is hot, when the opponent is weak, when you have a chance to succeed in your goal.

I'm not really worried about being 100% fair anymore, just factually correct.

Susan of Texas said...

It might not be quite fair to blame Palin for a crazy man's act, but it's not fair to discount the impact of her rhetoric either.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Now watch me be fair to both sides…here’s what Camp Mooselini had to say:

A Palin staffer, Rebecca Mansour told a radio talk show host Saturday that doing so is “obscene” and “appalling.” In fact, she said that the “target list” was not intended to allude to guns.

“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights,” she said.

“It’s surveyor’s symbols,” the interviewer Tammy Bruce suggested. Bruce, a Palin supporter, describes herself as “a gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Tea Party Independent Conservative. ” Her show is promoted as a “chick with a gun and a microphone.”

Go it, people? Surveyor’s symbols.

Sadly, No!

NutellaonToast said...

But Susan, what isn't fair is that you don't hate Gifford for pegging her love of country to the most sophisticated killing machines ever built! You want to hate violent rhetoric? Well, guess what, the memos these guys pass around about killing brownies are a lot more directly violent than anything Palin and her Alaska National Guard have done.

Factually correct is that one murdering madman was shot by another. We may mourn or not depending on how much value we place on the lives of murdering madmen, but that is a side issue.

Nobody panics when things go according to plan!

Susan of Texas said...

I've called us murderers for what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan a time or two. And said that both sides are tools of the military industrial complex. And that Obama's evil. And that all war is a failure of brains and heart. Sometimes I like to look at the little picture too, though.

NutellaonToast said...

I suppose that's fair enough, but it just strikes me that singling out Palin is to imply too much credit for those that allegedly counter her in Washington.

To me, focusing on her is just further the distraction that is the pervasive evil of all of these fuckers.

Anonymous said...

I figured in the hours after the shooting that the guy was a 48-year old angry tea-party nutjob who took Palin's bullshit literally. But it doesn't sound like that's what happened. Anyone who is shooting people over the control of grammar and because the U.S. has a fiat currency is not working within out usual political categories.

Susan of Texas said...

Then why did he shoot a Democratic politician? I agree that his anger was arbitrary but his target was not.

NoT, this tragedy should be a reminder that we don't want to encourage violence. I plan to bring it up whenever appropriate. Palin's just the obvious place to start.

Anonymous said...

She was his congressperson and she was holding a meeting in a supermarket parking lot nearby. Could be as simple as that. I say 'could be' because it's too early to say for sure why he picked her. At least so far they've not released any info about him that indicates he was partisan for either party.

Susan of Texas said...

If the shooting was spur of the moment, that will be pertinent.

NutellaonToast said...

No-fucking-sense. Palin holds no office and has no actual pull anymore. she's not changing anyone's mind, she's just feeding an already present hunger!

A logical place to start would be Giffords herself (or any number of others), an elected official that displays prominently her smiling visage alongside instruments of fucking destruction.

Look at the top banner! That is violent rhetoric!

I think you really need to consider that you're after Palin here because she strikes a chord with you emotionally, but if decrying ppl in power advancing the cause of senseless murder is your goal, you should start with the ppl actually in power and not just selling books.

Susan of Texas said...

I'm not going to attack Giffords for supporting our military right now.

brad said...

Remember Brady nutella? Pushing back at moments like these can effect the culture of violence that people like Palin want to cultivate. I'm not saying she wanted Giffords to be shot, or had any direct influence on the shooter. (Tho his ramblings do show markers of tea party/militia beliefs.) But I am saying she threw chum in the water, and pointing that out now can make it harder for her to keep doing so.
I don't care how militaristic Giffords is or isn't, she was shot. I don't care how unfair it is that people care more about her than the people dying daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence people can understand and empathize with can help them calm the fuck down and maybe help us be a little less violent as a culture. Attacking Giffords for not being anti-war is simply misplaced right now. If Phyllis Schlafly were raped it would still be wrong, no matter her personal history.

NutellaonToast said...

I'm not attacking Giffords. I'm attacking you.

brad said...

So by being consistent in my opposition to the use of violent rhetoric in political debate and calling out a national figure who makes use of it I'm implicitly supporting wars I've always expressed opposition to? What the fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

I came to this web site, because I was looking for some thoughtful criticism of Megan McArdle's corporatrist crap.

But instead, I find the usual mindless and shameless "blame Sarah Palin for the Tuscon shooting" left-wing crap.

If the SaraPAC map is "unforgiven," where was the outrage in December 2004, when the Democratic Leadership Council published the "Targeting Strategy"/"Behind Enemy Lines" map, with targets on the Red states.

You guys are as much fucking hypocrites as the right-wing.