ariscus99

Quite a few more instances of hate and violence from the left here. Be forewarned there is a lot of graphic violence and foul language. Will you also just dismiss all of this CM? This stuff is outrageous.

Here's a nice quote from Chris Matthews

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?

49ers were definitely red and gold, the dolphins have somewhat feminine colors, teal and orange, the rams blue and gold, the old irish traditional color. Maybe we should change the way we pick, that Tom Brady is quite the hunk lol.

So I've searched back threw many pages of posts, and found the one I was talking about, and as it turns out it was your pal bjean who said it, in post #967 of the health care thread, and then again in the same thread on post #971. Same thinking from both of you tho, not really surprising, she tends to parrot everything you say. I will concede that point.

So Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't gay because "most conservatives" hate gays. So, do all liberals think exactly the same? You all have identical standpoints and thought processes? No? So would it be such a stretch to think that maybe someone who is a conservative just might not hate gays? Apparently to you, it would be, pretty narrow minded thinking for such a well rounded liberal. And it's great that all liberals love everyone and are empathetic towards everyone, without any outside help. Apparently not everyone is as Enlightened as you and your ilk. Except when it comes to thinking people could brake a mold a little by not being cookie cutter conservatives.

The auto vs semi auto argument is relevant for many reasons, the strongest being that the majority of pro gun people agree that regular civilians don't need automatic weapons, and most would agree that they shouldn't have them(the exception being Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, as well as couple of small mid west states). So if the media and people like you are going out stating he went and legally bought an automatic weapon and then killed people with it, it draws attention to the wrong things, it's untrue first and foremost, and it's already something most people are against, even pro gun people, like Congresswomen Giffords. So those FACTS need to be correct. I don't know why your being so combative on this point, I've already said I agree with you that regular civilians don't need 30 round magazines.

I like how when I make a mistake you go all high and mighty and try to belittle me, but when you make a mistake the response is "big deal." Even when your proven wrong, you can barely admit it. And you downplay it. Which is typical of the left. When the right makes a mistake it's this gargantuan ordeal, but when the left does, the typical response is oh well we were given false info no biggie. Talk about hypocritical.

DADT and gay marriage were apposed by republican's because most of them have beliefs of what a marriage should be, is shortsighted? Sure. Will it probably change? Yup, and the sooner the better. DADT was repealed, tho it's not been implemented as of yet, I believe. DADT had potentially dangerous consequences, tho I hope nothing negative will come of it. I've heard several military people state they are against it, not necessarily because they hate gays, but because it can make for uncomfortable and hostile circumstances. I've even heard some gays in the military who have remained nameless say they opposed it. A good quote that sums up the thought behind the potential danger in this comes from older, not so classic movie, Men In Black, when Will Smith first finds out about the aliens living among them he says to 'K' Tommy Lee Jones' character, people can take this, people are smart, and 'K' says to Will's character 'J' "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

So that didn't work to well for yesterday's game then. BCS national champions, definitely from the south. I must say, I was rooting for Oregon, closer too home, and I've been to a couple of Ducks games. They were pretty high on my list of schools to play for, Univ. of Washington was #1, ASU #2, Oregon #3. Other than rooting for schools that I know people who attend, or I've been too, I don't care much for college football because of the whole BCS ranking nonsense, I think they should have a playoff series like all other sports do. What do you(and anyone else still brave enough to venture in the off topic discussion forum) think about the superbowl? No favorite team's? I always think it's funny when the person who doesn't know much nor care much about a sport wins a pool or some other betting game. At the station we do fantasy football league's, and the person who's won the last two years, is the female engineer who picks teams and starters based on how "cute" they are. Drives us nuts, especially when she wins, which is most of the time.

Who's your pick for superbowl XLV? I'd love to see the Jet's and the Packers, I played against Aaron Rodgers in high school and with him one year in college, so since my Buccaneers are out of it my #2 team is the Packers, and I'd love to see them get the win. More realistically I see the Patriots and the Falcons with the Patriots taking it. What do you all say?

One of the biggest causes of state's financial woes was the loss of so much of their investments in the stock market during the bush years that was to fund pensions. Another big cause is the increased need for government services due to so many being unemployed. And a third reason is that with so many being unemployed there are fewer paying taxes.

The best thing to reduce deficits - federal and state- is to get people working. Not cutting services. And the best way we can get people working is to get corporate America to get their asses off the 2 trillion in assets that they are sitting on. There is consumer demand out there. But corporations don't want to hire. Government has gone pretty much as far as they can to improve conditions for economic growth - like allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital improvements. Imagine if I could do that when I put a new roof on my house? And there have been many, many small business tax breaks and incentives. It's time for Wall Street to man up and contribute to this economic recovery that served them well, starting with the bailout and continuing with their obscene CEO bonuses.

The tax level in CA being so high, is undoubtedly one of the reason's we are hurting, many, many companies have pulled up roots and left this state, thats a lot of tax money lost, because corporate tax in the state is so high. I've read more then a few stories of large companies moving to Utah and Nevada in recent years.

Unemployment is a big reason our state is in big trouble, however, a lot of the unemployment is self induced, by the hand of the unions. Look at the 4 major unions in CA and what they did when the economy collapsed: The 4 major unions in CA are teachers, the highway patrol, corrections officers, and cdf firefighters union. 3 of the 4 have outrageous retirement benefits, the highway partol, corrections, and firefighters, all retire at age 50 with 90% of their highest year pay. When the state was doing good that was fine, but unless the state was booming, these retirements are unsustainable,(I'm a member of the cdf firefighters union mind you, so I am going against myself here) but the unions fought for them anyways. Now when the economy collapsed, 2 of the unions tried to act as responsible groups, and 2 did not. The highway patrol and the correctional officers both went to the governor and basically said "look, we know we're facing hard times and we want to help, but we don't want our folks taking big pay cuts or furloughs, so instead of that we'll give up our pay raises for the next 5 years and our retiree's will also give up their cost of living increases for the next 5 years to help out." The governator and all the Sacramento folks said "okay." When they went to the firefighters union and the teachers union to see what they were willing to give up, both said nothing. Refused to give up pay raises, refused to take cuts, refused to pay more into their own retirements. So what did the state government do, they cut us, and they cut us deep. Teachers took the harder blow, but we were taking furloughs twice a month, basically a 9% pay cut on our base salary. Problem with the firefighters was, you couldn't tell us to go home for the day like you can an office worker, we have minimum staffing standards that must be met, so we were working for free on those two days a month, but they allowed us to take those days off at our leisure and were actually encouraged to take them off, and were told we had to burn furlough's before any vacations, sick leave, plp, or holidays. This creates a bit of a paradox however because you now have to pay somone time and half to fill behind us taking this "free" day off. So the state was actually spending more money on us taking furlough's then they would have had they just gave us a paycut. The union wouldn't allow it because they knew furloughs would work out better for us monitarily. The teachers also took furloughs but couldn't very well leave the students alone in the classroom two days a month, so they too were forced to work for free. But they didn't get the same benefit of taking days off whenever they want. They also were forced to have higher class sizes, fewer teachers, fewer support systems set up to help the teachers. And all of this for one reason; these two unions refused to give anything up. So yeah people blame the unions because the unions are to blame for some of it.

Many local government unions tried to mimic our retirement benefits and it has literally bankrupted several cities in the state, because now that things aren't great, they can't afford them and went broke, resulting in the layoff's of hundreds, probably thousands of people. This because the unions got greedy. Our union recently raised the retirement age to 55 for new members and they will also have to contribute 3.5% whereas we contribute 3%. But to say the unions were unfairly targeted during all of this just isn't true.

So, it was semi-automatic. That doesn't change the point I was making. No civilian needs to be able to buy a clip for a semi-automatic gun that shoots 33 bullets in a short period of time. The only reason would be to kill as many people as you can in the shortest period with a weapon that is easily concealed. So, I oppose the sale of these types of clips to civilians.

What it does change, is that you, the high and mighty fact checker, did not fact check, and is spewing false information. Also, again with false info, Glock does not make a 33 bullet capacity magazine, they make a one called a 30, that in reality holds 29 plus one in the chamber of the gun for a total of 30. I agree there is no real reason for these types of clips in anyone's hands, LEO's or civilians, if you knew much about guns, you would know that this clip makes a gun horrible to control and use. LEO's don't want them for themselves. While I can attest to them being fun to shoot, there is no real need, and I don't think the world would fall apart if they weren't on the market.

So by your logic you only support teachers because you and your late husband were teachers? And I imagine you have some proof Cheney would hate gays if his daughter wasn't one? What is wrong with having something affect your life and enlighten your viewpoint? Why is that horrible. You tried to say the same thing about me, because I have to cousins and several friends who are gay, your claim was the only reason I'm okay with gays is because I'm related to some and know a some, well, what is wrong with that, if I wasn't related or friends with them, maybe I wouldn't know all that I do about them. Life is a learning experience, and I'll take all the opportunities presented to me. For the record I don't ever remember having a problem with gays, and was pretty happy for my two cousins when they told me, as both had lived lives full of horrible relationships with men, and when they discovered in themselves what they did, they both seemed much happier.

There are several reports (unconfirmed) that he was making phone death threats and the cops told them not to Press charges as he was being taken care of by the mental health system. If true, they ****ed up. Which shows, if the police had properly done the job, he would not have been allowed to purchase or own a weapon.

I'm not sure you fully understand the difference in certain weapons, the weapon he used was a Glock 19, which is SEMI-AUTOMATIC, you claim that he was using an automatic weapon, which means he pulls the trigger once and fires all of the rounds, what he had in FACT was semi auto, meaning he had to pull the trigger once per round fired, this does make a big difference many ways, first and most importantly he wouldn't have been able to control an automatic Glock 19 with a 30 round magazine, without a shoulder stock attached to it which he didn't have. And while it's called a 30 round magazine it only holds 29 rounds. One bullet doesn't make any difference, the facts should be out there, factually. These are not semantics, these are FACTS.

A bit of good news for gun rights activists,apparently this wasn't the first run in with the cops, and more importantly, he made death threats that the cops ignored. so yet again, this isn't a failure of gun laws, it's a failure of enforcement of the laws that would have prevented him from owning them legally in the first place.

Here is an instance of a democrat doing something I mostly agree with. New CA governor Jerry Brown, looks like he serious about cutting spending.

From the article;

California Governor Jerry Brown said he'll ask voters to keep tax increases from expiring while he cuts $1 billion from universities and slashes public employee pay as much as 10 percent while trimming $12.5 billion from spending.

"We're going to have to live in a more conservative fashion," he said in Sacramento, the capital, today. "Debt is a powerful tool. It has to be kept in balance."

Brown's plan chops an amount equal to 10 percent of the current year's $125.3 billion in spending. Cuts include $1.7 billion from Medi-Cal, the state's version of the Medicaid health-care system for the poor; $1.5 billion from CalWorks, a welfare-to-work program

"Schools have borne the brunt of spending reductions in recent years, so this budget maintains funding at the same level as the current year," the governor said.

Very glad to here that last part, as my wife is a teacher, and they have taken a huge hit in recent years, also looks like not many cuts to public safety, which again is nice. He is asking CA's to vote to not get rid of recent tax increases, and the recent hike in vehicle registration. If only the nation could start down this same rode. While I didn't like Brown, and as usual chose not to vote in the governors race here in CA because I personally didn't agree with either candidate, my union backed Brown, only because we just signed a new contract for the next 5 years that only us or the governor have the power to open and alter, and Whitman said she would, Brown said he wouldn't.

Here's another for you, in 2008 barrack obama(i think a few people have heard of him cm) said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Just a simple example of how people on BOTH sides use the same type of speech. Believe it, or not.

I will apologize for the unemployment figure, I have searched and cannot find anything that says what I posted. I heard the figure while watching your ol' pal Rachel Maddow the other day, one of her guest's was repeating the number and no one tried to argue with it, I guess I should have fact checked a little better. Of all the shows I would believe info from without fact checking, hers is typically the bottom of the list. I will concede there were not 8 million jobs lost. You keep making personal attacks, which is quite funny, given your stance on what that means. Francis Fox Piven was not talking about the tea party, she was saying, that she cannot figure out why the democrats and more specifically the lower class unemployed American's have not started a violent revolt. Van Jones has stated the same thing. Who's ever heard of Francis Fox Piven? Well, her and her late husband were close friends, and "advisors" to Clinton, and she has been said to be a obama mentor. And we all know who Van Jones is, top down, bottom up, and inside out right? You are in such DEEP denial about the FACT that both left and right wing, or, republican, and democrat alike, have used these target/bullseye's on people, and have both used hate speech, just to say, "those that you have shown don't count because I don't like them" is puerile, and you know it. I'm not saying the right wing doesn't say these things, all I'm saying is so does the left, and for whatever reason, probably your deep seated denial, and blind faith of all things democrat you can't see this. IT HAPPENS, deal with it.

I haven't attacked you personally, I call you a liberal because you consider yourself one, not as insult, you very clearly are calling me your version of a "neocon" as an insult. Funny you just posted that when someone can't refute another post they turn to personal attacks. "Hey kettle, your black" said the pot. The definition of the word liberal is used in the media by many and has the same meaning as I've used for it, so what is that you said? "it has been used in the mainstream media, as I have used it, and I will continue to use it. When words are used in our lexicon as times change, they often take on new meanings." So I guess thats the new meaning then right? Can't argue with your logic. Two lame maps, big deal? Well it's showing the left doing what the right does. I also posted people calling for and rooting for a violent revolution by the left. But, hey big deal, they don't mean it, and if they do, well, not as much as someone on the right would mean it. As for personal attacks, here's one; your math skills are sub par. I clearly stated multiple times the unemployment payout is $1800 a month, in what world does that = $300 a week? Looks more like $450 a week to me. You still have defended the point that the left and the dem's in particular are making people more dependent on the government, it's much easier to just rely on the handouts now a days then actually working. If my buddy were married and she collected the same handout as he does your looking at a combined salary of 3600 a month, thats $43,000 a year, thats pretty decent, especially when you factor in the FREE health care via medi-cal.

MSNBC guest, calling for VIOLENT REVOLUTION

Francis Fox Pivencalling for Violent Revolution on NYE.

Several Leftwingers openly rooting for Violent Revolution.

So I post PROOF, of the left using the same tactics and you just what? choose to ignore it? Is that how that works? That seems very similar to you making up your own definitions to words and using them. You can say all you want I do that to the term liberal, but the only reason I use it is because you call yourself one, you were calling me a neocon in an attempt to insult me, and when it didn't work, and I showed you that you didn't know what you were talking about, you were using a definition that is made up, you decided that definition is the one you'll use anyways, because you want too. My new definition of yellow is a cloudless night in October, does that make it the new definition? You talk about backpedaling, your falling down backwards so hard it's laughable. Literally.

I tried to post some video's but this forum is HORRIBLE for posting any media.

The daily kos was quoted just a few days ago as saying "Giffords is dead to us". They've since removed that from their website, I'll search later to find the original quote, I've seen it floating around a few different places. You are living in a complete dream world if you honestly believe the left doesn't engage in the same "hate speech" or "war speech" whatever your calling it these days.

From 2004

From 2009

Targets, gasp, they must be calling for violence those damned democrats. Again, cm I challenge you to have the courage, to realize "your side" does the exact same things as "my side."

Do I get the same benefit of just making up a definition to a word to fit the use I want it too if the real definition doesn't agree with me? Can I call you a communist if in my mind I really think it means something else? This is BY FAR your worst argument to date. My wife, the 3 friends that over watching football right now and I all literally LOL'ed when I read that aloud. Thank you. And go Packers!!!

Just curious if you actually know what a neocon is? You throw it around and than talk about things that are not in line with the neoconservative beliefs. I have no problem being considered a neocon.

From wiki;

Neoconservatism is a Political philosophy that combines a pragmatic approach to economics with a traditional approach to culture and Social issues. ^[1] In Economics, unlike paleoconservatives andlibertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a limited welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.^[2] On Military issues it defines national Interests in a manner that allows for the inclusion of ideological interests e.g. the defense of other nations with similar ideologies for geopolitical purposes.

Except every person who knew him, who has come forward, has said he was a "liberal, a leftist, left wing" etc. etc. nobody who knows this guy has come forward and said anything about right wing, the only people blurting out right wing hatred are the people on the left who are now mortified that one of there own did something horrible.

From the Dakota Voice

Though Leftist blogs and commentators wasted absolutely no time in declaring the gunman who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was a Tea Party conservative (before anyone even knew his name), I held off on making any comments until a little more was known. It was automatically assumed that, since Giffords was a Democrat and that a (gasp) gun was used, the shooter must be an evil Tea Party conservative type.Now details are starting to trickle in.

Fox News reports his name is Jared Loughner, though some other accounts now say it is Jared Laughner.

Business Insider reports he is an Arizona native and an Afghanistan war vet.

Some of the information coming out about him could fit in the profile of a conservative, but most of it fits the profile of a liberal…if not an outright wackjob that defies political categorization.

Business Insider also reports that his YouTube profile lists some of his favorite books including Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. (Though I've read all those, I don't think I'd call ANY of them my favorite).

A WorldNetDaily article quotes someone on Twitter who says they knew him in high school and college, and that he was very liberal, a Leftist.

Another report says one of his videos contains railing about a "second United States Constitution," and something about currency. He says he won't pay debts with a currency not backed by gold or silver, and that he does not trust in God.

Another video below shows him in what appears to be Islamic garb and burning an American flag. That same video also contains an obnoxious heavy metal song that says something about "bodies."

UPDATE

: Though Atlas Shrugs said Fox News stated, others have now pointed out that this particular video was merely one listed as a "Favorite" on the shooter's YouTube profile. The Atlas Shrugs website does still state that the figure in the video is supposedly the shooter (video taken by a friend?).

Still another of his videos talks about mind control and also says that religion is a form of mind control. The video has background music that sounds like a hip-hop version of some sort of Islamic beat.

UPDATE

: CNS News reports a former classmate of the shooter says he was a "pot smoking loner."

UPDATE

: A Tweet from Stars and Stripes (the official newspaper of the U.S. military) earlier stated that Army officials have no record of military service by this individual (it is being alleged that he is an Afghanistan veteran).

UPDATE

: The Arizona Daily Star reports the Army rejected Loughner as a recruit in 2008. Not surprising, given everything that seems to be coming out about this loon. Loughner's definitely been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, hasn't he (wink, wink)?

This guy seems to be thoroughly nuts. I don't know of any remotely sane liberal or conservative who would approve of shooting innocent people as he has done. So blaming people who had nothing to do with the crime as Leftists have rushed to do is of limited, at best, genuine value.

However, Leftists do in fact realize that, if they can spit it right and spin it often enough and consistently enough, they hope to successfully brand conservatives and Tea Party patriots as being responsible for this crime. They will (and already are) saying that because conservatives have refused to go along with their socialist agenda, we have been "divisive" and "full of hate" and have thus created a "climate of hostility" that has fostered such crimes.

Never mind that conservatives are always the first to champion the law-abiding cause. Never mind that conservatives are always the first to lift up the value of innocent human life. Never mind that conservatives are always the most reliable advocates of law and order. Never mind that conservatives are always the ones who are toughest on crime.

No, facts and logic are unimportant (are liabilities, really) when liberals see something they believe they can spin to put their ideological enemies at a disadvantage.

Remember when Republicans swept congress in 1994 and the Democrats lost control of the entire congress for the first time in 40 years? They were beside themselves. And when that nutjob Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, what was the first blame-game played by the Clintonistas and other Leftists: blame the conservatives. Blame Rush Limbaugh and "hate radio." Blame all those evil Right-wingers who refused to acquiesce quietly to their socialist agenda.

Back then, it worked. It stopped the conservative agenda cold, and turned a Republican congress that was finally turning the United States back to its freedom and limited government roots into…a bunch of impotent ninnies afraid of their own shadow, lest someone call them names.

Of course, back then, Fox News was just getting off the ground, there was no real internet community to speak of, no blogosphere and no conservative news conduit. That kind of crap isn't going to fly today. Oh, the Left will definitely try (they already are), but conservatives aren't going to cower in the corner and give up like we did in 1995.

So if you'd like to change your mind and start acting responsibly, you liberals, and blame the person who committed this terrible act, fine. But if you want to shamelessly use the blood of innocent people to fuel your vehicle to try and shut down people you cannot best in an ideological contest of wits, go for it. Show yourselves for the shallow, shameless curs that you are. And get ready to have your nose bloodied bad, because conservatives aren't going to meekly put up with it this time.

You show that you are against personal responsibility all the time. From wanting to further the liberal agenda of making more people dependent upon the government instead of themselves, to constantly blaming others for problems and crimes that are committed by an individual. As far as you saying, it's funny that I know someone that knows someone that abused the system, that statement would be wrong. The person who I was talking about is a very close friend. And to be perfectly honest, I don't really blame him for collecting unemployment when he's perfectly capable of finding another job, he'd have to work his butt off to just break even with what the government gives him for free. Why work 2 or 3 crap jobs 40-60 hours a week to break even with the handout your getting?

As for the bartender story, I didn't say it never happened, I said I had never heard of it. Now that I have I've lost even more faith in country. Who would you all have blamed if he had gotten drunk at home and killed someone? The liquor store who sold him too much alcohol for one person to safely drink? Bars and drunks go hand in hand. Bars serve people who are intoxicated, probably more than they serve people who are sober. Have you ever been in a bar? If bars didn't serve intoxicated patrons they would all go out of business. The only thing that bartender should allowed to be charged with is serving alcohol after hours.

I just don't understand the thinking behind blaming someone else for another's actions. About the only time I would agree with holding someone else partially responsible for another's actions is with a child. And I use that term loosely. When a "child" reaches 15 or 16 in most states they can be charged as adult for various crimes, at which point I no longer think we should hold the parents liable. Personal responsibility and accountability, seem to have no meaning to the left, and this case, where before anyone even knew the killers name, and the left was already throwing blame at the tea party is a perfect example.

Trust a neocon to shoot the messenger. You don't agree with her father's facts so he is ignornant. What arrogance. What right do you have to call her father, who is privy to information you aren't, ignorant? Her father knows about the threats she receives for her pro-healthcare, pro-choice stance. And what the tea party did to campaign against her. Her office window was smashed. I'm sure there are other things he knows about that haven't been revealed to anyone but the FBI.

And with what is known of this guy - her dad or the shooter (I don't know who you were talking about) - he is at best a democrat and at worst a full fledged psychopath? You would be wrong if you were referring to her father and I doubt the shooter's political party will be revealed but what do you want to bet he has some internet, anti-government rants?

There is plenty of blame to go around for this horrible shooting. And like I said those whose words promote hatred of the government and guns as a remedy share in the blame. It doesn't take much for the unstable to go over the edge and those who are in positions of influence need to choose their words more carefully. But then that would make them politically correct and - horrors - they sure wouldn't want to be that.

I'm talking about the shooter, all signs, as of now, point to him being a crazy left winger, mad that she is not liberal enough. As of now, no one, except the father is linking anything to the tea party or and tea party people. I wasn't aware of us holding bar tenders responsible for drunks drinking too much. Personal responsibility, I know libs hate it, but its something that has to find it's way back into our society or we'll continue falling apart. I literally had to read that post like 5 or 6 times to get my head around you saying that. A drunk kills someone and you blame the bartender? Are you kidding me. What if he got drunk at home? Do you blame the Jack Daniels company? Or Grey Goose? I've not heard of any bartenders being help accountable for a drunk killing someone. The most I've seen in that aspect is when a minor kills someone while under the influence, the police will go after whomever they got the alcohol from. Personal responsibility, again. If a 17, 18, 19 year old is capable of making choices on their own, I don't think that anyone should be responsible for their actions except for them. Why are you so against PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? It doesn't make any sense to me. Will you also want to go after the gun maker and ammunition maker of the weapon and bullets that killed these people? There is not plenty of blame to go around, there is blame on the person who pulled the trigger, period. The only arrogance I've seen is from the people saying that this is something that it is not. To demand an apology from anyone other than the shooter is arrogant, and ridiculous.

I still stand by my first comment; no one is to blame except the person who pulled the trigger. As for her father, it's too bad he didn't have more information before he made such an ignorant statement. With what is known of this guy, at best he's a democrat, at worst a full fledged left wing psychopath. But still, NO ONE is to blame, except the shooter.

Violent left wing revolution OBVIOUSLY the answer. I challenge you CM, to have the courage, to post the left wing lunatics as often as you post the right wing, because they are there, you just choose to ignore them.