[Vision2020] evil in Tucson

[Joe Campbell]

You put this forth like it is a fact instead of the theory of the day
put out by the Palin camp.

Gabrielle Giffords took the marks to be crosshairs just like I did,
and still do. Funny how the Palin theory that they were "surveyors
symbols" was not announced then, or sometime before the election. I
first heard it after the shooting. Convenient.

I never said you were "stupid"; I said the claims you put in my mouth
were stupid.

I saw Beck last night at 10pm. I'm a working guy too.

I never said ONLY comments from the right had an influence on the
shooting. I said it is not absurd to think that SOME comments from the
right had an influence on the shooting, in particular a poster (not
really anything said but a poster that was on Palin's website for a
very long time, time enough to make it clear what its intended purpose
and meaning was if she wished to do so). I said nothing about the
left. Again, you're putting words in my mouth because you can't refute
what I've actually said.

Condescension, belittlement, misrepresentation, insults are the only
way you can communicate with folks with whom you disagree. It is
simply impossible for you to do otherwise. Folks are wondering whether
we all can play nice and I'm really trying. You cannot. And that, in a
nut shell, is the answer.



On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Even if it was coincidence that the crosshairs poster was posted on Palin's
> website and one of the humans targeted was actually shot, any decent person
> would have apologized and said enough is enough, things have gone too far.
> She didn't."
>
>
> Let's set the record straight. The crosshairs on Sarah Palin's map are not
> crosshairs. They are
> surveyors symbols. Crosshairs on a reticle (the sighting pattern within a
> riflescope) do not extend
>  beyond the circle, surveyors symbols do. Also, the color is consistent with
> surveyors symbols.
> The map with the surveyors symbols was marking "geographical" significance,
> NOT rifle targets.
>
> You really need to make up your mind. You insist that I am "stupid" when
> I remark that you
> have consistently tried to connect this tragedy to conservative comments of
> actions and then
> immediately start in again with the Sarah Palin shtick? In the same vein you
> admit that this sort
> of rhetoric comes from both sides but continue to labor under the impression
> that only the
> commentary from the right had any pernicious influence on the Arizona
> madman.
>
> I'm afraid I can't comment on the Glenn Beck show as, being a working guy,
> I'm not near a
> television set at that time of day. I do however feel completely comfortable
> saying that
> I very much doubt that anyone other than you is mistaking his shows
> commentary for journalism.
>
>
> g
>
>
> From: Joe Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:31 AM
> To: Gary Crabtree
> Cc: the lockshop ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
> I watched Glen Beck tonight for about 10 minutes and I'm guessing you did
> too since he said the same thing. I read Huffington but haven't done so for
> over a week. None of this matters.
> What does matter is that you continue to distort what I say.
> I never said "all the hateful rhetoric comes from the right." When you gave
> an example of violent rhetoric from Obama I didn't deny it, I condemned it.
>
> I never said "the Tucson murder is under the pernicious influence of a
> conservative dogma if not an out tea party republican operative."
> That is a stupid claim. Your idea of dialogue is to put stupid, hyperbolic
> words in my mouth and criticize them.
> Even if it was coincidence that the crosshairs poster was posted on Palin's
> website and one of the humans targeted was actually shot, any decent person
> would have apologized and said enough is enough, things have gone too far.
> She didn't.
> Instead I watched as Beck explained how the supposed connection to Palin was
> an indication of the communist takeover. (I'm not making this up.) But I'm
> the one who "continue(s) to politicize this horror show."
> Again, each of your posts supports the point I've actually been making. The
> far right, you included, continues to demonize the left with its wild,
> over-the-top rhetoric. And that can't be a good thing.
> And in a world where Beck's program counts as news journalism, a connection
> between the violent rhetoric of the far right and the Tucson "horror show"
> cannot be regarded as absurd.
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:15 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> "How do my claims benefit me or the left?"
>
> That truly is hard to say. In my eyes they don't but you continue to bang
> the kos/huffington party line drum none the less. The incessant repetition
> of how all the hateful rhetoric comes from the right despite the voluminous
> evidence to the contrary. (Michelle Malkin pretty well put that one to bed
> for good and all) The unending contention that the Tucson murder is under
> the pernicious influence of a conservative dogma if not an out tea party
> republican operative despite increasing information that the freak is mostly
> apolitical and if anything trending left (the Communist Manifesto and an
> insatiable taste for the chronic not being hallmarks of the right wing
> lifestyle) Why don't you simply solve this mystery for me and the rest of
> your puzzled audience? Why do you continue to politicize this horror show?
>
> g
> From: Joe Campbell
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:39 PM
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
> You're joking if you think this one case shows the two sides are equal.
> And what political points am I scoring? That claim makes no sense. How do my
> claims benefit me or the left?
> You are a great example of the over the top, insulting rhetoric of the
> right, one that tries to demonize and misrepresent everything the left says,
> by the way. So keep writing! Every one of your posts helps to make my point!
> So you think violent rhetoric is "natural"? That's good to know. I'll save
> this post!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 5:26 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> No "two wrongs" game being played anywhere I can see. In your earlier posts
> you rather shrilly insisted that the "violent rhetoric" was a one sided
> phenomenon emanating predominantly from the right and I offered a few
> examples to show your error. Nothing more and nothing less. I did not
> contend that anything was OK because the other side was doing it as well. My
> reason for responding to you at all was that I think that using tragedy to
> attempt to score cheap political points is not helpful to say the very
> least.
>
> As to your question of where I stand on the issue, it depends on your
> sensibilities and semantics. I have no real problem with analogy such as
> Obama used nor with NSA's. On the other hand, if you say that BHO is evil
> incarnate, is responsible for all that is ailling the country and must be
> stopped immeadiately by any and all means possible, I think you've stepped
> over the edge in the same way that showing photos of GWB with captions
> saying 'assassinate this man' are over the top. One is analogy and the other
> is incitement and it doesn't require genius to tell the difference.
>
> In any compitition it's natural to use terms of conflict such as beat,
> fight, target, eliminate and so on and a reasonable person understands this
> and doesn't read more into it then is intended. A lunatic might hear it and
> do something awful. They might also hear something quite innocuous and
> freak. Should we tip toe about and censor our every word so as not to set
> off the nut balls? Or should the rhetoric police relax and realize that
> the crazies will sometimes go off for reasons indecipherable by the sane.
>
>
>
>  g
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
> Cc: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
> Gary,
>
> You keep playing this "two wrongs" game.
>
> I'd like to know where you stand on it. My view is that violent
> rhetoric is wrong. It was wrong for Obama to make that kind of comment
> if it was directed toward his political enemies. Just because I'm a
> Democrat and voted for him doesn't make it right. What's your view? Do
> you think it was wrong for him to say this and that such violent
> rhetoric, directed at one's political opponents is wrong? Or do you
> think it is OK for folks to say this sort of thing?
>
> The view can't be that it was wrong for Obama but not for, say, NSA or
> Palin. But which is: wrong for both groups or OK for both? I think it
> is wrong for both.
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
> wrote:
>> I assume that by violent rhetoric you would include comments made by those
>> who are the last word in "viable presidential candidate."
>>
>> "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in
>> Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly
>> like a good brawl..."
>>
>> I guess from now on instead of targeting voters, candidates, or positions
>> we
>> will speak of humanely capturing them to returned to a safe area where
>> they
>> can live out the remained of their lives surrounded by love and comfort.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>>> Furthermore . . .
>>>
>>> The ONLY person that should be held directly responsible for the murders
>>> in Tuscon is Jared Loughner.
>>>
>>> However . . .
>>>
>>> The grandizing by Phelps of such heinous murderous activity as that
>>> committed by Loughner takes on an even worse stench when coupled with the
>>> "target map" and comments like "Don't retread, reload" and "Second
>>> amendment remedies" feed the imbalanced minds of those like Jared
>>> Loughner
>>> with a false sense of patriotism when they commit such acts.
>>>
>>> Certainly, average, well-adjust people can easily distinguish between
>>> controversial commentary and violent rhetoric, but . . .
>>>
>>> How many Jared Loughners are we to confront before sources of such
>>> rhetoric are called in to account?
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, January 10, 2011 9:47 am, keely emerinemix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It took all of five minutes, Visionaires, for my conscience to to remind
>>>> me that describing even someone as evil as Fred Phelps as less than
>>>> human
>>>> was wrong of me. I believe his works to be those of an evil man,
>>>> something I can't imagine anyone not named "Phelps" would disagree with
>>>> and something I think Scripture would affirm, but I used language in
>>>> anger
>>>> that I have criticized in others, and I'm sorry for it.
>>>>
>>>> I trust that if Dale Courtney uses my initial Phelps post on his blog,
>>>> he'll have the integrity to refer to this one as well.
>>>>
>>>> Keely
>>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: kjajmix1 at msn.com
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:35:11 -0800
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My brother in Tucson says that unmitigated barbarian evil in the form of
>>>> the Rev. Fred Phelps will descend later this week on the city as the
>>>> first
>>>> victims of the shooting will be released from the hospital and funerals
>>>> for the dead will begin. Phelps will be praising God for the massacre
>>>> and
>>>> lauding the work of Jared Lee Loughner.
>>>>
>>>> The description of Phelps above is mine; my angry and distraught
>>>> brother's
>>>> words were utterly unfit for quoting, just as Phelps' is utterly unfit
>>>> to
>>>> claim the title "Reverend," or even the designation "human."
>>>>
>>>> Keely
>>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>>> change
>>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>
>>> - Unknown
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/09/11
>> 23:34:00
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/09/11
> 23:34:00
>
> ________________________________
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================