Democratic Congresswoman Among 12 Shot in Arizona

Boom_70 · Dec 15, 2014

Dick Cheney was there last night in his memorial clothes

21 · Jan 13, 2011

YankeeFan said:

21 said:

Interesting proposal from Mark Udall to Congress, suggesting that instead of sitting left v right during the State of the Union, the members of Congress sit all jumbled together. Show of unity, etc.

I've spent eight years being honorable with a Conservative, they can do it for one night! 8)
Click to expand...

I saw some reference to this, but didn't know where the idea came from.

I think it's a dumb idea. Why? Because it won't change anything and they'll be back to there usual ways the next day. (Or, Actually even before we get to the SOTU.)

It will just expose themselves as the shameless phonies they are.
Click to expand...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/13/colorados-mark-udall-wants-democrats-gop-to-sit-together-at-st/

21 · Jan 13, 2011

Full text of Mark Udall's letter to Congress:

Code:

[SIZE=13px]United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Overcoming Divided Government
January 12, 2011

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leaders McConnell and Pelosi:

We, the undersigned members of Congress, believe that partisan seating arrangements at State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future of the United States.

As we all know, the tenor and debate surrounding our politics has grown ever more corrosive – ignoring the fact that while we may take different positions, we all have the same interests. This departure from statesmanship and collegiality is fueled, in part, by continuous campaigns and divisive rhetoric. Political differences will always generate a healthy debate, but over time the dialogue has become more hateful and at times violent. But now the opportunity before us is to bring civility back to politics. It is important to show the nation that the most powerful deliberative bodies in the world can debate our differences with respect, honor and civility. It is not only possible, but it is something that nearly all members of Congress truly desire. To that end, we should set a small, but important, new tradition in American politics.

At the State of the Union address on January 25th, instead of sitting in our usual partisan divide, let us agree to have Democrats and Republicans sitting side by side throughout the chamber. Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room – while the other side sits – is unbecoming of a serious institution. And the message that is sends is that even on a night when the President is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.

On the night of the State of the Union address, House and Senate members from both parties ought to cross the aisle and sit together. As the nation watches, Democrats and Republicans should reflect the interspersed character of America itself. Perhaps, by sitting with each other for one night, we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.

I plan to send the attached letter to both House and Senate leadership indicating an intention to pursue a bipartisan seating arrangement. If you are interested in joining on this letter, please have a staff member contact Hillary Daniels.

With respect and admiration,

Mark Udall
United States Senator[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

YankeeFan · Jan 13, 2011

Ace said:

You seem to be arguing that this is both a lie and something we should not make a fuss over and that everyone does.

I don't really care one way or another, but get your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

It was a lie.

But, some who acknowledge that the original story was false, still see fit in criticizing him.

I think the criticism of him based on the false story is obviously baseless.

I think the criticism of him based on what did happen is less than (more than?) baseless.

YankeeFan · Jan 13, 2011

As long as Sheila Jackson Lee, Eliot Engel, and Jesse jackson, Jr. get aisle seats.

Ace · Jan 13, 2011

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

You seem to be arguing that this is both a lie and something we should not make a fuss over and that everyone does.

I don't really care one way or another, but get your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

It was a lie.

But, some who acknowledge that the original story was false, still see fit in criticizing him.

I think the criticism of him based on the false story is obviously baseless.

I think the criticism of him based on what did happen is less than (more than?) baseless.
Click to expand...

Hard for me to feel sorry for the Speaker of the House getting a little heat when the previous speaker was a synonym for Satan by the right.

YankeeFan · Jan 13, 2011

Ace said:

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

You seem to be arguing that this is both a lie and something we should not make a fuss over and that everyone does.

I don't really care one way or another, but get your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

It was a lie.

But, some who acknowledge that the original story was false, still see fit in criticizing him.

I think the criticism of him based on the false story is obviously baseless.

I think the criticism of him based on what did happen is less than (more than?) baseless.
Click to expand...

Hard for me to feel sorry for the Speaker of the House getting a little heat when the previous speaker was a synonym for Satan by the right.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a new era of civil discourse has been ushered in.

21 · Jan 13, 2011

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

You seem to be arguing that this is both a lie and something we should not make a fuss over and that everyone does.

I don't really care one way or another, but get your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

It was a lie.

But, some who acknowledge that the original story was false, still see fit in criticizing him.

I think the criticism of him based on the false story is obviously baseless.

I think the criticism of him based on what did happen is less than (more than?) baseless.
Click to expand...

Hard for me to feel sorry for the Speaker of the House getting a little heat when the previous speaker was a synonym for Satan by the right.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a new era of civil discourse has been ushered in.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to investigate that usher.

Ace · Jan 13, 2011

21 said:

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

YankeeFan said:

Ace said:

You seem to be arguing that this is both a lie and something we should not make a fuss over and that everyone does.

I don't really care one way or another, but get your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

It was a lie.

But, some who acknowledge that the original story was false, still see fit in criticizing him.

I think the criticism of him based on the false story is obviously baseless.

I think the criticism of him based on what did happen is less than (more than?) baseless.
Click to expand...

Hard for me to feel sorry for the Speaker of the House getting a little heat when the previous speaker was a synonym for Satan by the right.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a new era of civil discourse has been ushered in.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to investigate that usher.
Click to expand...

amraeder · Jan 13, 2011

Dick Whitman said:

amraeder said:

Dick Whitman said:

Armchair_QB said:

Dick Whitman said:

hondo said:

Roland of Gilead said:

Bob Cook said:

Having said that, Sarah Palin is still toast over her response. To paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes, Pete Seeger and the Byrds, there is a time to poo-fling, and a time to keep it in your hand. Palin's speech confirmed the worst fears of the non-true believers: that in a moment of crisis, she would not be able to get her act together.
Click to expand...

To be fair, were there really any non-true believers who were still wavering over that one? I think we had enough evidence to go on a while back.

And the true believers ain't changing their mind no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

And if her response was Churchill-like oratory, the true haters wouldn't change their minds either.
Yes, the response wasn't crafted very well. But it took 15 posts and 31 minutes from page one, post one of this thread for someone to try to blame Sarah Palin in some way (that would be you, sportspredictor) for this tragedy and it was one rain of shit on her for several days, despite the fact that the shooter probably couldn't have picked Palin out of a lineup and had no political philosophies anywhere in the same universe as hers. She finally defended herself. I wouldn't have blamed her if she had released a video with four letters to her detractors: STFU.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely fair speculation at first.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

Because motive is part of the story. And considering her rhetoric and stature, this was as plausible as anything.

And as long as the story was framed as speculation, not established fact from sources, it seems OK to me.
Click to expand...

"You supply the pictures, I'll supply the partisan witch-hunt."

This snark isn't really meant for you, DW, it's just an indication of my level of annoyance surrounding this whole thing. People are talking about having to regain civility, but they're (mostly) doing it so they can point fingers at the other side. It's...... annoying.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. It's not how I would have reported the story. Which is why I miss the days of the good ol' morning newspaper, when reporters had time to pursue a story and nail it down before going to press.

On the other hand, when a Democratic Congressman is nearly assassinated in one of the most viciously partisan states in the union, I can't say that, as a citizen, my first thoughts didn't turn to all of those loons walking around at Tea Party rallies with signs that said things like, "Next time, I come armed," or Sharron Angle talking about "Second Amendment solutions," or Sarah Palin telling the radio chick to "Reload."

It's not like one had to dig too far to find examples of this discourse. It has been front-and-center as discussion and concern fodder for months and months and months, with everyone on edge that someone might go off. Hell, Time magazine devoted a cover story to growing citizen militias last fall or summer.
Click to expand...

I guess my points are:

a) To think it in your head is fine. To actually say it out loud on the radio, tv, or in print without any evidence is stupid and irresponsible.

b) Both sides have said hostile shit. In a perfect world, people would just go "Hey, we've all screwed up. Let's move forward and be more careful." But few people are. Everyone's just using this to try and score political points. Both sides. It's... disgusting.

(EDIT: I don't literally mean everyone. A little hyperbole, I'm sure, but way too many people....)

hondo · Jan 13, 2011

Dick Whitman said:

old_tony said:

Dick Whitman said:

Armchair_QB said:

Dick Whitman said:

hondo said:

Roland of Gilead said:

Bob Cook said:

Having said that, Sarah Palin is still toast over her response. To paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes, Pete Seeger and the Byrds, there is a time to poo-fling, and a time to keep it in your hand. Palin's speech confirmed the worst fears of the non-true believers: that in a moment of crisis, she would not be able to get her act together.
Click to expand...

To be fair, were there really any non-true believers who were still wavering over that one? I think we had enough evidence to go on a while back.

And the true believers ain't changing their mind no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

And if her response was Churchill-like oratory, the true haters wouldn't change their minds either.
Yes, the response wasn't crafted very well. But it took 15 posts and 31 minutes from page one, post one of this thread for someone to try to blame Sarah Palin in some way (that would be you, sportspredictor) for this tragedy and it was one rain of shit on her for several days, despite the fact that the shooter probably couldn't have picked Palin out of a lineup and had no political philosophies anywhere in the same universe as hers. She finally defended herself. I wouldn't have blamed her if she had released a video with four letters to her detractors: STFU.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely fair speculation at first.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

Because motive is part of the story. And considering her rhetoric and stature, this was as plausible as anything.

And as long as the story was framed as speculation, not established fact from sources, it seems OK to me.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't fair at all in the case of the Fort Hood shooting.
Click to expand...

No, I think it was.

Tony, I vote Democrat because I largely support Democratic policies.

But I observe politics through a non-partisan, journalistic lens.
Click to expand...

In the Fort Hood case, it was all about NOT rushing to judgement (even though the guy yelled "Allah Akabar" while he was shooting). Pundits, commentators were all over the map about "let's not jump to conclusions." But in this case, it was OK to jump to any kind of wild-ass speculations, as long as we were speculating that Sarah Palin did everything up to and including driving the guy to the shopping center.

Boom_70 · Jan 13, 2011

hondo said:

Dick Whitman said:

old_tony said:

Dick Whitman said:

Armchair_QB said:

Dick Whitman said:

hondo said:

Roland of Gilead said:

Bob Cook said:

Having said that, Sarah Palin is still toast over her response. To paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes, Pete Seeger and the Byrds, there is a time to poo-fling, and a time to keep it in your hand. Palin's speech confirmed the worst fears of the non-true believers: that in a moment of crisis, she would not be able to get her act together.
Click to expand...

To be fair, were there really any non-true believers who were still wavering over that one? I think we had enough evidence to go on a while back.

And the true believers ain't changing their mind no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

And if her response was Churchill-like oratory, the true haters wouldn't change their minds either.
Yes, the response wasn't crafted very well. But it took 15 posts and 31 minutes from page one, post one of this thread for someone to try to blame Sarah Palin in some way (that would be you, sportspredictor) for this tragedy and it was one rain of shit on her for several days, despite the fact that the shooter probably couldn't have picked Palin out of a lineup and had no political philosophies anywhere in the same universe as hers. She finally defended herself. I wouldn't have blamed her if she had released a video with four letters to her detractors: STFU.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely fair speculation at first.
Click to expand...

Why?
Click to expand...

Because motive is part of the story. And considering her rhetoric and stature, this was as plausible as anything.

And as long as the story was framed as speculation, not established fact from sources, it seems OK to me.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't fair at all in the case of the Fort Hood shooting.
Click to expand...

No, I think it was.

Tony, I vote Democrat because I largely support Democratic policies.

But I observe politics through a non-partisan, journalistic lens.
Click to expand...

In the Fort Hood case, it was all about NOT rushing to judgement (even though the guy yelled "Allah Akabar" while he was shooting). Pundits, commentators were all over the map about "let's not jump to conclusions." But in this case, it was OK to jump to any kind of wild-ass speculations, as long as we were speculating that Sarah Palin did everything up to and including driving the guy to the shopping center.
Click to expand...

Dead on - ( Can we use that expression any more?)

We can go back through threads here on SJ and find many urging caution on terrorist attacks.

We can also find Timothy Mcveigh cited on everyone as counter argument.

Log in or Sign up

Democratic Congresswoman Among 12 Shot in Arizona

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

amraeder Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Democratic Congresswoman Among 12 Shot in Arizona

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

21 Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

amraeder Well-Known Member

hondo Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches