moonbattery logo

Nov 26 2011

Moonbats Still Blame Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords Shooting

Incredible. Even now moonbats are trying to blame Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner’s crimes due to some surveyor symbols on a map the left-leaning pothead Loughner is extremely unlikely ever to have seen. Piers Morgan races Gabby Giffords’s husband Mark Kelly to the absolute bottom and beats him by a nose:

Not even Loughner himself is sufficiently psychotic to see a connection between his shooting spree and Sarah Palin.

On tips from GoY and Just TheTip. Hat tip: The Conservatory.



89 Responses to “Moonbats Still Blame Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords Shooting”

  1. GoY says:

    First he says she’s not responsible, then he says she should apologize. If she’s not responsible, what the heck does she need to apologize for?

  2. hiram says:

    It’s moonbat logic, GoY… it doesn’t have to make sense. Actually, if it did, the moonbats would find a reason to denounce it.

  3. Cao says:

    They think she needs to apologize for her mere existence. Strong beautiful women that have it all and are conservative really bother them to the extent of insanity. They are retarded and have warped thinking.

  4. Gerry says:

    Don’t expect them to make any connection to the OWS threat against Republican Gov Haley….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLhpFhz1N8w

  5. Murray says:

    Yes – Gerry, I just heard the same thing..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLhpFhz1N8w

  6. lao's mangina says:

    CROSS HAIRS!!!11!!11111elevennty!!!11

  7. logic Mine says:

    Gabby saw the crosshairs on the map and knew it would incite violence?

    I don’t think so. Unless you’re talking about liberals commiting the violent acts because it normally seems that it doesn’t take much to push a liberal to violence.

    FACT: They are not cross-hairs, they were surveyor marks.
    FACT: Even if they were misunderstood as “cross-hairs” there is nothing to insinuate that they were cross-hairs for violence to be condoned. Cross-hairs are used on a lot of things besides guns such as Medical Equipment, Surveying Equipment, Industrial Machinery and a myriad of other uses.

    So, the whole use of the “Cross-hair” arguement is subjective and only works if that every time you see a cross hair in the X-ray room you are afraid they are going to shoot you with a gun, will that ever make it a viable excuse.

    Leave it to liberal retards to make a simple thing –complicated. Its amazing that they can go to the bathroom by themselves without soiling their garments.

  8. Pete says:

    The guy was a pot-smoking, unstable, occultist/satanist, leftist…how come people with mental dysfunctions tend to be nationalist or internationalist leftists?

  9. Martijn says:

    Another “Exceptional America” moment…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkywyGoQ2yU&feature=player_embedded#!

    ….ain’t y’all special!

  10. IslandLifer says:

    Typical left. Cuts him off right before he tries to state democrats share the blame. He needs that tea and crumpet accent slapped out of his mouth

  11. Fiberal says:

    Liberals concocting an incitement to violence when liberalism incites violence.

    Lobotomized first graders in a crashed yellow bus would be embarrassed.

  12. logic Mine says:

    Yes Martijn, we Americans ARE special.

    Because, unlike your communist countries, as you can see in the video that our shelves are FULL at our stores! It’s called Capatalism!

  13. geofraz says:

    Mark Kelly should be careful. Everytime you do interviews with the likes of a Piers Morgan, you can’t help but get a little douchebag juice on ya.

    I don’t really blame Kelly. When someone hurts the ones you love, heads must roll! And he did say Palin “obviously isn’t responsible”, for what that’s worth. But Morgan, that pretentious, limp-wristed limey is supposed to be a journalist and that brings with it the serious burden of actually checking your fucking facts!

  14. TED says:

    DemocRAT ploy 16: A lie told often enough becomes the turth – from Papa Lenin.

  15. TED says:

    Martijn says: November 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Jealous because they won’t take your EBT card Commie!!??

  16. lao says:

    I do enjoy Blount’s continued spin about “surveyor symbols”.

    HANNITY: A lot of these initial stories, Governor, had to do with this map that your PAC had put up during the last campaign, and the fact that Congresswoman Giffords was one of the people on, quote, “the target list,” in the crosshairs that were there. What could you tell us about this map? And I’ll get into more questions after that?

    PALIN: …the graphic that we used was crosshairs targeting the different districts.

  17. Ghost of FA Hayak says:

    Martijn
    Now ain’t this interesting ?
    You, throwing stones from the snug harbor of your utopia.
    Was it ok for OWS protesters to riot for free college tuition ?
    Was it ok for Greeks to riot for more government ?
    Was it ok for London youth to riot,,,ummm,,just because ?
    Here is a good pop quiz for you Martijn.
    What do all these riots have in common ?
    Answer
    In every case, liberals such as yourself found a third party to blame for the rioters actions.
    Every broken window is an opportunity to advance your agenda, isn’t it Martijn ?

  18. logic Mine says:

    Cross-hairs have nothing to do with violence.

    The CROSS-HAIR arguement that it incites violent acts is USELESS and has no logic in it whatsoever. Only the illogical would use it as a graphic to incite violence.

  19. Ghost of FA Hayak says:

    And who could forget this timeless interview by Olberdeusch of some leftist nut
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxRbaKqeOaI&feature=player_embedded#!

  20. Amalia says:

    I’m not afraid to say it lao – she’d be wrong, then, if she thinks they’re “target” marks. They’re clearly surveyor symbols and anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know that.

    Cute how you didn’t even address the actual topic – whether or not Palin should have called Kelly and Giffords to apologize for something she wasn’t responsible for. Then again, you probably don’t need to because we all know you think Palin is responsible and should be charged with murder over some stupid graphic the shooter has probably never seen before in his life.

  21. Lao in Space says:

    CROSSHAIRS! CROSSHAIRS! CROSSHAIRS! SQUAAAAWK!

  22. angryK9 says:

    Dear Martinjin. Thanks for the link to that shopping riot. I especially liked the quick shot of the woman with a case of plumbers butt. Still trying to figure out what it had to do with this story though. Maybe something to do this occurring in walmart so those were mostly goverment subsidized democrat voters?

  23. Agnostic Conservative says:

    Moonbats are moonbats are moonbats.

  24. Sam Adams says:

    I think maybe we are looking at this a little bit wrong. When I hear the OWS moonbats repeat the words of each speaker at their rallys, I get the feeling that these folks don’t actually think for themselves. They are, indeed, reactionary. Thus if they see “cross-hairs” they imagine that it actually will cause certain moonbats to unthinkingly follow the “suggestion” and engage in acts of violence. Fortunately most leftist moodbats don’t actually own firearms, otherwise we might actually see far more acts of leftist violence.

  25. Spider says:

    It seems the anti-2nd Amendment left now has a new prop to wheel out whenever the topic comes up. First it was Jim Bradey, now it’s Gabby Giffords.

  26. Festivus says:

    Good god, not this again.

    btw, logic Mine is spot on. It doesn’t matter one whit what the damn symbol is.

    For the record, it’s a surveyor’s symbol.

    However, you have to assume the person that incorporated the symbol onto the map knew it was a surveyor’s symbol and intended it to be interpreted as such. Which is doubtful.

    It’s close enough to a cross hairs symbol (to a lay person) so that it really doesn’t matter what the hell it is.

    Besides, the bottom line is that it’s entirely irrelevant.

    And yet, douche bags like Piers Morgan and lao persist in trying to connect the non-existent dots anyway.

  27. Lao chokes on cock says:

    Actually Kelly and Giffords are tools. Its a surprise in that Kelly was a military officer and should know better.

    If they want to be props for the Regime then the gloves are off. Things like:

    Its lucky she was a lib. All the bullet did was let a little air and dust out.

    can now be said.

  28. wingmann says:

    Martijn says:
    November 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm Another “Exceptional America” moment…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkywyGoQ2yU&feature=player_embedded#!

    ….ain’t y’all special!
    __________________________________________________

    MARTIJN is a Dutch association that advocates the acceptance of pedophilia and legalization of sexual relationships between adults and children….

    just sayin’

  29. geofraz says:

    Holy Shit! wingmann is right!

    From Wikipedia (not exactly a conservative institution):

    “Vereniging MARTIJN is a Dutch association that advocates the acceptance of pedophilia and legalization of sexual relationships between adults and children.[1] The group is widely reviled but not outlawed.[2][3] MARTIJN was expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association in 1994.”

    Martijn has, in my mind, invalidated any position he/she/it has on any fucking subject matter henceforth!

    If you don’t know that fucking little kids is wrong, you have no place in a free society, indeed, in life!

  30. dmgore says:

    Lao~
    Even if they were crosshairs and admitted as such, so what? What does that mean?
    DM

  31. sick of it says:

    LAO IS OFF TOPIC.

    BAN HIM NOW!

  32. oldguy says:

    If you really examine the history of the English, with their treatment of other western peoples under their sway (Irish and Scots to name a few), you may conclude the English are half-assed people. I see why Mel Gibson delights in making anti English films.

  33. lao says:

    I knew when I saw this thread that major comedy was in store. I have not been disappointed.

    The usual suspects make the usual phony claims based on absolutely nothing.

    For starters:

    Sarah Palin and her crosshairs map, so far as I am aware, had nothing to do with the Arizona shootings.

    I will only change my opinion on that if some proclamation from the killer or some new information emerges. Clear?
    Posted by: lao at January 12, 2011 6:31 PM

  34. lao says:

    illogical questioned Gabrielle Giffords’ own comment re the cross hairs. Here it is:

    “They really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up, and, you know, even things for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, you gotta realize there’s consequences to that action.”

    The day before she was shot she wrote: I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down.

  35. TonyD95B says:

    Well, as long as we’re assessing “blame” for this-and-that, I DEFINITELY hold Dave Blount / Van Helsing responsible for this thread…….he posted it knowing FULL WELL what it would lead to……

  36. Sgt Stadenko says:

    Did Jared Loughner claim he was inspired by Palin’s “Let’s kill these here Democrats” campaign map?

    Are you defending those who still make this claim, or what exactly are you trying to say, lao?

  37. lao says:

    Claiming the left has assigned “blame” to Palin for the shooting has been the absurd, whining spin of Van Helsing and the right from the beginning.

    Nobody “blamed” Palin for the shooting and Van Helsing making that claim about the posted video is stupid. Kelly clearly states: “Sarah Palin is certainly not responsible for what happened.”

    People, including Giffords, questioned Palin’s judgement in using a deliberately inflammatory image when the map was first posted.

    Further controversy came with the RESPONSE by Palin and her camp to the shooting.

    The map was suddenly removed from Palin’s website and the “surveyor symbol” spin was introduced. Both of those added to questions about Palin’s judgement.

    Sarge, try to pay attention and read my post @9:00am.

    So far as I am aware Loughner has made no statement regarding his motivations.

  38. Cao says:

    IAO- Sarah Palin’s ‘Crosshairs’ Ad Dominates Gabrielle Giffords Debate from one of the alphabet networks and not a ‘rightwing’ site. Imagine that. ABCL

    In the stunned aftermath of the Tucson massacre, Sarah Palin has found herself in the crosshairs of the ensuing political debate with opponents suggesting she may have fueled the gunman’s rage and her supporters saying it is “grotesque” to blame her and to politicize the tragedy.

  39. Cao says:

    he didn’t have to declare his motives. AZ SHOOTER: Left-Winger JARED LOUGHNER – He Likes Watching US Flags Burn & Favorite Book is Communist Manifesto

    Just another violent wacked out blind moonbat, like the one that shot up the Whitehouse and had been seen at an #Occupy encampment. Media says of course, that THAT shooter had no connection to them.

    Right.

  40. lao says:

    Try to grasp the difference between “influence” and “blame”.

    Jim David Adkisson’s murderous attack on liberals was clearly “influenced” by anti-liberal books by O’Reilly, Goldberg and others as he cited in his “manifesto”.

    That does NOT mean that O’Reilly , Goldberg and others are to “blame” for the killings.

    Is it fair to discuss the fact that their anti-liberal rants “fueled the gunman’s rage”? Of course it is.

    As for Palin’s crosshairs map, we currently have no idea if Loughner was influenced by that or not.

    Even if he were to say he was “influenced” by that map, Palin is NOT to blame for the killings.

    That still does not give Palin a pass in questioning her judgement in choosing to use that map, and the subsequent response to the shootings by her team re offering the “surveyor symbol” spin and pulling the map from her website.

    The issue is Palin’s judgement, NOT assigning blame to her for the shootings.

  41. TonyD95B says:

    So…….let’s summarize:

    1) Sarah Palin uses the standard “crosshairs” location mark (used in many professions, including my own) to indicate a specific location on a map, drawing, part, etc.).

    2) A wild-eyed nut (who by all accounts leaned left politically and most likely never even knew the map existed) kills six people, including a little girl and a Federal judge (who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush). He wounds over a dozen other people, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

    3) The Left-leaning media and Leftist side of the blogosphere immediately seize upon the “cross hairs” issue, and try to make a mountain out of a molehill. Even many leftist loons like Bob Beckel says this is over the top, but the left persists.

    4) Since she is now thrust into the center of the controversy, Governor Palin has the bafflingly controversial map taken down. She never denies that the purpose of the map was to show “targeted” districts, and was “put on the spot” (pardon the pun) to explain the etymology of a very common and innocuous symbol.

    6) In the time since Jared Loughner’s shooting spree, no facts have come to light indicating that the “crosshairs” map had anything to do with his actions or motivation.

    6) The political Left continues to create an issue where there is none, and continues to talk about it on national TV.

    7) Dave Blount / Van Helsing merely points out the continuing loopy loony leftist lunacy and preoccupation with this, in continuing ignorance of the actual facts.

    8) Our resident troll PROVES Dave is correct (see Item 7) and has his usual hissy-fit about “crosshairs”.

    So far so good – nothing we didn’t all know.

    9) Our resident troll doesn’t stop there – he continues to prcussively pummel this poor deceased equine and insisy that he is somehow “right”, or is “winning” a non-existent argument.

    Yaaaaaaawn.

    That about sums it up.

  42. TonyD95B says:

    Sorry about the “smiley face” for Item 8 – that was unintentional – but in a strange sort of way, it was right “on target”…….ha….ha….HA….HAHAHAHA.

  43. Barack Obama says:

    If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

    I know I’m on the top 25 list of least influential people in the world, but I’m still the President for now.

  44. lao says:

    Sure tony, let’s summarize.

    1. Prior to Palin’s use of them on her map, “crosshairs” had never been used to “target” political opponents.

    2. A nut killed a bunch of people and seriously wounded Giffords.

    3. The fact that Giffords herself had criticized the crosshairs map, prior to being shot, was noted by the media.

    4. The immediate initial response of the Palin team was to remove the map from her website. This was followed by the laughable “surveyor symbol” spin.

    No credible explanation for removing the map is provided. No credible explanation for why the map, despite earlier controversy, and a defense of “Don’t retreat, reload!” has suddenly, AFTER the shooting explained to be sporting “surveyor symbols”.

    5. Agreed.

    6. The media notice that the response by Palin and her camp is defensive, lame and laughable. Palin’s judgement is called into question.

    7. Blount has harped on the “surveyor symbol” spin by devoting multiple threads to the topic. I have laughed at this from the start.

    Blount has also harped on the blame game even though nobody credible has blamed Palin for the tragedy. Blount continues this via the title of this thread even though the video shows that Giffords’ husband clearly states that Palin is not responsible. In most circles, Blount’s headline would be called a deliberate lie.

    8. By persisting with the pathetic “surveyor symbol” spin when even Palin herself calls the symbols crosshairs, simply demonstrates that Blount has no connection to reality.

    9. Needless to say, loyal little parrots like tony, will swallow Blount’s ongoing BS hook line and sinker and smirk that they have a firm grasp on the truth.

    Needless to say, I regard the spin and desperate attempts to avoid reality with a great deal of laughter.

  45. Jared LAOughner in Space says:

    BUT, BUT CROSSHAIRS! SARAH PALIN! CROSSHAIRS! SQU-AWWWWWWWWWWWWK!

  46. Lao' s Lonely Syphilitic Brain Cell says:

    Looks like lao the dumber has abandoned linking to the inane drivel websites, opting for the cut-and-paste method of idiocy.

  47. Will Marshall says:

    When we at the Democratic Leadership Council “targeted” our “enemies” we used bullseyes.

    We have since removed the visual from our web site even though we weren’t blamed by the MSM for anything.

  48. TonyD95B says:

    Lao comes when he’s called.

    GOOOOOD BOY!!!!!

    His attempts at a 9-point “turnaround” and “redirect” are laughable at best.

    It took you 42 whole minutes to come up with that?

    As usual, he jumps in up to his neck trying to “win” the “argument” – and shoots himself in the foot*

    *Metaphorically, that is.

  49. TonyD95B says:

    I’ll repeat Points 7 through 9:

    7) Dave Blount / Van Helsing merely points out the continuing loopy loony leftist lunacy and preoccupation with this, in continuing ignorance of the actual facts.

    8) Our resident troll PROVES Dave is correct (see Item 7) and has his usual hissy-fit about “crosshairs”.

    So far so good – nothing we didn’t all know.

    9) Our resident troll doesn’t stop there – he continues to percussively pummel this poor deceased equine and insists that he is somehow “right”, or is “winning” a non-existent argument.

    As Sonny and Cher once sang, “…….and the beat goes on….”

  50. Bob Roberts says:

    As is always true with megalomaniacal narcissists (like lao), it is impossible for them to ever admit or accept that it is their own emotional, logic-devoid arguments and actions which inflame others. They always seek to shift blame for the things they cause to happen to others who had nothing to do with it. This is a textbook example. Loughner was upset with Giffords, not upset by Palin. He probably never saw the map on Palin’s website – he was too obsessed with Giffords to care about Palin. Yet lao desperately continues to build his strawmen and shift blame from the deliberate emotion-raising tactics of the left, which ALWAYS lead to things like this in the end, to the people who say, “Think first, don’t act irrationally/emotionally.” I think the best line of all is, “Not even Loughner himself is sufficiently psychotic to see a connection between his shooting spree and Sarah Palin.” It sort of sums up what’s wrong with lao and the other leftist moonbats.

  51. Bob Roberts says:

    TonyD95B says: November 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    As usual, he [lao] jumps in up to his neck trying to “win” the “argument” – and shoots himself in the foot
    ———-
    Actually, knowing how he thinks, I painted a crosshair on his foot while he wasn’t paying attention, so yes, it is my fault, knowing how his ilk can’t help but pick up guns and shoot any crosshairs they see.

  52. Festivus says:

    Who’s influencing all the violence in the OWS movement?

  53. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says: November 27, 2011 at 11:38 am

    1. Here lao makes an unsubstantiated and in fact unsubstantiatable (it’s essentially impossible to prove a negative such as this one and only a fool – that’s our lao, on cue, makes a statement like this) statement. But he does this all the time – that’s why we love him so. He can be counted on to say the most ridiculous, amusing things!

    2. A left wing nut finally responded just as the left wing had been grooming him to do – unfortunately for them, he “chose the wrong targets”. Here’s a hint for the left: If you don’t want your people to go postal, stop urging them to do so with all the hate-based and emotion laden arguments. Try facts, truth and logic for a change.

    3. The fact Giffords did something that the lunatic probably wasn’t even aware of is irrelevant and immaterial – only someone as mentally disturbed as lao would mention and link the two events in this way. I think maybe the left needs to open up a file on him – could be the next such event will have him behind the crosshairs the way things are going!

    4. Again lao tries to spin Palin removing the map, in response to calls that she should do so, as something negative. What, are you suggesting she should have left it up? Naturally, just in case some other left-wing nutjobs, like the guy who shot up the White House, crawled out of the lunatic left wing, it was a good call to take the graphic down. As noted elsewhere in this thread, Democrats, too, have used “targets” when talking about “targeting” places/people they think are vulnerable. I don’t see you spinning your straw men about Democrats doing THE SAME THING! Why not?

    5. Amazingly, lao openly admits, “In the time since Jared Loughner’s shooting spree, no facts have come to light indicating that the “crosshairs” map had anything to do with his actions or motivation.” Yet he continues to try to suggest otherwise in post after post on thread after thread, long after this event, motivated 100% by the hate-filled calls for such acts by the lunatic left have continued and even increased even after so tragically backfiring in this case.

    6. Like the leftist media, since they know they have nothing else worth talking about and hope that by just mentioning this over and over they might gain some traction, lao and his ilk keep going back to this topic despite having made utter fools of themselves each time they’ve done so in the past.

    7. While focusing in on the “surveyor symbol” aspect, which by the way is 100% honest and truthful, lao ignores the deliberate use of targets by the left and the ongoing, even increasing, violent and hateful rhetoric and symbols of the left. I keep seeing “kill the rich” and “eat the rich” at “occu-zombie” infestations, lao – perhaps we need to start discussing that again? Can you give me ONE example of ONE Tea Party gathering (not counting the obvious and open leftist plants who pathetically tried to pass themselves off as tea partiers) who ever held up a sign that suggested anyone should be killed or eaten?

    As for you saying that, “nobody credible has blamed Palin for the tragedy”, I’d point out that you keep trying to do so. I take that as an admission you know what we’ve known for a long, long time: You are not credible. You admit that Giffords’ own husband admits Palin is in no way responsible yet you do this in a post where your intent is clearly to suggest otherwise, to shift the blame for lunacy and it’s motivations away from the true causes – the left and it’s continuous rhetoric of hatred and class/political warfare – and somehow leave your steaming, stinking mess at the doorsteps of Palin, the Tea Party, the right and Republicans. The deliberate and obvious lies are all yours. Blount’s words are backed up by the video – did you bother to watch it?

    8. Here we see lao using the leftist tactic of repeating something to try and plant a false thought or belief in the minds of his audience. It works with pathetic lefty losers like you, lao, but not with us. Stop wasting your time. No matter how much you bring up crosshairs/surveyors symbols, we’re on to you.

    9. In case you haven’t noticed, lao, we occasionally disagree and even bicker among ourselves. Unlike leftist echo chambers where some suggest you spend even more of your lonely, pathetic life, we actually have opinions of our own and are capable of thinking for ourselves and expressing ideas that haven’t been spoon fed to us by some puppet master. Unlike you, we urge people to consider facts, truth and logic and don’t try to sway them with emotion-laden, dishonest arguments. It’s funny everything you try to say in criticism of others here is transparently true about you, lao! Why is that?

    And, finally, glad you’re having such a good time making a complete and utter idiot of yourself. We’re rather enjoying it, too. Dance, little puppet, dance!

  54. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says: November 27, 2011 at 10:07 am
    ————–
    Still the master at tripping over his own statements. Now even as he admits that the map and symbols had nothing to do with the shooting, despite the ongoing attempts by Democrats and leftists in and out of the media to suggest otherwise, no matter how much lao tries to deny this is so, and so we’re left with the question:

    If he admits that Palin was not in any way at fault, why does he keep going back to this topic? Trying to distract us from what’s going on today is the only logical answer. So, with that in mind… see below!

  55. Bob Roberts says:

    It is important to take note when leftists get something half right. The leftist media and the DEMOCRATS are to blame for the divisive tone in Washington, so Powell does get a half point credit here.

  56. Bob Roberts says:

    OCCUPY: EPIC FAIL! Remember their plan to try and disrupt “black Friday” and thus screw up the economy even more? As with everything else they try, it didn’t go so good!

  57. Bob Roberts says:

    This says it all!

    “The 25 least Influential People Alive”

    Note that Obama made the list! Too funny!

    Who is Ed Schultz and what is MSNBC?

    This is really incorrect. Ed has a lot of influence… in making me need to vomit. Ed Schultz is a deeply troubled, sweaty, stinky man who somehow, with no talent or intelligence, has landed a television show. Excuse me, I need to hurl. I wonder if this announcement is going to affect MSNBC’s tens of viewers that tune in nightly – let’s turn to lao and see! Ed may not be influential, but he’s tops in a the a-hole division. And as far as venom, hate filled rhetoric and fearmongering go, he is number 1! Third least influential person on a third rate show on a third rate cable news network! Wow…..he must be so proud. He won the trifecta! Socialism doesn’t sell no matter what you call it (liberalism, progressivism, third way etc etc) It cannot exist when people have alternatives. It only continues because it is heavily subsidized by a small handful of “true believers”. PEOPLE don’t watch idiots, even if they are given their own show. If MSNBC would wake up and realize this they’d make some changes and get their ratings out of the fractional zone they’re in now. “Third least influential” seems unnecessarily harsh. Being on MSNBC severely limits the size of the audience Schultz doesn’t influence. Schultz’s audience rating is well within the margin of error. SO IT’S POSSIBLE NO ONE IS WATCHING HIM. This imbecile is nothing more than a Socialist Chearleader. A complete buffoon, a moron. He can’t even influence the people who already agree with his positions 100%, who make up 100% of his audience, because they already were lunatics before they tuned in – in fact THAT IS WHY THEY TUNED IN! What’s an Ed Schultz? Did I see him in a hamburger eating contest once? Wasn’t he the fat, dumb guy on some old show about a WWII German prison camp? He is the least intelligent member of the Wit trio- Dim, Nit and Half.! POP QUIZ: Which one is lao? Dim, Nit or Half? (Trick question – due to his split personality, lao is actually all three!) Ed’s vile vitriol is childish, only to be outdone by his ignorance and bigotry. Apparently the majority of television viewers feel likewise, judging from this story. I admit: I know who Ed Schultz is, but my faith in humans and quaility of life would be better off if I did not. The tragedy of this report is that the four people who actually watch his show will be devastated and be like foundering ships on a reef….oh the humanity of it all. MSNBC has the most biased reporters on TV. They are all leftist liberals who hate anything or anyone conservative, Republican and especially Christian. Schultz, Matthews, Maddow…..I’d just as soon get my news from 5 year olds like Jon Stewart and his ilk. Actually, real 5 year olds make more sense than anyone on MSNBC or Comedy Central… but I digress! MSNBC has leaned so far, ahem, “forward” that its has fallen flat on its face. No sane, rational person I know takes that cable network seriously. If you mention MSNBC, people will start to chuckle. Ed Schultz would be a carny geek if it paid better than being a ranting lefty. He used to be a conservative Rush wannabe, but flopped at that approach. Then he decided he could mine some gold as a bombastic anti-Rush, and completely changed his politics. He’s a phoney, folks. He’s an act.If you haven’t noticed yet, these are basically the many negative comments (I think one lunatic lefty actually commented, the rest are like these) from the link above. Sgt. Schlultz and MSLSD……classic mediocrity in media and “journalism”. Too funny. Isn’t this the guy in the MSNBC ad that claims he has so much to say that he deserves a second show? Is MSNBC going out of their way to set new records for lowest ratings ever, or what? MSNBC/COMCAST = School of Business dropouts; wouldn’t know how to make a profit if it hit them square in the face. You may not agree with Fox, but at least they produce a product that sells. So Ed Schultz is the 3rd least influential person alive. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Let’s make him #1! Seriously, the only reason anyone needed GQ to tell us this is exactly because he is, along with MSNBC, so non-influential.

  58. Bob Roberts says:

    The continuing Government Motors success story! If you think their sales were bad before, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

  59. Bob Roberts says:

    Death row inmate slams moonbat Oregon governor for execution reprieve! Even a guy facing death admits moonbats and the things they do are insane!

    Haugen said he came to the conclusion that the governor “basically pulled a coward’s move” by acting on his personal beliefs instead of carrying out the will of Oregon voters, who reinstated the death penalty in 1984.

    Haugen has a point. Governors and Presidents are elected to do the people’s business, not whatever they feel they want or need to do. Obama is going to get this lesson in spades (it’s just an expression, not racism, so don’t go there) in 2012.

    Kitzhaber called Oregon’s death penalty system “a perversion of justice,” saying the state only executes people who volunteer. Since capital punishment was legalized 27 years ago, only two people have been executed. Both of them, like Haugen, waived their legal challenges. The 49-year-old inmate said he plans to ask lawyers about possible legal action to fight Kitzhaber’s temporary reprieve, which lasts until the governor leaves office. A Marion County judge had twice signed a death warrant ordering Haugen’s execution. The first was reversed when the state Supreme Court intervened; the second was overruled by Kitzhaber two weeks before the Dec. 6 execution.

    “I’m going to have to get with some serious legal experts and figure out really if he can do this,” Haugen said. “I think there’s got to be some constitutional violations. Man, this is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. You don’t bring a guy to the table twice and then just stop it.”

    I got a question for all you anti-death penalty idiots: Are you really saying that it’s worse to put someone who is proven to have committed a capital crime out of our misery than it is to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives? You really believe that? How about it, lao? Think you can field this one?

  60. lao says:

    Absolutely amazing bobby. And hilarious. You have just demonstrated for everyone your total disconnect from reality, not to mention, yet again posting a multitude of unrelated links and ignoring the open thread above this one.

    Even though your posts make it quite clear you can’t understand what you read, see my post @9:00 am this morning where I quote a comment I made here last January.

  61. wingmann says:

    Festivus says:
    November 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm Who’s influencing all the violence in the OWS movement?
    _______________________________________

    Well that would be Sarah Palin right?
    She was shown camping on her tv show……

  62. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says: November 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    I saw it – doesn’t matter. SO you say something in January that you can quote later to deny what you’re up to. That still doesn’t outweigh all the postings you’ve made, since then, on this topic. You keep jumping in on this – why do you think Blount chose this topic – HE KNEW YOU WOULD DO WHAT YOU DID.

    You’re so easily manipulated it’s pathetic.

    This facade you’re now pushing is sort of like Congress saying they’re going to cut $1.2 trillion when actually all they’re doing is reducing the amount of planned increases slightly.

    Sure, you deny it all you want, but you keep coming back to this topic. Prove me wrong. Give it a rest.

    I’m betting you can’t.

    Prove me wrong.

  63. Bob Roberts says:

    As for your comments about the “open thread”, there still isn’t a new open thread up for today. I posted that stuff on NOVEMBER 27, the last open thread is from NOVEMBER 26. Now who is it that’s stuck in time warps again? My point was you like to try and get us back into going around and around on this dead issue and my point was I’m not playing that game – I moved on to CURRENT issues. I note you haven’t made a SINGLE COMMENT about any of the CURRENT ISSUES I brought up. If you agree, as you claim, that blaming Palin for what happened to Giffords is nonsense, then WHY ARE YOU EVEN BOTHERING WITH THIS THREAD!?

  64. Festivus says:

    It’s lao’s subliminal psy-ops, Robert. Lol

    He’s making the association through his weasel words hoping that someone will conclude the cause and effect that he cowardly won’t come out and say outright.

  65. Festivus says:

    As Barack Obama says, he is as culpable as Palin for Loughner.

    Even more overtly so for the lawless and violent actions of the OWS protesters.

  66. lao says:

    bobby, the thread ABOVE this one is an OPEN THREAD.

    You’ve lost it completely.

  67. Bob Roberts says:

    Yes, but this is the ACTIVE thread. I go where the people are. I’ve told you that before but I’m not surprised you can’t remember. It makes too much sense!

  68. lao says:

    Did I raise the pathetic “surveyor symbols” spin again bobby?

    No, that was Blount.

    Did I make the headline “Moonbats Still Blame Sarah Palin For Gabby Giffords Shooting”?

    No, that was Blount.

    Did the linked video that Blount provided show Giffords’ husband saying “Sarah Palin is certainly not responsible for what happened.”

    Yes it did.

    Does that make Blount’s headline a lie bobby?

    Yes it does.

  69. lao says:

    bwahhahahaha!! Bobby, have you noticed that NOBODY has responded to ANY of your unrelated links?

  70. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says: November 27, 2011 at 7:24 pm
    bwahhahahaha!! Bobby, have you noticed that NOBODY has responded to ANY of your unrelated links?

    —————
    Unlike YOU, lao, I get plenty of attention from the people in my life who are close to me. So I don’t come here for attention. Obviously that’s a very big difference between you and I and I’ve suggested, several times, that you would do better to turn off your computer and work on that. Not surprising you don’t take my advice on that.

  71. lao says:

    OH? You don’t come here for attention?

    bobby sez: Yes, but this is the ACTIVE thread. I go where the people are.

    Too funny.

  72. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says: November 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    ————–
    Like you, these two spend a whole segment talking about how Sarah Palin clearly IS responsible for what happened, then issue the disclaimer that she’s not and that’s supposed to fool us? Well, obviously, by your reaction, it fooled the gullible among us!

    Here’s a transcript:

    Piers Morgan: Sarah Palin doesn’t come out of this very well, I don’t think, because there was a woman who, at the time, had been putting these crosshair things on her websites and stuff [1], [camera cuts to Palin’s “SARAHPAC” website showing map with benchmark symbols (See the chart, “SYMBOL LIBRARY BLOCK FROM EAGLEPOINT”, symbol 79) over districts that are considered to be weak and ready for a change in leadership at the coming elections – of course those with hatred and violence on their minds saw these benchmark symbols as “crosshairs”] including Gabby. And in her haste to take no responsibility, didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, to do anything, right? [2]

    Mark Kelly: Yeah we were never contacted by her, um… [3]

    Piers Morgan, interrupting Kelly: I find that extraordinary

    Mark Kelly: Yeah I was surprised too, ummmm… You know certainly yee…the… the targets that she put over Gabby’s and other people’s districts {3}, in our opinions [camera cuts to Palin’s “SARAHPAC” website again], was not the right thing to do. Um. She’s not the first pers… person to do that and it hasn’t always been Republicans that have done that. There have been… {4}

    Morgan, seeing where this is going, interrupts Kelly quickly to keep him from spilling the beans: I liked your line about it, which was that if you’d had the chance to talk to her, and you were expecting to, you weren’t going to say that “you were responsible”, but you were going to say “you’ve been irresponsible”. [5]

    Mark Kelly: Yeah that’s my plan, buh dee buh dee buh dee… you know, this was no surprise to us. [6] Gabby even spoke about it before January 8th, during the election cycle leading up to the election, she made it very clear that, “Hey, this is what’s going on” and this could, ultimately, invite ssss… people to do violent things. [7] So it wasn’t uuhhhh… wasn’t a big surprise on January 8th that… you know… that… that we… you know, where we knew this map existed with the… [8] with the crosshairs on it… (again, note symbol 79 on the table, a BENCHMARK SYMBOL, not a “crosshair)” Now having said that, you know, Sarah Palin certainly is not responsible for what happened, but I think that the angry rhetoric in an election year is not… it’s not helpful. [9]

    1) Morgan opens by trying to link surveyor’s symbols or, if you’re so violent you can only see them as crosshairs, with the fact Giffords was shot, attempting to establish a link between the two of cause & effect when none exists, as you, lao, often do.

    2) Morgan is asserting that Palin had a responsibility to take responsibility and shirked that responsibility by not contacting Kelly when in fact the truth is Palin had no responsibility – her website had NOTHING to do with what happened. Rather what Giffords did and did not do had EVERYTHING to do with it.

    3) Kelly tries to play along but, and here I’m going to diverge from Blount’s opinion, because unlike places where you like to go (other than this one), this is NOT an echo chamber – here we have our own opinions and are encouraged to share them. So as I was saying, Kelly tries to play along but he’s just not good at it, so Morgan jumps in and sets him up better the second time, to give him time to think about what he’s saying, to play along.

    3) Kelly gets back “on topic”, trying to suggest that somehow what he now calls “targets”, and if you look at the links above you will find it was not “targets” – rather that was what DEMOCRATS used, not a symbol that clearly is identified as a benchmark symbol – anyway, trying to suggest Palin used “targets”, thus once again trying to suggest that Gabby was “targeted” because of what Palin did. CLEARLY his choice of language provides a very clear indication of his reasoning – surely even YOU, lao, can SEE that but you’ll be damned if you’ll admit it, right?

    4) Kelly goes completely off the rails here, admitting that it’s common practice AMONG DEMOCRATS to use violent language and symbols, actually urging their ilk to kill and eat the rich, for instance, see the many graphic images at the “occupy” sites, for instance, and of course Morgan immediately jumps in, interrupts him, cuts him off, and tries to go back to blaming Palin. Again, note that I’m differing from Blount, for I see that clearly Kelly was brought there to be part of this “blame Palin” party but he just wasn’t up to it, though he clearly tries.

    5) Our own demonstrated master of spin, lao, must really appreciate THAT bit. “You’re not responsible, but your irresponsible”. What doubletalk! What absolute disingenuous nonsense! What you’re doing is denying what you go on to say when you say something like that. Right there he’s blaming Palin for what happened, suggesting that it was her “irresponsible” behavior that was responsible even as he tries to position himself as admitting she was not responsible! What masters of the con these leftists think they are, though anyone (well, other than lao and his ilk, apparently) can see right through them!

    6) AMAZING! Now he admits that they saw this coming and did nothing to stop or mitigate it! So, with this admission they knew this was going to happen yet they still put themselves and others at risk, who is responsible?

    7) Again, clearly, Kelly is doing his best to suggest, imply, admittely without having the balls to come right out and say it, the same way lao says things here all too often, that Palin is responsible for inciting Loughner to do what he did. Even though we know he never saw her website, this whole segment has been about putting the blame on Palin, starting with Morgan’s opening statement. If it’s not about blaming her, WHY DID THEY EVEN BRING HER UP?

    8) Now if he’s not saying Palin’s symbols caused Loughner to do this, why is he talking about them and doing so with the particular words he chose to use, which were clearly chosen to suggest Palin caused this to happen to Gabby and the others! This is classic – because the left is the one who uses emotional arguments and tries to whip their base into a frenzy and make them act out in irrational ways without thinking about the consequences. Loughner wasn’t a Palin fan – HE HAD BEEN A FOLLOWER OF GIFFORDS AND WAS UPSET BECAUSE HE FELT SHE WASN’T LISTENING – why aren’t Morgan and Kelly talking about THAT? Why are they lying and trying to place this at Palin’s doorstep?

    9) Kelly makes a great point here – but he’s doing it wrong. Identifying districts where change may be possible is something both sides do. The left puts targets on them. The right puts benchmark symbols which the left sees as crosshairs. The left will say one day that there is too much violent rhetoric then the very next day will make entire speeches filled with nothing else!

    But Kelly also implies that Palin’s use of benchmark symbols was “angry rhetoric” and therefore somehow incited Loughner, who never saw her website and didn’t know about them, to do what he did. Of course, she wasn’t responsible, but she was irresponsible! Now lao, even you can see that he’s admitting that she wasn’t responsible then turning around and claiming she was, can’t you?

    Or are you really that stupid that you cannot?

  73. Bob Roberts says:

    lao says:
    November 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    OH? You don’t come here for attention?

    bobby sez: Yes, but this is the ACTIVE thread. I go where the people are.

    Too funny.

    —————–

    I want people to see them. If they respond, that’s fine, but I don’t care – I just want to give them the opportunity to see them. I don’t need “gratification”. I’m happy just to “put it out there”. That’s all.

    Unlike you, obviously. I suppose I should just ignore you, but it’s fun slapping you around and you keep coming back for more – you’re so predictable, so easily manipulated!

  74. Bob Roberts says:

    Festivus says:
    November 27, 2011 at 7:05 pm It’s lao’s subliminal psy-ops, Robert. Lol

    He’s making the association through his weasel words hoping that someone will conclude the cause and effect that he cowardly won’t come out and say outright.

    ———-
    On the nose – as you will note I already discussed, at length. It’s a common lunatic lefty loser tactic. Talk all around something but not directly enough to ever have to admit that’s what you were actually saying. The intellectually bankrupt are “experts”, so they think, at doing that – only they don’t realize it’s so juvenile and childish that anyone with even a little more intelligence than they’ve got can see right through it.

  75. Bob Roberts says:

    lao, why would I post to a thread where nobody is currently active? I know YOU like to do that. I don’t. I post where the people are. And you think that there’s something odd, unusual, wrong with that?

    You know if you want to keep handing me such easy scores I’ll keep taking them!

  76. Bob Roberts says:

    lao it’s so funny when you read my posts and completely fail to comprehend what I’m saying – particularly when I’m inviting you to make a fool of yourself and, each time, you willingly & predictably do just that!

    My friends get a kick out of you, lao, so please, don’t change!

  77. Bob Roberts says:

    By the way, I meant to mention that it’s telling where Kelly inserts vocal pauses and stutters – it suggests he’s not as practiced a liar as Obama, Gore and the others, because the stress of trying to lie interrupts his vocalizations and causes him to pause and stutter. Look carefully at what he’s saying and how it conflicts with other things he says when he starts having trouble expressing himself. I would love to actually meet lao face to face, discuss a few issues with him & video it – you would see him stumbling so much over what he says – he’d probably be almost unintelligible, as he often is here!

  78. lao says:

    LoL bobby. I can see that, as usual, you are on one of your oh so typical long winded, redundant, and ultimately pointless rolls.

    You are under the illusion that people actually read one bobby post after another after another. Quite hilarious.

    I’m watching a movie and just taking a break to get a drink. I’ll let you babble on and then come back and respond to all of your typing with two or three sentences.

    Enjoy yourself.

  79. lao says:

    Actually, one sentence will do – hilarious!

  80. BigJoe says:

    I have a question for Lao and any other moonbat: Do you use Firefox for your browser? If so, when you get tired of waiting for the page to refresh, do you right click and choose “Reload” to refresh the page? Then, if so, by your kind of logic, doesn’t Firefox browser somehow share in the guilt of the Gabby shooting? Makes sense to me, if I were a moonbat too!


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy