FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Arizona sheriff blames political 'vitriol' in shooting





handfleisch
I've often posted here about Arizona's right wing political mess and the dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric of many Republican and ultra-conservative voices, including FOX propaganda. Now we have the Safeway shooting in Arizona, and the local sheriff is saying the same thing, calling Arizona a "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry".
Quote:

Sarah Palin under fire as Arizona sheriff blames political 'vitriol' for triggering 'unstable' Safeway gunman's massacre

Can we blame political rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's inflammatory 'Don't react, reload' for triggering the Safeway massacre? It is not yet clear why a gunman, believed to be 22-year-old Jared Loughner, went on a terrifying rampage in Arizona yesterday, killing six people and wounding a further 12. But whatever his reasons, the local sheriff - who is coordinating the investigation with the FBI - believes it is time for America to do some soul-searching.

'When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,' Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.

'The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

'And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345460/Sarah-Palin-sheriff-Clarence-Dupnik-blames-political-vitriol-Arizona-shooting.html#ixzz1AaTEbOwV
Voodoocat
Right wing vitriol does not seem to explain this attack. Why? Does it make sense that a person is so incensed with the Right that they feel driven to try and assasinate a Democrat? Sorry, but I don't believe it. This guy has serious mental problems and, at a minimum, needs to be locked up for the rest of his life.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Right wing vitriol does not seem to explain this attack. Why? Does it make sense that a person is so incensed with the Right that they feel driven to try and assasinate a Democrat? Sorry, but I don't believe it. This guy has serious mental problems and, at a minimum, needs to be locked up for the rest of his life.

That the guy is crazed is clear. The question is, what pointed him in this direction, to go berserk in this way? The sheriff, for one, is wondering aloud about the connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting (given that Arizona is a heavily-Republican state, the shooter had to go out of his way to target this newly elected Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Her father, when asked if she had any enemies, said "the entire Tea Party.")
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

Sarah Palin under fire as Arizona sheriff blames political 'vitriol' for triggering 'unstable' Safeway gunman's massacre

Can we blame political rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's inflammatory 'Don't react, reload' for triggering the Safeway massacre? It is not yet clear why a gunman, believed to be 22-year-old Jared Loughner, went on a terrifying rampage in Arizona yesterday, killing six people and wounding a further 12. But whatever his reasons, the local sheriff - who is coordinating the investigation with the FBI - believes it is time for America to do some soul-searching.

'When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,' Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.

'The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

'And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.'


Hey, look, when you change the font sizes a different way, it explains itself just fine.

How about we get some actual facts, before we start using completely uninformed opinions from random people as the basis for our 'facts'.

Saves us from repeating stupid things like: "He shot up the place because Palin told him to."

(Or is it okay to claim the next shooting spree in California was due to Obama's political vitriol?)
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

Sarah Palin under fire as Arizona sheriff blames political 'vitriol' for triggering 'unstable' Safeway gunman's massacre

Can we blame political rhetoric such as Sarah Palin's inflammatory 'Don't react, reload' for triggering the Safeway massacre? It is not yet clear why a gunman, believed to be 22-year-old Jared Loughner, went on a terrifying rampage in Arizona yesterday, killing six people and wounding a further 12. But whatever his reasons, the local sheriff - who is coordinating the investigation with the FBI - believes it is time for America to do some soul-searching.

'When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,' Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.

'The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

'And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.'


Hey, look, when you change the font sizes a different way, it explains itself just fine.

How about we get some actual facts, before we start using completely uninformed opinions from random people as the basis for our 'facts'.

Saves us from repeating stupid things like: "He shot up the place because Palin told him to."

(Or is it okay to claim the next shooting spree in California was due to Obama's political vitriol?)


Given you're a mod, this post is completely bankrupt. You place things in quotes as if someone has said that here. Then you talk about "uninformed opinions from random people" when the point is about what the local sheriff, not exactly uninformed or random, said about the unfortunate political climate and emotional atmosphere of Arizona and implicitly about how that can provoke violence. You perform your usual moral equivalency nonsense which apologizes for the right while showing total inanity (please name one instance of "Obama's political vitriol" that is anywhere comparable to the Palin's use of gunsights images on Loughner for her Tea Party followers who brandished weapons and signs supporting violence). All you've done is come in and stink up the thread with knee-jerk, panicky ignorance. Pathetic.
liljp617
The symbols are the same as you would see on a number of computer generated maps. The reticle is used on maps to represent the view from surveyor equipment. They are not gun crosshairs. The map was created using Facebook to my knowledge. Should we also blame Facebook?

This is not a damn hitlist. Stop playing it off as such. Don't even remotely imply it was published to encourage people to start shooting. That's actually pathetic.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
The symbols are the same as you would see on a number of computer generated maps. The reticle is used on maps to represent the view from surveyor equipment. They are not gun crosshairs. The map was created using Facebook to my knowledge. Should we also blame Facebook?

This is not a damn hitlist. Stop playing it off as such. Don't even remotely imply it was published to encourage people to start shooting. That's actually pathetic.


Yeah, right, it was completely innocent yet Palin removed the map from her Fecebook page right after the shooting.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3340548/Palin-removes-gun-target-map.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

Besides that, I did not post personal opinion directly linking Palin's violent rhetoric and the shooting (I was responding to a ridiculous suggestion that Obama's rhetoric is as irresponsible and erratic as Palin's). I posted an article about what the sheriff said about violent rhetoric in general, so your leaping on this dogpile is pathetic. I would guess the sheriff did not have Palin specifically in mind when he spoke about how the rhetoric of "anger, hatred and bigotry" that influences unbalanced people to commit act of political violence. It's a good point from a legitimate source, a law enforcement professional on the ground at the shooting place, so instead of reacting with denial we should react with thought and action. This national debate might lead to cleaning up the ugly, inciting language and action (bringing guns to political rallies) that has gone out of control in this country.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I posted an article about what the sheriff said about violent rhetoric in general, so your leaping on this dogpile is pathetic. I would guess the sheriff did not have Palin specifically in mind when he spoke about how the rhetoric of "anger, hatred and bigotry" that influences unbalanced people to commit act of political violence. It's a good point from a legitimate source, a law enforcement professional on the ground at the shooting place, so instead of reacting with denial we should react with thought and action. This national debate might lead to cleaning up the ugly, inciting language and action (bringing guns to political rallies) that has gone out of control in this country.
What the sheriff said however is not far different from those he criticized though. It sounded pretty unbalanced to me, also irresponsible, divisive and partisan. He is supposed to keep the peace, not create further division by political finger pointing. I wonder whether he is thinking of a second career in politics? Perhaps running for a seat in Congress?
Voodoocat
Deanhills is spot on. The duty of a sheriff is to keep the peace, not incite anger or worse. The sheriff should be decrying these atrocious acts and denouncing vigilatism.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
What the sheriff said however is not far different from those he criticized though. It sounded pretty unbalanced to me, also irresponsible, divisive and partisan. He is supposed to keep the peace, not create further division by political finger pointing. I wonder whether he is thinking of a second career in politics? Perhaps running for a seat in Congress?


What he said was
Quote:
"I’d just like to say that when you look unbalanced people-how they are-how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government—the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capitol. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Now, which part of that is unbalanced and how do you assign partisanship to it? He didn't say anything about parties - he made a general point which applies to both sides.

I don't think there is anything 'unbalanced', 'partisan' or 'irresponsible' about his comments.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Given you're a mod, this post is completely bankrupt.

I don't moderate topics that I'm participating in, so you don't need to worry about conflicts of interest.

I wonder though, would it still be completely bankrupt if I wasn't a mod?
Quote:
You perform your usual moral equivalency nonsense which apologizes for the right while showing total inanity (please name one instance of "Obama's political vitriol"

I was providing a hypothetical counterexample, to demonstrate the silliness of this particular logical leap in a context where you would recognize it:
act occurs in state that is mostly controlled by X party --> act was done because of opinions expressed by leaders of X party.
Quote:
All you've done is come in and stink up the thread with knee-jerk, panicky ignorance.

Odd, I thought I was cautioning against knee-jerk, panicky ignorance...
(By pointing out that the actual facts were uncertain.)
liljp617
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The symbols are the same as you would see on a number of computer generated maps. The reticle is used on maps to represent the view from surveyor equipment. They are not gun crosshairs. The map was created using Facebook to my knowledge. Should we also blame Facebook?

This is not a damn hitlist. Stop playing it off as such. Don't even remotely imply it was published to encourage people to start shooting. That's actually pathetic.


Yeah, right, it was completely innocent yet Palin removed the map from her Fecebook page right after the shooting.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3340548/Palin-removes-gun-target-map.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News


Let me see if I really understand: You believe this was intended to be a hitlist and Palin (and those others in charge of creating the map) wanted people to be murdered in cold blood?

Of course it would be removed after this. It's bad publicity and this guy's actions might give other people motivation to copy the crime using the map for even more unintended murders.

Now, I suppose you also believe the Democratic Leadership Committee was promoting shooting the opposition with crossbows in 2004 when they posted on their website:



No, you probably don't believe that, and neither do I. Because it's plainly ridiculous and you know it. Don't even spin this to say this map is completely different. It's precisely the same idea with bullseyes in place of reticles (which are actually not that rare in computer generated maps).
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The symbols are the same as you would see on a number of computer generated maps. The reticle is used on maps to represent the view from surveyor equipment. They are not gun crosshairs. The map was created using Facebook to my knowledge. Should we also blame Facebook?

This is not a damn hitlist. Stop playing it off as such. Don't even remotely imply it was published to encourage people to start shooting. That's actually pathetic.


Yeah, right, it was completely innocent yet Palin removed the map from her Fecebook page right after the shooting.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3340548/Palin-removes-gun-target-map.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News


Let me see if I really understand: You believe this was intended to be a hitlist and Palin (and those others in charge of creating the map) wanted people to be murdered in cold blood?

Of course it would be removed after this. It's bad publicity and this guy's actions might give other people motivation to copy the crime using the map for even more unintended murders.

Now, I suppose you also believe the Democratic Leadership Committee was promoting shooting the opposition with crossbows in 2004 when they posted on their website:

No, you probably don't believe that, and neither do I. Because it's plainly ridiculous and you know it. Don't even spin this to say this map is completely different. It's precisely the same idea with bullseyes in place of reticles (which are actually not that rare in computer generated maps).


No, I don't think Palin was presenting a "hit list", I think she was being grossly provocative and irresponsibly so, just like she was in repeating her lies about Obama making "death panels" for old people. She doesn't care that unbalanced people would believe her as long as she gets the fame/money/power out of it. I think she put the gun sights on the map so her gun-rights supporters would laugh to themselves, and she didn't care about the effect of the Republican vice-presidential candidate joking about guns and killing and gun sights for Democrats on the unbalanced minds of America.

I think Palin knew exactly what she was doing with the gun sight symbols, coming from the context of her whole image as radically pro-gun, her carefully crafted image of the woman with a rifle killing things, supporting even shooting wolves from helicopters, telling people to "reload" in their politics. That's why the gun sight images on the map were controversial at the time, and that's why she's trying to hide it now by deleting it off her web pages.

But like I said in the rest of the message you chose to ignore, I never mentioned Palin in that context, I was pointing out the sheriff's wise words and talking about the influence of right wing inciting rhetoric in general and its epidemic levels in Arizona.
gandalfthegrey
I believe what the Sheriff is saying is right and I don't think he sounds partisan in the least. One just needs to look at the history of war and genocide to see the effect persuasive and vitriolic rhetoric has on violence.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
What the sheriff said however is not far different from those he criticized though. It sounded pretty unbalanced to me, also irresponsible, divisive and partisan. He is supposed to keep the peace, not create further division by political finger pointing. I wonder whether he is thinking of a second career in politics? Perhaps running for a seat in Congress?


What he said was
Quote:
"I’d just like to say that when you look unbalanced people-how they are-how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government—the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capitol. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Now, which part of that is unbalanced and how do you assign partisanship to it? He didn't say anything about parties - he made a general point which applies to both sides.

I don't think there is anything 'unbalanced', 'partisan' or 'irresponsible' about his comments.
Come off it Bikerman. That criticism pointed at a specific group of people, and made those who oppose that specific group of people happy. Hence this thread. If I said unbalanced, it was because I would have expected a Government employee to watch what he says, not to get people to point fingers at one another and use what he said as evidence of how wrong the one group is versus how right the other group is. That is making things worse, not better.
Bikerman
I didn't see many happy people. I saw people in shock and a lot of very sad people.
It has already been said many times that the extremists are not particularly Republican or Democratic. Many have attached themselves to the tea-party movement which is generally more R than D but I don't think that Republicans in general welcome them any more than Democrats.
jwellsy
What evidence is there that this nut job is associated with the Tea Party?
Bikerman
None at all, and I'm not suggesting he was.
I AM suggesting that when people reduce political debate to slogans, and talk about people as fascists, dictators and the like, the effect is to dehumanise them - which, for some mentally unbalanced people, becomes a reality. When you succeed in viewing another person as a 'thing' which is a threat, then you lower normal human boundaries of behaviour.

This is not controversial, it is well established in the literature and well tested in practice. It is the standard technique used by Governments during wars.
For example, the first thing the British Government had to do, during World Wars 1&2, was to ensure that the population stopped seeing the Germans as 'people' and started to see them as 'the Hun', 'the Boch', 'babykillers', 'sub-human'. This was very successful, as they knew it would be, and meant that killing a German was not the same as killing a human. Otherwise decent 'normal' people were then quite happy to cheer the brutal killing of Germans like they would cheer for their football team.

Now, that worked on 'normal' people, so just imagine what effect a similar tactic has on people who are already disturbed.
jwellsy
How is any of that relevant to this nut job shooting? Sounds like political profiteering from an atrocious mass murder.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
How is any of that relevant to this nut job shooting? Sounds like political profiteering from an atrocious mass murder.


Trying to take the politics out of a political mass murder is absurd and a form of profiteering of its own.

As a public service I am linking to a good article about this subject. Some people here should try opening their minds slightly to try to understand. It's by Andrew Sullivan and it's about the absurdity of trying to take the politics out of the Giffords shooting, as David Brooks recently did.

Here's the first part:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-politicized-mind-of-gabrielle-giffords.html
Quote:
David Brooks is astonished, sickened, appalled that an attempted assassination of a sitting congresswoman should be immediately regarded as something possibly ... wait for it ... political. In fact, Loughner must be seen in a context in which politics does not exist:
Quote:

The evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.


So why, one has to ask, does this person with mental illness, carefully select for assassination an already targeted and demonized congresswoman, rather than, say, a supermarket, or a workplace, or a school? We don't know precisely yet - but it sure is relevant to ask that question. Why not shoot up the animal shelter he was fired from? Or the classroom he was banished from? In fact, it is a kind of bizarre suppression to avoid the obviously political fact of the target Loughner selected.

Among those affected by an allegedly "politicized mind" was Giffords's father who made the plainest connection himself:
Quote:

Her father Spencer Giffords, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. "Yeah," he told The New York Post. "The whole tea party."


The other person with such a polluted brain and soul was Giffords herself who at the time of Palin's provocation complained about an atmosphere of barely suppressed violence, and pointed to "consequences" when put within figurative cross-hairs by a former vice-presidential candidate:


Really, people, read the damn article.
deanhills
@Handfleisch - I tried the link below but it timed out. I then tried the main link, and that timed out too. Something has happened to the andrew sullivan blog? So anyway, I tried, but nothing happened. Smile
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-politicized-mind-of-gabrielle-giffords.html
handfleisch
Let's not forget Republican/Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle talking about "Second Amendment remedies" (meaning using guns to accomplish political goals) during her Nevada campaign. Now even one of the shooting victims has cited that as part of the climate that preceded this tragedy.

Quote:
A 63-year-old disabled veteran, Fuller had campaigned for Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in her reelection campaign and was at the supermarket in Tucson on Saturday to meet with her. He was shot in the knee and also wounded in the back. "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller says. "Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled."
jwellsy
Ignoring the facts and continuing to prop up this straw man speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
Ignoring the facts and continuing to prop up this straw man speaks volumes about you and your ilk.

Ignoring facts? I answered your question above and you just ignored it. So, how does Tea Party's Sharron Angle's "second amendment remedies" look to you now? Do you support still such violent rhetoric?
jwellsy
Your straw man holds no water, or credability.
handfleisch
jwellsy wrote:
Your straw man holds no water, or credability.

No answer, as usual. You better listen to Limbaugh to get a fresh talking point.

Here's a report with Rep. Bob Filner on the hateful Tea Party threats and harassment he experienced and right wing incitement to violence.

hillio
This man has no business being sheriff. His deluded political views have completely discredited him over the last year or so.
deanhills
hillio wrote:
This man has no business being sheriff. His deluded political views have completely discredited him over the last year or so.
Exactly. He has not been appointed in an executive position. Or as a media spokesman. He is supposed to stay focused on law and order and let the politicians and Government sort out the politics of the situation. He may have meant to improve the situation by pinpointing the problem, but inadvertently made the situation much worse.
jwellsy
This is why no matter how much the hateful left taunts people it's important not to react with violence. That's exactly what the Fabian Socialist's want so they can make mountains out of mole hills.

Piven just called for violent revolution from the unemployed.
Chris Mathews said someone should shove a CO2 pellet into Rush's face and blow his head up.
Obama told his minion to bring guns to knife fights.
Pelosi and her merry men taunted people trying to incite a reaction by walking through a tea party crowd after passing obamacare.
Rev Wright, New Black Panthers, etc, etc, etc ...

This whole violent Tea Party straw man issue is just another rouse based in hate for the purpose of eliciting an exploitable reaction.
Bikerman
jwellsy wrote:
How is any of that relevant to this nut job shooting? Sounds like political profiteering from an atrocious mass murder.

How does the Sherrif profit? He is elected, I believe. The people of Pima County can decide whether they like or do not like what he says.
I find much of the criticism of him quite revealing in itself. For example:
Quote:
What I have read and seen more indications of were that apparently this guy hated the flag, loved Karl Marx and [Hitler’s] Mein Kampf and had been an atheist.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nicholas-ballasy/2011/01/14/former-judge-az-sheriff-shut-you-do-any-more-damage-prosecutions-c
This is from a former Judge and current member of the House Judiciary Committee. It is alarming.
Firstly words like 'indications' and 'apparently' are weasel words. Secondly, what has being an atheist got to do with anything? The clear implication is that atheists are more likely to commit this sort of atrocity when the reverse is true.
Take 2009 as an example:
Quote:
March 29, 2009: Robert Stewart, 45, shot and killed eight people at Pinelake Health and Rehab in Carthage, N.C. before a police officer shot him and ended the rampage.

March 29, 2009: Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, Calif. Kalathat's wife was critically injured.

March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people — including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy — across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.

Source - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html#ixzz1B7kYbmDr
(Please note that I haven't chosen a 'left wing' source).
None of the coverage of these events that I have seen mentions the religion of the perpetrators. That is because it isn't considered relevant. So why is the fact that this particular killer 'had been' an atheist even worthy of mention - let alone cited as a possible contributory factor?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
So why is the fact that this particular killer 'had been' an atheist even worthy of mention - let alone cited as a possible contributory factor?
Good question, but I believe that was one of many negative remarks:
Quote:
CNSNews.com asked Rep. Gohmert if he has seen any hard evidence linking accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner to talk radio hosts or to American politicians, as Sheriff Dupnik has suggested.

Gohmert said, “What I have read and seen more indications of were that apparently this guy hated the flag, loved Karl Marx and [Hitler’s] Mein Kampf and had been an atheist.


So yes, why was hating the flag, loving Karl Marx and Hitler as well as atheism relevant to the shooting? Kind of a dumb statement to make. What Gohmert said was inappropriate too and equally harmful.
Bikerman
Hating the flag could be considered relevant in that this might be considered a political act against the government.
'Loving' Marx and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is, of course, a supposition on behalf of the 'Judge'. He certainly had a copy of 'Mein Kampf' - but so do I, and I am no lover of Hitler. As you rightly say, neither is especially relevant in any case. There are plenty of neo-nazis who don't murder people, and mass shooting was never a central requirement of being a Marxist.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Hating the flag could be considered relevant in that this might be considered a political act against the government.
'Loving' Marx and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is, of course, a supposition on behalf of the 'Judge'. He certainly had a copy of 'Mein Kampf' - but so do I, and I am no lover of Hitler. As you rightly say, neither is especially relevant in any case. There are plenty of neo-nazis who don't murder people, and mass shooting was never a central requirement of being a Marxist.
Perhaps hating the flag was also a supposition. Not sure what is fact or fiction in his statements. As there are just too many subjective statements in his remarks.
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:
'Loving' Marx and Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is, of course, a supposition on behalf of the 'Judge'


I laughed when I heard that myself. It's common practice seemingly, to go through a killer's Amazon wish list to check to see if there's a Catcher In The Rye hiding in there. Mein Kampf? Check. 1984? Check. Asides from my views on censorship, why censor that he was also reading Hemmingway and Siddhartha? Wasn't this convenient?
Related topics
Green Day
Guilty or Not
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
political
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
Florida airline shooting.
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
The rotting flesh that is our political system
In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians
US Military Troops finally to go to Arizona-Mexico border.
War on Terror?
Honest, hardworking AZ man asked for his "papers",
National Institute for Civil Discourse - what ever for?
Tea Party = Occupy??
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.