Interesting item from the Wall Street Journal:

After the shooting, investigators searched a safe connected to the shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, and found a letter apparently sent to him by Ms. Giffords's office thanking him for previously attending a similar "Congress on your corner" event in 2007.

Much remains unknown about what motivated Mr. Loughner, who is in custody. But the initial evidence, including the constituent letter, has led law enforcement officials to think that the suspect had been thinking about the congresswoman for years, according to people familiar with the case.
If, as this article implies, he's been obsessed with Ms. Giffords since 2007, that puts the origins of his obsession well before the rise of the Tea Parties or Sarah Palin.

There are violent crazies on both sides. Take this story, for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090514

Any sufficiently large group is statistically going to include some lunatics and extremists. The real question is whether the group as a whole tends to be violent. Let me know when the Tea Parties start rioting, attacking police, and destroying property. Oh, wait, that's the left-wing anarchist types. The Tea Parties are the ones who are better known for their unusually peaceful protests where no-one is arrested, protesters bring their children along, and they even clean up their own garbage afterward.

Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
Krig I think instead of trying to "attack" me, you should ask the forum what it thinks about the situation. You're not going to change my mind, so why not try to persuade the forum as a whole to pressure me?
My instinctive response upon encountering a statement I disagree with is to dispute it. I present my supporting arguments for my side, you support your supporting arguments for your side, and we try to use logic and reason to figure out who's right. In this case, you have no supporting arguments, only emotionally-motivated assumptions, so you're right, there's really not much point.

I tend to assume other people reading our discussion will use the same process I do -- read both sides and use reason and logic to figure out who's right. That's probably too generous an assumption in many cases, but to be honest my interest in what other people believe, while not non-existent, is quite limited.