Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 551

Thread: US Representative Shot in Arizona + Fantasies/Falsehoods about Dreadnt and Guns

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Some of us did mention mental illness.

    And it's not a "political cheap shot" to call out political leaders who hire campaign aides, promotional advisors, and marketers very savvy at using language or creating slogans. Feigning surprise at this point is lame.

    The Tea Party is just a new word for right-wing extremism, because their leadership didn't want to kick out the homophobes, racists, birthers, or fanatic gun owners in their ranks.
    Didn't your son support a "tea-party" candidate? Is he a homophobe, racist, birther, or gun fanatic?

    Is there any evidence to support this disturbed young man being a member of the tea party?

  2. #62
    It's not a cheap shot to blame the Tea Party for this despite absolutely no evidence that it had any role in this guy's decision to kill people? Sure, nothing wrong with using a tragedy to attack people you don't like.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Didn't your son support a "tea-party" candidate? Is he a homophobe, racist, birther, or gun fanatic?
    No, he supported Ron Paul. Back then (if you recall) there was plenty of vitriol calling Paul a racist, but he did a fairly good job of countering those attacks.

    Is there any evidence to support this disturbed young man being a member of the tea party?
    No. None. Did I imply somewhere that he was?

    My point is that general Tea Party leadership has been cavalier with their political speech, and not dissociating from the radical extreme element that joins them. They could and should have. Instead, their whole movement has been tainted, and people joke about those crazy tea baggers.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    Before everyone starts blaming Sarah Palin, consider the fact that the shooter is completely insane.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517...me_and_courts/
    In one of several Youtube videos, which featured text against a dark background, Loughner described inventing a new U.S. currency and complained about the illiteracy rate among people living in Giffords' congressional district in Arizona.
    "I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People," Loughner wrote. "Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen (sic)."
    Not everything needs to have partisan politics dragged into it, you guys.
    I enjoy blank walls.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's not a cheap shot to blame the Tea Party for this despite absolutely no evidence that it had any role in this guy's decision to kill people? Sure, nothing wrong with using a tragedy to attack people you don't like.
    Where did I blame the Tea Party for this tragedy? Nowhere.

    Looks to me like you're the one making cheap shots to attack people you don't like.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    No, he supported Ron Paul. Back then (if you recall) there was plenty of vitriol calling Paul a racist, but he did a fairly good job of countering those attacks.
    There are many who consider Ron Paul to be the grandfather of the tea party movement. The original tea party was fundamentally associated with him, though somewhere along the lines the movement shifted to its current... bigger tent status.

    No. None. Did I imply somewhere that he was?
    Throughout this thread that has been the implication, both by you and others. Why else would Palin's targets be an issue?

    If before we had any specific information on the subject, what if someone had come into this thread complaining about how it's a damn shame black men were responsible for so much bloodshed and that it's inevitable because those dark-ity types love their rap violence? What if they called on the NAACP to denounce the actions of the violent black men in their midst. That they should distance themselves from these angry, gun toting thugs? What would we think of that poster?
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 01-09-2011 at 07:53 AM.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    To Fuzzy: there's a difference between bullseye and cross-hairs. We have Target (the store) using a bullseye, and we hear the word "target" used in business and daily life all the time. We have politicians using "war words" all the time. Even the word threat is used frequently. None of that makes me think of shooting a gun. But a scope cross-hair does.
    They are absolutely identical as visual communication symbols. Their differences are aesthetic. A reticle is more modernist, it frequently has a more "technological" flavor, both can be cartoony but a bullseye is more likely to evoke a slightly comical impression, etc. There is NO difference in their meaning. They are both visual symbols for "target." That is the entire sum of their meaning.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-09-2011 at 07:01 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Not sure I understand what you are getting at. Is it somehow better that this is a pot-smoking, lucid dreaming psychopath, as opposed to a tea-party supporting psychopath? Are we really saying that one is preferable to the other? Do you think it's a consolation to those families who lost the ones they love?

    Aren't all psychopaths bad?
    A lone psycho is an isolated incident that could happen at any time and place, a politically motivated killing inspired by inflammatory rhetoric from tea party leading figures is party of a trend leading somewhere very ugly.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  9. #69
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's an expression. One that can be misinterpreted, but who hasn't said or heard "I'm in his/her crosshairs over ____" in casual conversation?
    I certainly didn't. And the German translation "Fadenkreuz" has a pretty strong connotation of violence.

    Then again, I'm also absolutely appalled by the way US politicians use smear campaigns. I reminds me of apes flinging shit around - which only leaves everyone dirty.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  10. #70
    So, now the police are talking about the existence of an accomplice, and are seeking a second subject, a white male in his 50s.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  11. #71
    Limited coverage of the incident here, not even confirmation of the gunman's identity, just that a man had been taken into custody and apparently 18 were shot.
    Any information on motive?

  12. #72
    Based on what's been found online on the shooter so far (YouTube videos, MySpace page, old acquaintances commenting on him) it looks like the main motivation is some level of clinical delusional insanity.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Throughout this thread that has been the implication, both by you and others. Why else would Palin's targets be an issue?
    You should perhaps try rereading the thread then. No one is connecting this shooter with Palin, or the Tea Party. Palin just happens to the dumbest talking head and needs to produce hand notes and visual reminders. Everyone is talking about how crosshairs don't mean violence, how it needs context, but they are ignoring that Palin released this hitlist alongside her Reload! campaign. Thats your context, and thats suggesting violence.

    Words don't pull triggers, but they go a long way towards brainwashing the ignorant and confused. Society brushes off these rabble rousers as "thats just Palin", or "thats Beck for you" (tides thread), because addressing them means going down to their level, and you never lower yourself that far for an idiot. They have far more experience there. So instead their rhetoric continues, increases, and eventually someone snaps. No, no one is suggesting Palin or the Tea Party told this crazy to shot up a fucking parking lot, but you would have to be really, really, stupid to think that this district hasn't been swamped with politically motivated rhetoric. The constant barrage of attack campaigns from the last election drove most of us here crazy, and we're supposed to be a little more normal.

    These attention whores don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, they wouldn't care if the country burned down around them because of what they said, as long as it increases their pocketbooks and exposure.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-09-2011 at 01:00 PM.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Clinton's campaign HQ? The Tea Party in the 2008 election before it ever existed?



    It's an expression. One that can be misinterpreted, but who hasn't said or heard "I'm in his/her crosshairs over ____" in casual conversation?



    My mind was made Up? Why does that need to be capitalized? What is this grave judgement I have made when I say that it's too soon to judge?

    Come on, snap out of it.
    That cap came from a quirky bug my iPad/Safari does because it's all the time trying to anticipate what I'm going to say. I just had too much wine to care to fix it using the iPad's clunky editing functions.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  15. #75
    I've seen plenty of people online put crosshairs on political opponents and never once thought they wanted me to shoot them. Target is legitimate political discourse.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I've seen plenty of people online put crosshairs on political opponents and never once thought they wanted me to shoot them. Target is legitimate political discourse.
    But you're not (very) insane.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    But you're not (very) insane.
    Should politicians refrain from doing anything that might conceivably provoke an insane person to violence (of which there's no evidence in this case by the way)?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #78
    You tell me.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  19. #79
    Thanks for the detailed response.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You should perhaps try rereading the thread then. No one is connecting this shooter with Palin, or the Tea Party. Palin just happens to the dumbest talking head and needs to produce hand notes and visual reminders. Everyone is talking about how crosshairs don't mean violence, how it needs context, but they are ignoring that Palin released this hitlist alongside her Reload! campaign. Thats your context, and thats suggesting violence.
    It's definitely a campaign in poor taste, but I think that's the end of it. I somehow doubt anyone sane would be convinced to go out and assassinate a politician based off her remarks, and those that would are likely to have done something equally insane without her prodding. There seems to be a deep seated fear here that Tea Party members are just waiting to explode and commit treason, but I have yet to see any proof supporting that claim.


    Words don't pull triggers, but they go a long way towards brainwashing the ignorant and confused. Society brushes off these rabble rousers as "thats just Palin", or "thats Beck for you" (tides thread), because addressing them means going down to their level, and you never lower yourself that far for an idiot. They have far more experience there. So instead their rhetoric continues, increases, and eventually someone snaps. No, no one is suggesting Palin or the Tea Party told this crazy to shot up a fucking parking lot, but you would have to be really, really, stupid to think that this district hasn't been swamped with politically motivated rhetoric. The constant barrage of attack campaigns from the last election drove most of us here crazy, and we're supposed to be a little more normal.
    Do you think Palin's or the Tea Parties rhetoric influenced this troubled young man to kill?

    These attention whores don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, they wouldn't care if the country burned down around them because of what they said, as long as it increases their pocketbooks and exposure.
    Can't say I disagree with the attention whoring, but somehow I don't see the same malevolence that many are predisposed to see. I sincerely doubt Palin wants to see the country go up in flames, just as I sincerely doubt Obama does. These are people trying to do the best they can for a country I think they love. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I think that's a truism that can be applied to both political parties.

  21. #81
    Should politicians refrain from doing anything that might conceivably provoke an insane person to violence (of which there's no evidence in this case by the way)?
    There's a big gulf between refraining from saying things which might send an already mentally unstable person over the edge and all but calling for the murder of political opponents, then expecting everyone to realize you don't mean it literally, especially when your whole strategy seems to be based around making impressionable people as angry and frightened as you can.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    There's a big gulf between refraining from saying things which might send an already mentally unstable person over the edge and all but calling for the murder of political opponents, then expecting everyone to realize you don't mean it literally, especially when your whole strategy seems to be based around making impressionable people as angry and frightened as you can.
    Except anyone who has control over their mental faculties can tell that they weren't calling for actual violence. The only people who this kind of rhetoric can influence are the people who are deeply troubled and can be influenced by plenty of other factors.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #83
    Except anyone who has control over their mental faculties can tell that they weren't calling for actual violence.
    How?

    Democrats who voted for the health care bill have already experienced threats and harassment, some teabaggers have taken to turning up at political events openly armed. So, we've already had threats of violence from this movement, how long till threats of violence turn into actual violence?
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    How?

    Democrats who voted for the health care bill have already experienced threats and harassment, some teabaggers have taken to turning up at political events openly armed. So, we've already had threats of violence from this movement, how long till threats of violence turn into actual violence?
    Do you think any politician is insane enough to actually call for violence?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    There's a big gulf between refraining from saying things which might send an already mentally unstable person over the edge and all but calling for the murder of political opponents, then expecting everyone to realize you don't mean it literally, especially when your whole strategy seems to be based around making impressionable people as angry and frightened as you can.
    So we really should ban all portrayals of violence in video-games, movies, TV, the News, etc? Because the pysch studies all indicate those as having a tangible effect on us, unlike the use of metaphors in political campaigns. I mean, if you want to avoid setting off people who are already mentally unstable, then presumably if this trigger matters then stronger, more direct triggers should matter even more (oops, I can't use the word trigger now either, it's another of those words which might set off a crazy. Dang, "set off" connotes an explosive, can't use that either)
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #86
    Bloodshed puts new focus on vitriol in politics
    'Pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people willing to subject themselves to serve in public office'

    WASHINGTON — The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others at a neighborhood meeting in Arizona on Saturday set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics.

    While the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained antigovernment ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.

    Clarence W. Dupnik, the Pima County sheriff, seemed to capture the mood of the day at an evening news conference when he said it was time for the country to “do a little soul-searching.”

    “It’s not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included,” Sheriff Dupnik said. “That’s the sad thing about what’s going on in America: pretty soon we’re not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people willing to subject themselves to serve in public office.”

    'Unspeakable act'

    In the hours immediately after the shooting of Ms. Giffords, a Democrat, and others in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, members of both parties found rare unity in their sorrow. Top Republicans including Speaker John A. Boehner and Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona quickly condemned the violence.

    “An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.”

    President Obama made a brief appearance at the White House, calling the shooting an “unspeakable act” and promising to “get to the bottom of this.”
    Not since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 has an event generated as much attention as to whether extremism, antigovernment sentiment and even simple political passion at both ends of the ideological spectrum have created a climate promoting violence. The fallout seemed to hold the potential to upend the effort by Republicans to keep their agenda front and center in the new Congress and to alter the political narrative in other ways.

    The House was set to vote Wednesday on the new Republican majority’s proposal to repeal the health care law that had energized their supporters and ignited opposition from the Tea Party movement. Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the new majority leader, said Saturday that the vote and other planned legislative activity would be postponed.

    The original health care legislation stirred strong feelings that flared at angry town hall meetings held by many Democratic lawmakers during the summer of 2009. And there has been broader anger and suspicion rising about the government, its finances and its goals, with the discourse partially fueled by talk shows and Web sites.

    Tea Party activists also condemned the shooting. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, noted on his Web site that Ms. Giffords is “a liberal,” but added, “that does not matter now. No one should be a victim of violence because of their political beliefs.”

    In the cross hairs

    But others said it was hard to separate what had happened from the heated nature of the debate that has swirled around Mr. Obama and Democratic policies of the past two years.
    “It is fair to say — in today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric — that many have contributed to the building levels of vitriol in our political discourse that have surely contributed to the atmosphere in which this event transpired,” said a statement issued by the leaders of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Ms. Giffords is the first Jewish woman elected to the House from her state.

    During last spring’s health care votes, the language used against some lawmakers was ratcheted up again, with protesters outside the House hurling insults and slurs. The offices of some Democrats, including Ms. Giffords’s in Tucson, were vandalized.

    Ms. Giffords was also among a group of Democratic House candidates featured on the Web site of Sarah Palin’s political action committee with cross hairs over their districts, a fact that disturbed Ms. Giffords at the time.

    “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” Ms. Giffords said last March. “But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”

    The image is no longer on the Web site, and Ms. Palin posted a statement saying “my sincere condolences are offered to the family of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.” (Late Saturday, the map was still on Ms. Palin’s Facebook page.)

    Democrats have also pointed out cases where Republican candidates seemed to raise the prospect of armed revolt if Washington did not change its ways.

    But many Republicans have noted that they too are subject to threats and abuse, and during the health care fight some suggested Democrats were trying to cut off responsible opposition and paint themselves as victims.

    Not a Tea Party member?
    Sensitive to the issue, Tea Party activists in Arizona said they quickly reviewed their membership lists to check whether the suspect, Mr. Loughner, was associated with them. They said they found no evidence that he was.

    Tea Party members in Tucson had disagreed sharply with Ms. Giffords, particularly as the health care debate unfolded, but she ended up backing the measure despite the political risks. They strongly supported her opponent, Jesse Kelly, in the November election, and staged several protests outside her office.

    DeAnn Hatch, a co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, said her group had never staged any rallies against the congresswoman elsewhere, and she did not believe there were any Tea Party protesters at the event Saturday.

    “I want to strongly, strongly say we absolutely do not advocate violence,” she said. “This is just a tragedy to no end.”

    But others said it would be hard to separate this shooting from the ideological clash.

    “At a time like this, it is terrible that we do have to think about politics, but no matter what the shooter’s motivations were, the left is going to blame this on the Tea Party movement,” Mr. Phillips, from Tea Party Nation, said on his Web site.

    “While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing,” he wrote. “Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone and not used for political gain.”
    Source

    Here's some more fuel for the fire. I'm still kinda appalled at how this is turning into ammunition for political attacks.

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Source

    Here's some more fuel for the fire. I'm still kinda appalled at how this is turning into ammunition for political attacks.
    I'm amused at how pious declarations about the level of political discourse others are engaged in are themselves usually digs in the exact same vein. Like the objection Giffords made when Palin launched that push in March.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #88
    If you people are complaining that political speech causes violence I hope you are all lining up to ban violent video games and movies. If not your a bunch of hypocrites.

    Crazy people can be set off by anything. Beck and Palin are not making the world anymore violent. To claim so is to use a tragedy to score political points and to attempt to restrict people's freedom of speech.

  29. #89
    The attacker was a terrorist. It does not matter if he works for a local or not, he still is a terrorist. Such a shooting could only be perpetrated by someone trying to compromise the stability of the US. If Manning is treated like a terrorist for disclosing a video about shooting a journalist from Reuters, the one shooting in Arizona should be treated like a terrorist too. Or is it that disclosing a video is worse than attempting to kill a VIP in the US?
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Do you think any politician is insane enough to actually call for violence?
    It happens all over the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    So we really should ban all portrayals of violence in video-games, movies, TV, the News, etc? Because the pysch studies all indicate those as having a tangible effect on us, unlike the use of metaphors in political campaigns. I mean, if you want to avoid setting off people who are already mentally unstable, then presumably if this trigger matters then stronger, more direct triggers should matter even more (oops, I can't use the word trigger now either, it's another of those words which might set off a crazy. Dang, "set off" connotes an explosive, can't use that either)
    Oh, do grow up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If you people are complaining that political speech causes violence I hope you are all lining up to ban violent video games and movies. If not your a bunch of hypocrites.
    "you're"

    Crazy people can be set off by anything. Beck and Palin are not making the world anymore violent. To claim so is to use a tragedy to score political points and to attempt to restrict people's freedom of speech.
    Beck and Palin aren't the ones who are saying, in effect, 'democrats who voted for the health-care bill should be killed'.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •