# Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Nearly Assassinated



## pink freud (Jan 8, 2011)

Gabrielle Giffords Shot Dead: Congresswoman Killed In Arizona (LIVE UPDATES)

Sad to say it's not surprising in our current political climate


----------



## bostjan (Jan 8, 2011)

From what I gather, she is still alive, but in bad shape.

You don't think that there is any truth to the rumors that Jesse Kelley had something to do with this, do you?


----------



## Randy (Jan 8, 2011)

There are conflicting reports right now saying that she's still alive, thank heavens.

My father and I were theorizing this was going to happen sooner or later, sometime around the 2008 election. The mix of people who were legitimately disenfranchised with the the system and the economy, coupled with a lot of villainizing and "the world is coming to an end" polarizing bullshit. It was just a matter of time before people started lashing out. 

EDIT: Ninja'd


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 8, 2011)

She's still alive, as of 2:03pm Central time. She's in surgery, with a gunshot wound to the head.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 8, 2011)

Randy said:


> There are conflicting reports right now saying that she's still alive, thank heavens.
> 
> My father and I were theorizing this was going to happen sooner or later, sometime around the 2008 election. The mix of people who were legitimately disenfranchised with the the system and the economy, coupled with a lot of villainizing and "the world is coming to an end" polarizing bullshit. It was just a matter of time before people started lashing out.
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'd



Sadly, I've been expecting something like this as well...I'd actually anticipated this sort of thing sooner. I hope she pulls through.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 8, 2011)

This is horrible. I can't imagine being mad at someone about their political beliefs (I assume it's the motive) to try and kill them. I think this might say something about the underlying current of intolerance on both sides of the fence.

I wish her, her family, and all those close to her aides the best of luck and a speedy recovery.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 8, 2011)

Praying for her recovery!


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 8, 2011)

Hope she makes a full recovery as well as the others who were wounded. What bastard.


----------



## Randy (Jan 8, 2011)

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/gzpcdzj - Shared by SupermanHotMale


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 8, 2011)

Wat. Is that just sick humor? I can't imagine anybody actually believing that AND saying it on a public space.


----------



## ROAR (Jan 8, 2011)

What has this world come to...


----------



## Randy (Jan 8, 2011)

I couldn't tell either. Still wildly inappropriate at the time.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 8, 2011)

Yeah If my (wildly stereotypical Republican) boss saw that on my Facebook wall I wouldn't just get fired, I'd get my ass kicked.


----------



## severussnape (Jan 8, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Wat. Is that just sick humor? I can't imagine anybody actually believing that AND saying it on a public space.



Garuntee some jack-booted liberal thugs will be having a chat with Mr. Kerr.


Praying for a full recovery for Gillfords. Doctors say she is responding to commands, and she is out of surgery.

Sadly, there were 2 fatalities. A 9 yr old, and federal judge John Roll, according to the huffington post.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 8, 2011)

^I was just about to post about the fatalities. What a tragic way for a child to die.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2011)

It's been very odd to witness the growing rhetoric of anger over the years. I've been wondering when it was going to bubble over.

I'll agree with one sentiment which has been expressed a few times: Anyone who decides to go this route is an enemy of America and the Constitution.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 8, 2011)

Sadly, this was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about it:







Now, I'm NOT saying she's directly responsible, but you can't fill people full of fear and hate and be surprised when someone acts literally.


----------



## severussnape (Jan 8, 2011)

NBC is saying now that there are 5 dead, 12 wounded. One aide to Gillfords was killed.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 8, 2011)

This is some tragic shit man. I blame the talking heads on tv that fill peoples heads with fear, anger, and hatred. They wind people up like a top, and then wonder why said top shows up with a goddamn hand cannon and blasts people straight to hell.

More on the shooter:
Man linked to Giffords shooting rampage called 'very disturbed'


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 8, 2011)

I hope they throw the bastard in a dark hole and force feed him enough to survive and nothing more for the rest of his life.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 8, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I hope they throw the bastard in a dark hole and force feed him enough to survive and nothing more for the rest of his life.



Do this to the talking heads like the ones on Fox News and I'm definitely with you on that...

This sounds to me like the act of a guy that is already mentally disturbed mixed with the b.s. fearmongering you hear on overly biased news stations.


----------



## GATA4 (Jan 9, 2011)

This is terrible .

I really hope she survives. I also hope the assailant dies by capital punishment, or rots in prison......what a horrible, brutal act.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 9, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> Do this to the talking heads like the ones on Fox News and I'm definitely with you on that...
> 
> This sounds to me like the act of a guy that is already mentally disturbed mixed with the b.s. fearmongering you hear on overly biased news stations.



You cannot blame ones actions on anyone other than themselves. No one is responsible except one who takes the actions and they are solely to blame. (This of course applies to people old enough to understand, I would say a 12 year old should understand that by then).


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 9, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> You cannot blame ones actions on anyone other than themselves. No one is responsible except one who takes the actions and they are solely to blame. (This of course applies to people old enough to understand, I would say a 12 year old should understand that by then).



In this case, it sounds to me like the kid was mentally disturbed to begin with. I agree that a huge portion of the blame rests solely on his shoulders, but I also think that this is a prime example of what happens when the news fearmongering campaigns are crammed down the throats of everyone, everywhere. 

Eventually (as we've witnessed) it's gonna fill the head of some crazy bastard somewhere, they're gonna take it serious, and go out and shoot some democrats. Even more sickening is that I've seen people on the net praise this guys' actions. 

I'm almost waiting for some talk show gum monkey like Rush Limbaugh to run around praising this guy's actions. Don't like the policies being implemented by our current government? Never mind trying the legal ways of changing things, just go shoot those bastard dems one by one. 


I think this (sadly) has become our way of removing elected officials from office:






Like the Sheriff said in the OP link, it's getting to the point where people aren't gonna want to serve in office anymore. I'll add to that: "unless they can serpentine well"


----------



## Explorer (Jan 9, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> You cannot blame ones actions on anyone other than themselves. No one is responsible except one who takes the actions and they are solely to blame. (This of course applies to people old enough to understand, I would say a 12 year old should understand that by then).



Although someone can bear the responsibility of their own actions, the law still recognizes the concept of incitement, and the inciter's culpability. I also think that, outside of criminal prosecution, those who are inciting others to violence can also be pursued for civil damages.

So, for example, if there was a person who said, that person should be killed!, and that person was killed, a child left without parents could (with court assistance) go after the person who had called for the killing, not just the murderer.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 9, 2011)

I just want to say that I'm not a Palin supporter.

I also want to say that there has been NO (read: zero, zip, nadda, nothing, etc) evidence that Jared Lee Loughner is either. Or that his actions are related to Palin's ill-executed advert.

If we could please not feed into the media hype of "ZOMG IT HAS TO BE CONNECTED!!!"


----------



## severussnape (Jan 9, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> I just want to say that I'm not a Palin supporter.
> 
> I also want to say that there has been NO (read: zero, zip, nadda, nothing, etc) evidence that Jared Lee Loughner is either. Or that his actions are related to Palin's ill-executed advert.
> 
> If we could please not feed into the media hype of "ZOMG IT HAS TO BE CONNECTED!!!"




I don't think the poster means much, honestly, but the inflammatory rhetoric coming from talking heads like Palin, Limbaugh, Savage, Berry, Stein, etc... has led us to a very highly politically charged state. The other day I saw a grown man on the news, almost in tears, talking about UHC, saying it was precisely the kind of thing Hitler did. Talk radio hosts going on about how democrats want to take your freedoms away, and how their destroying this country, and how there is a concerted effort by one political party to cripple this nation. 
That kind of talk winds some people up. Some people are already wound too tight. You add to that the hype from these talking heads, and eventually someone will snap.

I think we may have seen that on Saturday.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 9, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> I just want to say that I'm not a Palin supporter.
> 
> I also want to say that there has been NO (read: zero, zip, nadda, nothing, etc) evidence that Jared Lee Loughner is either. Or that his actions are related to Palin's ill-executed advert.
> 
> If we could please not feed into the media hype of "ZOMG IT HAS TO BE CONNECTED!!!"



Going by the dude's reading list I'd say he was influenced by paranoia. Not left or rightwing, just paranoia.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 9, 2011)

severussnape said:


> I don't think the poster means much, honestly, but the inflammatory rhetoric coming from talking heads like Palin, Limbaugh, Savage, Berry, Stein, etc... has led us to a very highly politically charged state. The other day I saw a grown man on the news, almost in tears, talking about UHC, saying it was precisely the kind of thing Hitler did. Talk radio hosts going on about how democrats want to take your freedoms away, and how their destroying this country, and how there is a concerted effort by one political party to cripple this nation.
> That kind of talk winds some people up. Some people are already wound too tight. You add to that the hype from these talking heads, and eventually someone will snap.
> 
> I think we may have seen that on Saturday.




This is exactly my point. Everyday you got these guys talking up about how the sky is falling. Eventually when someone says something enough times, people are going to believe it's true. Wind up an already paranoid, uptight person and they are going to snap. I believe this to be the case here.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 9, 2011)

Wow. Where is the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions? Christ. Talking heads yapping on TV about this or that and I'm supposed to believe that *that* is enough to push a twisted individual to "lash out"? 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Where I'm from, you take responsibility for your actions. If someone's screaming in your face with a megaphone telling you to KILL KILL KILL, it's on YOU and YOUR conscience should you choose to be a whacko. It's on YOU and YOUR conscience should you choose to "snap".

God I wish people would stop looking for someone to blame when shit like this happens. It's the same thing every single time. Bullies, talking heads, Sarah Palin, my neighbor's dog, etc. Someone else is *always* to blame. I've no doubts that there are laws on the books regarding "inciting" someone (or a group) to violent acts. No doubts at all. But if any of you armchair lawyers think that someone is actually going to get *prosecuted* other than the gunman, you've been watching too many episodes of Law & Order or NCIS. 

This Loughner tool is going to fry for what he's done, and rightfully so. No one else. And here's a link with more information from people close to him, noting that he became increasingly alienated and paranoid about the government in general. In a way, it's good that he's still alive, only to the extent that *hopefully* at some point he'll be allowed to speak for himself and explain what he's done. From the article and what I hope he says later on, this shit had ZERO to do with talking heads on TV, Tea Parties, "Voting With A Bullet" etc, and was the result of one deranged individual snapping because he was deranged. Not because day after day Fox News or Sarah Palin somehow incited or encouraged violent behavior.

Shooting suspect's nihilism rose with isolation - Yahoo! News


----------



## The Somberlain (Jan 10, 2011)

Well, this is simply tragic, but unfortunately with where we are now, it seems that it was just a matter of time. My condolences to the families and friends affected in Arizona.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Wow. Where is the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions? Christ. Talking heads yapping on TV about this or that and I'm supposed to believe that *that* is enough to push a twisted individual to "lash out"?
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy it. Where I'm from, you take responsibility for your actions. If someone's screaming in your face with a megaphone telling you to KILL KILL KILL, it's on YOU and YOUR conscience should you choose to be a whacko. It's on YOU and YOUR conscience should you choose to "snap".
> 
> ...



I don't think anybody of worth is claiming that anybody but him was the cause of this. But, it would be foolish to claim that the environment in which the action takes place doesn't _contribute _to the incident.


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

NO EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN A VACUUM


----------



## ss22 (Jan 10, 2011)

So how do we stop this from happening again?

Everyone must need more guns, or bigger guns.....


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 10, 2011)

I'd start with better funding for mental health research and awareness. Clearly this guy was out of his damn tree, and showed early signs of solipsism and to a small degree sociopathic behavior. I'm really surprised that he wasn't approached by school counselors about his behavior. He clearly freaked out his fellow classmates, and nobody did much more than sweep him under the carpet. In response to this, I'd recommend that there be more counseling available at schools and that all complaints be taken more seriously. You'd think that would have happened already given the number of school shootings that this country has already had, but sadly no. 

After that, there needs to be more programming out there to combat the paranoid fanatical talking heads out there. Obviously any attempts to shut 'em down would be unconstitutional (which I'm against) and would play right into their arguments of freedoms being stolen. However, I rarely come across left-winged and/or neutral programming. Most of what I see on tv is ridiculously right-winged. Personally I'd prefer to have news revert to the neutrality that it was once supposed to stand for. However, I see that in this day and age, that's more or less a pipe dream. I think a more realistic goal is to give an equal (or close to equal) voice to the other side of the aisle. And that doesn't mean invite them onto shows, not let them get a word in edge-wise, and use the remaining time to make them a verbal punching bag.

And Orb, nobody is disputing the fact that this guy is a fuckin' nutter that deserves to be burned at the stake for his actions. In the end, you only have yourself to blame for your own actions, and this guy is no different. My point is that he was a step from killing people as is. When a guy like that is about to snap, even the tiniest push can make him go over the edge. I find the tv talking heads to do more than give a tiny push. As evidenced by people like my dad that buy into that bullshit, it can take a balanced person and make them paranoid as fuck. Now I just don't have enough evidence to say that that was THE reason this guy lost it, but the whole situation opened my eyes more to the fact that people need to learn to tune that crap out.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy, you use that "nothing happens in a vacuum" crap every time I mention any kind of personal responsibility. I think what I'm getting from your comment is that the *environment* plays a role in things, maybe in everything. That's fine.

I just personally feel that in *this* instance, this guy was acting on his own warped sense of justice. And that, in general, people are better served in the long run by accepting responsibility for their choices in life. I don't believe a person's environment dictates how a person must act, think or feel. If you're raised in a racist environment, and that's all you ever encounter growing up, does that make it OK to be a racist? Does that absolve you from being ignorant? 

If you're raised in a violent environment, Dad whooping Mom's ass, does that make it OK to be a wife-beater? Does that mean it's OK to lash out physically when you're upset? 

That's my contention. In my book, the environment you grow up in, or surround yourself with ends with the choices you make. I get the sense that to you and maybe Pink Freud, that the environment *contributes* some "special sauce" to this recipe for disaster. I'm saying that a fucked up nutter, is a fucked up nutter, and if it wasn't Mrs. Gifford that he decided to lash out against, it'd be someone else sooner or later. That he's obviously "not well" and obviously a few melon balls short of a fruit salad. I don't think that means because Fox News, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin or anyone else says the sky is purple, that suddenly the sky must be purple to a subset of the population. And more importantly, that if they're yammering on about the sky being purple, that anyone caught up in that belief is automatically free from responsibility. Or somehow that *they* are in any way to blame, for a person being (or becoming) a fucking nut job.

I don't know what shows or networks you're watching Ghst, but I don't get an overwhelmingly "Right" leaning slant from anything but Fox News and maybe certain writers at The Huffington Post. But admittedly, I don't watch a lot of television (other than Showtime or HBO when my shows are on). So maybe there's more slant there than I'm aware of, but still, if we agree that the guy is a fucking whacko, which has been proved by his actions, why would anyone need to blame anyone but him for his actions? That's what I really, honestly, do not understand.

Lastly, I really don't think this guy was in any way influenced by the media (Right or Left) to do the things that he did. That's my point. They make for convenient scapegoats though, unfortunately


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2011)

Related to there being an atmosphere of paranoia...

There is a disturbing amount of rhetoric on right-wing websites which assumes that the President will declare martial law, and that military and police personnel will have to defend the American people. One of the scariest of these right-wing organizations is the Oath Keepers, a continuation of the Patriots movement which spawned Timothy McVeigh. 

To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the extreme right wing is the purposeful twisting of the truth. As I've mentioned before, the biggest non-mentioned aspect of Karl Rove's push polls, successful in derailing John McCain's bid against George W. Bush, wasn't that he had his election staff call Republicans to ask if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had a black love child; it was that his strategy was *successful*, meaning that the Republicans who were polled were racist. (Okay, maybe not a news flash. *laugh*)

In this case, though,the biggest erosions of civil liberties in the past few decades came about under George W. Bush. And yet... no outcry from the Reich Wingnuts. They were okay with that, in the same way other governments have come into greater power by justifying their actions against an internal enemy. 

Even with that truth, though, there are many right-wingnut sites which pose the following poll question: If Obama imposes martial law, will military and police go along with it? 

I understand that a person can be paranoid in isolation. However, the fearmongering on the right is terrifying to those Americans who can see how crazy it is.....


----------



## BigPhi84 (Jan 10, 2011)

Ah, I've been gone for a while and coming back to the site from my absence, I see that Randy and Orb are still arguing! LOL. I miss this. I wish I could get you both in a room with some beer. It would be good times for sure! 


I just posted this on my facebook. Take it as you will:

*I think what's sadder than the Gabrielle Giffords shooting is the fact that both political parties are trying to blame each other for the horrendous acts of an obvious anarchist. When did politics become a football game where you blindly cheered on your favorite team? A nine year old and a federal judge were killed. Please let them rest in peace and not let their deaths become part of a mudslinging match.*


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Randy, you use that "nothing happens in a vacuum" crap every time I mention any kind of personal responsibility. I think what I'm getting from your comment is that the *environment* plays a role in things, maybe in everything. That's fine.



Stanley Milgram Experiment - Will People Do Anything If Ordered?

Take a look at this experiment that shows what people will do under commands from others. Psychologists thought only 1-3% of people would go all the way to 450 volts, but what happened was about 2/3 of participants in the study went all the way to 450.

Having people telling you it's ok to do something or that they have to do it can make even normal people do crazy shit.


----------



## severussnape (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Randy, you use that "nothing happens in a vacuum" crap every time I mention any kind of personal responsibility. I think what I'm getting from your comment is that the *environment* plays a role in things, maybe in everything. That's fine.
> 
> I just personally feel that in *this* instance, this guy was acting on his own warped sense of justice. And that, in general, people are better served in the long run by accepting responsibility for their choices in life. I don't believe a person's environment dictates how a person must act, think or feel. If you're raised in a racist environment, and that's all you ever encounter growing up, does that make it OK to be a racist? Does that absolve you from being ignorant?
> 
> ...




No one has said that this guy isn't responsible for his actions. What IS being said is that in looking for a cause the environment certainly does matter. Things like this don't happen for no reason, or in a vacuum. To argue otherwise is simply unreasonable.

No one is excusing this guy at all, but we are trying to take an honest look at what caused this.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

severussnape said:


> we are trying to take an honest look at what caused this.



I disagree. It seems, to me, that hasty conclusions and finger pointings are being made with no basis. Immediately after the shooting occured, the internet exploded with "OMG IT WAS A RIGHT WING NUTCASE PALIN HAD THOSE TARGETS ON THAT MAP AND THAT MAKES PEOPLE SHOOT CONGRESSPEOPLE," which is still going on; even here. This clearly wasn't the case here. The guy was an anti-current establishment kook and conformed to no such ideology. Cooler heads take a step back and observe it objectively and aren't disappointed that it isn't what they want to be (i.e., the work of a tea partier).

And in regards to what to do to prevent this; we don't need any more money shoved in any direction. I'm going to make a general blanket statement, but I've seen is that any time people think something needs to be done, they automatically suggest to give more money to some place for research. Shoving money in whichever direction, which is what we've been doing anyway, gets us entirely nowhere. That is exactly the opposite of what we need. What we need are less complacent and more inspired people to carry out this research; people that don't sit on their asses all day while browsing the internet, and instead strive for the purpose of righting wrongs such as we've just recently witnessed. That fixes problems, not boatloads of money. Money just temporarily conceals or defers the problem to a later date, and the problem, when it returns, will only be worse.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 10, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Related to there being an atmosphere of paranoia...
> 
> There is a disturbing amount of rhetoric on right-wing websites which assumes that the President will declare martial law, and that military and police personnel will have to defend the American people. One of the scariest of these right-wing organizations is the Oath Keepers, a continuation of the Patriots movement which spawned Timothy McVeigh.
> 
> ...




I don't watch any news television so excuse my ignorance.

Since when has the president ever expressed the desire to instate martial law? Also on that note, isn't American technically under martial law all the time seeing as our president is commander-in-chief?


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

On one hand, everyone is accountable for their own actions. On the other hand, people only respond to prompts.

If we follow the logic of cause and effect, and if the shooter was an effect of right-wing media, then the cable companies are the cause of right-wing media, and the cable customers the cause of that, and so on. The continuation of this logic leads blame to be placed on strange talking serpents hanging out in fruit trees...

My thoughts are: Whether or not the shooter was prompted by certain advertisements, the fact remains that these advertisements can be seen as subtle (and sometimes less-than-subtle) prompts for people like this, perhaps unintentionally. If there are inappropriate ad's, then someone needs to prompt the people making the ad's to desist. So the shooter is solely responsible for the shooting, but the ad-makers also need to be held responsible for the ad's that they make (but not the shooting). This will certainly be a high-profile case, so a lot of these things will likely be seen in a different light.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

Regarding martial law - if people are so certain it will happen, they may force it to occur.

I'm sure that if a thousands of nut-cases across the nation start mowing innocent bystanders down with machine-guns, there will necessarily be martial law.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Why is everyone suggesting this guy was right-wing?


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Why is everyone suggesting this guy was right-wing?



A lot of people feel that it is a fair assumption to make that someone who attempt to assassinate a leader makes him/her the opposite political affiliation. I personally don't know anything about the guy, yet.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

True; fair enough. I guess it was the first thing that came to my mind as well. From the news reports I've read, the guy is pretty whack and doesn't fit any mainstream ideology.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Why is everyone suggesting this guy was right-wing?



I read an interesting article the other day, which pointed out that by some 'shocking coincidence', each successful assassination carried out over the last 100 years in this country (not taking *unsuccessful* attempts like Reagan into account) has resulted in a dead Democrat. 100 years of assassinations, and not a single dead Republican.



> Anton Cermak, 1933, mayor of Chicago, murdered in Miami when shot by the attempted assassin of FDR.
> 
> Huey Long, 1935, Governor of Louisiana.
> 
> ...



I think most of you know why I put 'shocking coincidence' in quotes -- Because it's not a coincidence at all. I'm not a lefty or a righty, but I know which of those two sides is far more frequently guilty of inflammatory rhetoric than the other. The last election cycle was only a few months ago. Do I have to go dig up all the videos from campaign ads that were aired on public television to prove my point? Don't make me do work... 

I'm not pointing a finger for this specific case (Any rational person understands that single effects generally have plural causality), but if one looks at things from a historical perspective, I don't think one can still make the argument that political/media rhetoric had NOTHING to do with this incident or others like it. That's just silly.

Can we say any *one* politician, political party or media outlet is to blame? Absolutely not. That's just as silly. That's like blaming Quake or Marilyn Manson for Columbine. I'm just saying that if any of you think that the political climate in this country had absolutely NO PART in leading any person to this kind of action, you need a wake up call. We are each of us a product of our environment(s), before any one person's sense of personal responsibility is even entered into the equation.

America loves a scapegoat, but there never is one. There will never be a single source we can point to and say "*THAT* is why he did it!". I know I say this a lot, but: Life just doesn't work that way.

Getting past all the nonsense, my heart goes out to the families of those killed or injured in this tragic incident. Maybe this is a great time to quit bickering about bull shit and focus on the truth: We're all of us human beings. Somewhere out there, there are several human beings who are mourning the tragic loss of family members who's only 'crime' was going to buy groceries that day.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Good post. I will say one thing, though. The political climate in this country hasn't changed since men settled disputes with duels. If you read the history books, you'd see there's always been nasty stuff in politics through the ages. So yeah, I suppose is is more of a human thing, unfortunately.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> True; fair enough. I guess it was the first thing that came to my mind as well. From the news reports I've read, the guy is pretty whack and doesn't fit any mainstream ideology.



Well, yeah. I don't see too many totally rational, moderate people running around shooting children. 

I think it's easier for some people to generalize the entire politcal spectrum into monochrome.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

I think what we're seeing is folks on the Left grasping at straws to label this guy "Right Wing". A Democrat was shot, therefore, the person doing the shooting *must* have been a Right Wing whack job... 

I agree with ddtonfire about this, No one knows with 100% certainty what this guy's true motivations were and/or if they had anything to do at all, with the Right wing rhetoric people categorized as the catalyst prompting people to go batshit loco. You Lefties better pray that this guy sits down for an interview with Barbara Wah Wah and starts listing all the Right Wing media outlets and talking heads he listened to verbatim to help guide him on his path to violence. From what I've read, he had a clear mistrust for authority and disdain for "the system". He'd argue more about a words meaning than its context. He subscribed to several conspiracy theories.

I don't believe in the "Product of One's Environment" nonsense. It just doesn't wash with me. It makes it all too easy for one to just say "It's not *my* fault I'm a shithead, it's my *parents* fault, or it's *the school system* or *the police*" or what have you. It shifts responsibility from the shoulders it should rest squarely on, and puts that responsibility on outside factors that have little or no real impact on how a person behaves. And most importantly, when that person *does* snap or finally go off the rails, it makes it so fucking easy to just point the finger at things you Lefties generally disagree with and say "See! Sarah Palin is laying the groundwork for a homegrown rebellion! Death Squads will be everywhere!!! She wants Democrats DEAD!!!! Fox News told me to vote with a bullet, so by golly, I'm going to do it!".

And you go on about nothing happening in a vacuum, well you know what, that vacuum sucks both ways. Few people if any, are raised in "Bubbles" or "Vacuums" where the only thing influencing their behavior is what Sarah Palin says or what Fox News broadcasts. Few people if any, are raised in an "captive" environment with no outside influence or contact. Meaning, thanks to numerous media outlets (print, online and on tv) it's virtually impossible for someone to be made into an automaton. That's the kind of things I'm hearing here. That basically people raised in a negative environment, turn out negatively, act out negatively, etc. That it isn't just chemical imbalances and mental illness in them, it's their environment that helps continue psychosis feeding on itself. My contention is that it's all but impossible to get that kind of individual because of access to all the varied sources of news and opinions. If they're not being raised in a vacuum, which they are not, then they MUST accept responsibility for their actions. 

Nevermind the fact that nutters come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Nevermind the fact that people make their own choices in life. Sorry but I don't believe in A Clockwork Orange. Finding out humans are more sadistic than one might initially believe in controlled experiments means nothing with respect to the issue at hand. The questions are simple. Is Jared Loughner a nutjob? Yes. The fucking guy believes in conspiracy theories like 9/11 being an inside job, and he fucking SHOT a bunch of people, what further proof do you need? Did Jared Loughner act on an impulse prompted by Right Wing talking heads? The jury is out on that one, but I think any fair minded person would say that we won't know with certainty until we hear it from the horse's mouth. 

Talk about fanning of the flames of rhetoric and stirring the pot, you folks on the Left are doing *exactly* that by dismissing this guy as a Right Wing whacko and someone who was *surely* influenced by all the media networks and outlets' bias. Look at yourselves for once. Look at your own biases. 

Finally, here's a list of violence and violent acts against Republicans, lest anyone mistakenly think that the mainstream Right aren't victims of violence or violent acts. I've omitted about 3 dozen other acts of violence from this list because they were mostly vandalism and what I would consider borderline hatecrimes and not direct physical violence against a person, candidate or politician.

*US Historical *


July 31, 1969 - Thomas Haughey, Republican Congressman from Alabama assassinated
Republican presidents who were assassinated: Lincoln: Garfield, McKinley
 *Pre 2004
*


September 5, 1975: President Gerald Ford survives assassination attempt in Sacramento. (&#8220;Squeaky&#8221; Fromme)
September 22, 1975: President Gerald Ford survives assassination attempt in San Francisco. (Sarah Jane Moore)
March 30, 1981: Just 69 days into his presidency, there was an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan and three others were shot, one of them crippled for life. President Reagan&#8217;s lung was punctured.
March 21, 2003: GOP Headquarters in Madison hit with bricks, paint bombs Journal Sentinel
 *2004*


September 2, 2004: Gun Shot Fired Into Huntington, WV, Republican Headquarters.
September 2004: John Kerry supporters and other liberals/Democrats take to the streets of NYC destroying property, beating a NYC detective into a state of unconsciousness and harassing/threatening attendees during the 2004 GOP convention in NYC
September 16, 2004: Community College Professor In Florida Punched Republican County Chairman In Face.
October 5, 2004: Gun Shots Fired Into Knoxville, TN, Bush-Cheney &#8216;04 Office, Shattering Office&#8217;s Glass Front Doors.
October 13, 2004: Kerry Supporter Caught Stealing Bush Sign In Cape Girardeau, MO, Pulled Knife On Sign&#8217;s Owner And Was Arrested.
October 15, 2004: Someone Lined Window Sill With Bullet Casings At Littleton, NH, Republican Headquarters.
October 16, 2004: Unknown Suspects Vandalized Large Bush-Cheney Campaign Sign In Hollister, CA, With Obscenities.
October 17, 2004: Stickers Placed Over Windows Of Gettysburg, PA, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 18, 2004: Eggs Thrown At Keene, NH, Victory 2004 Headquarters.
October 18, 2004: 21 Protesters Arrested At Bush-Cheney &#8216;04 Campaign Headquarters In Arlington, VA.
October 20, 2004: Rocks Thrown Through Windows At Multnomah County, OR, Republican Party Headquarters.
October 21, 2004: Bomb Threat Made Against Lake Havasu, AZ, Republican Party Headquarters.
October 26, 2004: A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac.
November 2004, Election Day: 30 vans intended for getting out the vote in Milwaukee in 2004 had their tires slashed . . .Of the four men who were arrested, one is the son of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and one is the son of former acting Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt.
 *2005*


May 10, 2005: Vladimir Arutyunian, a native Georgian who was born to a family of ethnic Armenians, threw a live hand grenade toward a podium where President George W. Bush was speaking at Freedom Square in Tbilisi, Georgia.
 *2008*


June, 2008: Obama who urged followers in June, &#8220;If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun&#8221;
Sept 17, 2008: Sarah Palin&#8217;s E-Mail Hacked
October, 2008: Sarah Palin effigy hanging in someone&#8217;s yard
December, 2008: Sarah Palin&#8217;s church was set on fire by arsonists while children were inside.
September, 2008: Obama telling is supporters to &#8220;get in their faces&#8221; when confronting opponents.
October, 2008: McCain-Palin campaign bus coming under gunfire in New Mexico.
October, 2008: the home of a Republican headquarters manager in central Florida was shot up that same week as the shooting of the McCain-Palin bus in New Mexico. McCain supporters in the area woke to find the brake lines on their cars severed, their telephone and cable television lines cut, and political graffiti scratched into automobile paint and scrawled on their homes.
October 12, 2008: Authorities have arrested two men after a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a 4-foot by 8-foot campaign sign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in a southeast Portland yard.
October 17, 2008: an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a [female] McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: &#8220;Defendant grabbed the sign the informant was holding, broke the wooden stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in the face.&#8221;(from police report)
November, 2008: Black Panther with a billy club threatening voters outside polling place in Philadelphia.
Dec 12, 2008 &#8211; Wasila Church Bombing (Sarah Palin&#8217;s Church)
 *2009*


August (1st week?) 2009: a black gentleman who was a Tea Party participant named Kenneth Gladney went to a town-hall meeting hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. While passing out &#8220;Don&#8217;t Tread on Me&#8221; flags, he was viciously attacked by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members. One called him a &#8220;.......&#8221; A woman filming the violence also was accosted.
September 3, 2009 in Thousand Oaks , California, a nationalized health care advocate attacked and bit off the finger of a Tea Partyer who was an opponent.
November 14, 2009: in Fort Lauderdale, Florida violence broke out between tea party protesters and pro-amnesty protesters who had e-mailed group members calling for &#8220;a militant confrontation&#8221; with &#8220;tea-baggers,&#8221;.
November 14, 2009, in Phoenix, tea partyers were attacked by a group of neo-Nazis brandishing a swastika flag and a portrait of Adolf Hitler.
 *2010*


March 22, 2010: Bullet shot through window of Republican Congressman Eric Cantor&#8217;s Richmond, Virginia campaign Office.
March 26, 2010: Mike Malloy, (Left Wing Radio), calls for death of Linbaugh, O&#8217;Reilly and Beck (Link)
March 29, 2010: Today, a two-count complaint and warrant was filed charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family.(Politico)
April 18, 2010 &#8211; Erik Pidrman threatened to murder GOP Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite
June 4, 2010 &#8211; Blog recommending Killing Sarah Palin (DTOM)
June 28, 2010 &#8211; Lib talker Malloy on Cheney: Hope The Miserable Bastard Dies
August 25, 2010 &#8211; Gunshot shatters Glass Door of GOP Headquarters 
October 5, 2010 - Top Dem Official in NJ slaps GOP staffer
October 28, 2010 &#8211; Man pulls knife on Republican Candidate


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

YouTube - Classitup10's Channel


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> YouTube - Classitup10's Channel



Got Loco...? 

EDIT: Oh and BigPhi, good to see ya back man


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

I've been considering minting my own currency, so I found this extremely informative.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

Orb, many of the incidents on the list are pretty inconsequential, and if a list was made of similar things done by right-wing'ers, I'm sure it'd be long as well.

I agree with most of your points, though, but I stand by what I said before. People should not egg each other on to do stupid things. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, that is wrong. Likewise, if I play mental tricks on a crazy person to get him/her to murder someone, it is wrong. Ads that suggest a person be targetted, or propose violence, are also morally wrong. Period.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

bostjan said:


> People should not egg each other on to do stupid things. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, that is wrong. Likewise, if I play mental tricks on a crazy person to get him/her to murder someone, it is wrong. Ads that suggest a person be targetted, or propose violence, are also morally wrong. Period.



Agreed, there is criminal and ethical liability for inciting someone to violence. I have no issues with that, but I still believe the bulk of the responsibility is with the person *doing* the violence and not with the person *egging them on*. Because *egging them on* is vague. It's arbitrary. Hiring a hitman is one thing. The playing of *mental tricks* whatever that means, is entirely different. As are ads that suggest a person be *targetted*. 

If my boss says he wants to "Take out the competition", it is up to me to parse that statement through my own moral and ethical filter and come to the conclusion that he wants to "beat them" in sales numbers, in business performance. Not *literally* take them out, as in have them eliminated physically. 

If a talking head is on TV, or Sarah Palin has a map with targets over certain districts or areas of the country, it is up to me, parse that statement to mean, that she wants to WIN elections in those areas. Not to pick up a rifle and go, literally, KILL candidates or politicians. That is the simple mental breakdown for *normal* people. That's how *most* people view talking heads, or maps with targets or cross-hairs on them.

We know what is meant and it has NOTHING to do with illegal or violent activity. If you're a deranged person, mentally ill, etc, and saw that, only the criminally insane could *maybe* get away with blaming it on their illness. I don't think Loughner falls into that category. I don't think he's insane in a traditional or *typical* way, to the extent that he's been *pushed* or *prompted* by a website or newscast. I think he's just clearly a twisted individual, perhaps academically smart, but completely socially inept, who for his *own* twisted reasons, thought his actions were the *right* thing to do. 

In my experience, it is the weak and feeble minded that want to blame their environment or their surroundings for their own shortcomings or misdeeds.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 10, 2011)

Just to clarify my point:

I'm not saying I think this guy is this party or that party, nor am I saying that any one source of bull shit is to blame for any one person's mistakes. My point on the assassinations was just to draw light to why some may presume correctly or otherwise that this was the act of a Right-Wing activist.

What I'm saying is that one's environment _contributes_ to the motivation behind their actions. An individual is always largely to blame for their own actions, but there are also outside reasons as to why they believe the things they do, and those should not be discounted.

In other words: 

Crazy fuck shoots people. It's obviously 100% his fault for shooting people, but it's not exactly his fault for being a crazy fuck. People don't _choose_ mental instability, but they're not all _born_ with it, either.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 10, 2011)

Also:

I don't think most people are saying that inflammatory rhetoric is to BLAME for this incident, but I do think they're saying that this incident gives us the perfect opportunity to say that inflammatory rhetoric isn't helping ANYBODY and now is as good a time as any to put a stop to it.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Crazy fuck shoots people. It's obviously 100% his fault for shooting people, but it's not exactly his fault for being a crazy fuck. People don't _choose_ mental instability, but they're not all _born_ with it, either.



Well I guess it's just me then, but I see a *lot* of finger pointing when things like this happen. I saw it with Columbine, I saw it with the Virginia Tech shootings, the Fort Hood shootings, and damned near everytime there is violence, there are always "outside factors" that come into play.

And *that* is where the attention gets focused and fixated. On trying to figure out why some looney tune, went looney. It's frustrating, that's my issue with it. I think environmental factors *should* be discounted because they are just environmental. I hold little sympathy for people that blame their environment for wrongdoings. And I hold little empathy for people that are quick to label environmental factors as the driving force behind one person's violent acts.

In my experience, crazy people are fucking crazy, pretty much from day one. And to a large extent, they either learn to deal with their degree of craziness, or they continue on in life until they snap. Correlation is NOT equal to causation. So sooner or later a crazy person has *more* chance to snap and go ballistic than average Joe, but I completely disagree with the notion that by watching TV or reading the net, or newspapers that that somehow can *cause* someone to snap. I disagree to which the degree "media" in general, plays a part in one person going whacko. I think it's minor. It's reason 6,422 on a list of ten thousand reasons why Person X, decided to shoot up a mall, or school or what have you.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Also:
> 
> I don't think most people are saying that inflammatory rhetoric is to BLAME for this incident, but I do think they're saying that this incident gives us the perfect opportunity to say that inflammatory rhetoric isn't helping ANYBODY and now is as good a time as any to put a stop to it.



But inflammatory rhetoric to whom? Those on the Left? I mean who gets to decide what is inflammatory or "encouraging" and what isn't?

I think you're talking about a very steep and slippery slope. Isn't America already doing it's best walking on eggshells to avoid "hurting" some poor saps feelings, do we really need *another* level of censorship, coddling and nannying to step in and say "hey, cut that out, you can't say that, someone *might* misinterpret what you're saying, take you literally at your words, and lash out".

It's ridiculous. I don't want to live in a world or country like that. People should be able to make up their *own* minds with the information they are presented. And you know what? That means that certain fucking nutters (who were ALREADY crazy) *might* just act out. It means one of them *might* snap, but when they do snap, I'm not going to go blaming the media for it, and I certainly am not going to go to the media and ask them to censor themselves or tone things down.

They're talking heads for fucks sake. How much sway do you really think they have? It's like that Right wing joke thread a while back, people that read it are usually able to take it at face value. The number of people reading it, who *already* agree with the sentiments, already *have* their bias and a joke email is about as likely to push them into action as Nicky Minaj and Lil' Kim doing a duet together. They've already *reached* their conclusions, however wrong or short sighted they might be. So what?

And for all this talk about inflammatory rhetoric, I see a Left-wing bias and a clear window of opportunity for them to shut down the Rush's and Mark Levin's of the world. Why? Because someone might freak out? Or because the Left, loathe people like Rush et al, and would *love* to see them legally silenced or censored.


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

Jared Lee Loughner: erratic, disturbed and prone to rightwing rants | World news | The Guardian


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> Jared Lee Loughner: erratic, disturbed and prone to rightwing rants | World news | The Guardian



 So the writer draws parallels between what he interprets from Loughner's postings, and what he knows of Fox News and *that* means he was *urged* to action?

Gimme a fucking break. 

Bias much? 

Lemme guess, Jared Loughner is an Avatar, being controlled, behind the scenes, by Glenn Beck, right? 

Jesus H. Christ. Crazy guy, is crazy. Quick let us act decisively and shutdown Fox News, etc, before anyone else acts out! Label the Tea Party movement as domestic terrorists! Anyone caught speaking about the constitution is a truck driving, AR-15 carrying Right Wing fanatic, blood thirsty and just one broadcast or news segment from an armed revolution on our own soil!!!!

OMFG!!!! Run!!!! 



or...

Maybe...

Just Maybe, we let the loons be loony, not live in fear of domestic or foreign terrorists and just let the chips fall where they may. Some day, some where, some one, will wake up and decide to take the lives of others. He or she might use a gun. He or she might use something else. He or she might be an extreme Right wing whacko, or a Left wing whacko... who knows?


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> NO EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN A VACUUM


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> I've been considering minting my own currency, so I found this extremely informative.



Planning on moving to VA?


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> Jared Lee Loughner: erratic, disturbed and prone to rightwing rants | World news | The Guardian



Let me give you a much more impartial look at this guy, one that isn't bursting at the seams with obvious bias:
Violence and politics merge - Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

I think the point people are trying to make, Mr. Orb, is that there's an increasingly common atmosphere in the national discourse that says that if we don't get what we want, we should take it by violent means.

Is that a contributing factor in this case? Indeterminate, at this point, but seemingly less likely as the evidence comes out. However, the fact that it's even being discussed generally outside of the bastions of the far left and right points to the actual "elephant in the room", which is that public discourse is at a media-fed all time low for civility in the mainstream.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Let me give you a much more impartial look at this guy, one that isn't bursting at the seams with obvious bias:
> Violence and politics merge - Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com



It's from Politco. It's got bias. 

(Although, to be fair, this is better than their usual dreck.)


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> I think the point people are trying to make, Mr. Orb, is that there's an increasingly common atmosphere in the national discourse that says that if we don't get what we want, we should take it by violent means.



Where are you seeing that? I mean in the 60s, a subset of the civil rights movement used things like "by any means necessary" and I assume that was tagged on to the notion of equality and equal rights/treatment right? I guess I'm just not reading that much into the rantings of Rush, et al, maybe because I don't listen to them, or maybe because the things I've heard, are laughable, not literal. You might know I lean more "Right" than most on here, and yet, I don't listen to those guys or read their news bites and take away battle cries and fearmongering. I hear ratings and money. I hear revenue. I hear some rhetoric, but nothing to what I would consider a sane person, as grounds to "take up arms" and actually *lash out*.

So I'd just say, let the fear mongers continue, they're good at it. If this knocks them down a peg or two, that's fine by me. I see no reason to legislate their behavior. Nor do I see any reason why a public outcry to get them to self-censor themselves is really needed. Like I said, crazy guy is, cray-zee... guy was bound to snap at some point if he's that paranoid. I don't see as big of a correlation between talking heads and violence as maybe you or Randy do, that's all.



eaeolian said:


> However, the fact that it's even being discussed generally outside of the bastions of the far left and right points to the actual "elephant in the room", which is that public discourse is at a media-fed all time low for civility in the mainstream.



I disagree. I think it's been the bread and butter of news outlets in almost every form since the country's inception. Mudslinging, muck-raking, whatever you want to call it, it's always been there. Fighting amongst parties, between parties or political factions, it's nothing new. I don't think now is any worse than any other time in our nation's history with respect to news outlets "fanning the flames" or getting involved. The ability for people to interact though, and find common interests and disinterests, has increased exponentially thanks to the internet.

When all the media outlets are state-owned, state-controlled, what then of any dissenters? You think places like China or North Korea with state controlled media and a hamfisted approach to censorship for dissent are *free* from whackos lying in wait, hoping for the next opportunity to lash out against them?


----------



## synrgy (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> But inflammatory rhetoric to whom? Those on the Left?



"You're killing me, Smalls." 

To ANYONE, dude. I'm sick of it. 

Seriously, though: How many threads can we have more or less the same damn conversation, where I explicitly state over and over again that I'm equally disgusted by both major parties, before you stop painting me into a Left-loving corner??


----------



## bostjan (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Jesus H. Christ. Crazy guy, is crazy. Quick let us act decisively and shutdown Fox News, etc, before anyone else acts out! Label the Tea Party movement as domestic terrorists! Anyone caught speaking about the constitution is a truck driving, AR-15 carrying Right Wing fanatic, blood thirsty and just one broadcast or news segment from an armed revolution on our own soil!!!!
> 
> OMFG!!!! Run!!!!
> 
> ...



Way to make a hyperbole.

I think we can both agree on two separate issues:
1) Crazy guy is crazy, and shooter is responsible for shooting.
2) Both major parties have some crazy people in them.

Other than that, all I'm saying is that I do not approve of some of the political attack ad's. I'm not saying that the people who make them should go to jail, or anything like that, just that wrong is wrong.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Seriously, though: How many threads can we have more or less the same damn conversation, where I explicitly state over and over again that I'm equally disgusted by both major parties, before you stop painting me into a Left-loving corner??



Because if you don't agree with him, you're a leftist Commie that hates America.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2011)

Interviews with people who went to school with him actually said he leaned to the left politically, at least a couple years ago.


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

That was until right-wing pundits brainwashed him. His liberal roots are a testament to the abilities of conservative commentators.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2011)




----------



## eaeolian (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> That was until right-wing pundits brainwashed him. His liberal roots are a testament to the abilities of conservative commentators.



*slow clap*


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> That was until right-wing pundits brainwashed him. His liberal roots are a testament to the abilities of conservative commentators.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 10, 2011)

This is only semi-OT, but I didn't know where else to share it:

This is a rather interesting read about watching Palin's Facebook Cenorship Team try to squelch all the fallout; yet NOT squelch a comment saying that killing the 9 year old was a good thing:

Obama London: Inexplicable Edits on Sarah Palin's Facebook Page


----------



## LUCKY7 (Jan 10, 2011)

Why Is Gifford Subscribed To Loughner's YouTube?

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
YouTube - giffords2's Channel

The 'Classit...' subscription link on the bottom left of Giffords page goes to Jared Lee Loughner
YouTube - Classitup10's Channel


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

LUCKY7 said:


> Why Is Gifford Subscribed To Loughner's YouTube?
> 
> Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
> YouTube - giffords2's Channel
> ...



Goddamn you and the crazy shit you post.


----------



## DesertBurst (Jan 10, 2011)

synrgy said:


> 'shocking coincidence'



for some reason this reminds me of Juan Williams.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

synrgy said:


> This is only semi-OT, but I didn't know where else to share it:
> 
> This is a rather interesting read about watching Palin's Facebook Cenorship Team try to squelch all the fallout; yet NOT squelch a comment saying that killing the 9 year old was a good thing:
> 
> Obama London: Inexplicable Edits on Sarah Palin's Facebook Page



If someone posted those inflammatory remarks on my Facebook, I'd delete it ASAP, too, as would anyone in they're right mind! (and free speech is NOT an issue here) The person deleting the comments perhaps missed that particular one. This blogger here is trying a bit too hard to implicate Palin in anything and they're really, and quite pathetically, failing. Too bad they've nothing better to do. It's really farcical how some people obsess over every little thing she does!


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> It's really farcical how some people obsess over every little thing she does!



Welcome to the days and nights for folks on the Left. Sarah Palin is their salvation in so much as she provides them plenty of fluff to talk about, while the amount of *stuff* she's actually changing in this country is miniscule if anything at all.

And Syn, don't take it personally, I didn't mean to lump you in with the "Left". I meant, in context and in general, who is to say what is inflammatory. I get what you mean though, and yes, it's coming from nearly every direction and party imaginable, my take on it, as with this whole issue is, let people form their own opinions on news/opinions presented.

I don't want big brother adding another layer of PCness or dancing around the issues with leglislation because *some* nut job somewhere might freak out.

Here's a scenario: I lean more *Right* than most of you on here. I freely admit that. I also own guns. Does that mean if I started listening to Sarah Palin and/or Fox News religiously, you could expect *me* to snap at their silly nonsense? Now replace me, with 99.99% of the population and you've got an idea of how this works. There's always some *fringe* fraction of a percentage of *any* large group of people that will take things *too* far or *act out* violently or otherwise be disenfranchised or unhappy. So what though? It doesn't mean we should come to expect people to freak out at the "next" talking head that says or does something absurd.


----------



## Krankguitarist (Jan 10, 2011)

Here's my thoughts:

This guy shows some symptoms of a paranoid schizophrenic. Loose connections between words and meanings, disorganized speech. He's in his early 20's as well...prime time for this illness's symptoms to manifest themselves.

I'd bet money on something like this coming to light in the next few weeks. The fact that he was kicked out of his college and rejected from the army, and still able to go out and buy a firearm, is troubling.

I've read a bit through the argument here over placing blame. Without a doubt, this Loughner guy is to blame. It was his actions that caused all this pain.

That being said: we live in a society where the political discourse often stoops to painting other Americans as the enemy. From attack ads to political commentary shows, we send a powerful message: others cannot be trusted. 

Stopping this would have nothing to do with political correctness. It would have nothing to do with "preventing a person's feelings from being hurt". It would have everything to do with stopping the rhetoric, stopping the bullshit, and creating an environment where we don't have to be against everything the other guy is for simply because they're on "the other team"..

In other words: it would be about finding common ground. Anger can be worked through. Contempt is an impassable roadblock. I'd like to see much less of the latter in American politics.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 10, 2011)

Krankguitarist said:


> Here's my thoughts: ...



I don't think it's going to happen. Drama, kicking up dust and stirring the shit pot are what sell and are what keeps media outlets in business. I really don't think we're going to enter into any kind of "age of enlightenment" where people suddenly stop attacking each other, verbally or otherwise. Whether or not there's media outlets echoing their sentiments is secondary. 

So yeah, cool thoughts man, I just don't see it happening


----------



## Krankguitarist (Jan 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I don't think it's going to happen. Drama, kicking up dust and stirring the shit pot are what sell and are what keeps media outlets in business. I really don't think we're going to enter into any kind of "age of enlightenment" where people suddenly stop attacking each other, verbally or otherwise. Whether or not there's media outlets echoing their sentiments is secondary.
> 
> So yeah, cool thoughts man, I just don't see it happening



Call it wishful thinking.

No, we're not going to see any age of enlightenment. That doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with the situation.

I know my post could be taken as a bit "hippie lets hug and make things better", but that's not what I mean. Our political environment has gotten toxic. It's difficult for a person to reach out across the isle anymore, simply because to do so is seen as sleeping with the enemy. Too many hide behind party lines and sling mud at the other side from the safety of their "base". This needs to change, as this is not conductive to progress.

In short: There's no getting around contempt.


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> It's really farcical how some people obsess over every little thing she does!


----------



## JamesM (Jan 10, 2011)

^


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Except every little thing she does most definitely does NOT turn me on.  Save for maybe shoot guns. 

Yeah, that's right. When was the last time _that_ emoticon was used?


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Back on topic:


----------



## Randy (Jan 10, 2011)

Butterbean?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 10, 2011)

I thought the comment regarding how some might misinterpret the rifle-style crosshairs was pretty humorous. Having been on different projects strategies were planned out in the hopes of changing politicians, I have to point out that we *never* used a representation of *any* sort of firearm symbology. *That* is what jumps out to most normal people as the abberation in the first place. I've never seen such symbols used in just about any advertising or religious campaign either. Is it really such a surprise to anyone that using a firearm's crosshairs as a symbol of targeting someone would be interpreted as targeting them with a firearm? If it's really such a surprise, then I would suggest that there is some sort of psychological blindness going on, or even just denial. 

----

Regarding the Black Panthers, and "By any means necessary," I understand that one might be ignorant of a history of violence and oppression towards blacks in the United States. I suggest anyone who has no clue as to the situation do a little reading; posting in ignorance can be avoided.

Incidentally, the groups which were oppressing those blacks were right wing. Anyone remember David Duke, former KKK Grand Wizard and Republican politician? Strom Thurmond, who ran for president on the platform of denying blacks civil rights? All the current attempts to challenge and remove legitimate voters from the voting rolls because they have black-sounding names? For all the right wing rhetoric, there are few counter examples in the other direction. Isn't that funny?

----

I suspect there is a huge reason people will think of anyone who takes advantage of the ability to buy, own and use guns for violent acts like the subject of this thread as right-wing: the right wing in this country is the main force which fights to prevent laws stopping the mentally ill from buying guns. Stopping those who have had legal and/or mental trouble was one of the first things George W. Bush and John Ashcroft set aside after the presidential election.

The other reason it's hard to attribute gun violence to liberals is that such violence is normally the province of the conservative end of the spectrum. Whether it be "Christians" cheering because abortion providers, as well as bystanders, are shot down, or even a good old-fashioned lynching joke, it's hard to find examples of such among liberals. That "PC" attitude which some describe so disparagingly is a symptom of liberals *not* thinking about harming others, and not expressing such ideas without a second thought. 

Just some thoughts!


----------



## Dan (Jan 10, 2011)

Randy said:


> Butterbean?




I shouldn't have 'd but i did

You're a bad man Randy


----------



## QuambaFu (Jan 11, 2011)

Obama: If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun - Washington Wire - WSJ

This inflammatory speech needs to end. I am worried because he is from Chicago and as we all know from watching hollywood movies, is where mobsters and union thugs live.

Can someone point me to a quote by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs(whose house was shot at a year ago,) or any other right winger that said we should shoot congresspersons(<- see my awesome use of non-gender specific language) This dude was mentally unstable and would've done something violent regardless of outside influences, he just happened to pick politics for his outburst.

From a political standpoint, I'm surprised this type of thing doesnt happen more often. About 10 years ago I got politically involved at the BPOU level as a teasurer for my district and the people I came into contact with weren't exactly the most stable(see tinfoil hats and banking conspiracies.) The people is what eventually drove me to my general distaste for politicians.


----------



## Randy (Jan 11, 2011)

Agreed. Inflammatory speech needs to stop. I don't think bad analogies about guns drove this guy to shoot anyone, however, the fervor that's been leading us to think politics is a matter of "life and death" constantly certainly was one of the big contributing factors in choosing a target.

John Stewart's message about reestablishing civil discourse was spot on.


----------



## ss22 (Jan 11, 2011)

To my mind this incident draws some comparisons to the Virginia Tech shooting: a man with recognised mental health issues was able to procure handguns and subsequently use them to kill innocent people. It would appear that no lessons have been learnt in the 3 years between incidents, or that political inertia has prevented any meaningful steps being taken to stop such incidents from occurring.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 11, 2011)

Fucking Obama, if they bring a knife to a fight he's likely to bring a box of chocolates.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 11, 2011)

Randy said:


> Agreed. Inflammatory speech needs to stop. I don't think bad analogies about guns drove this guy to shoot anyone, however, the fervor that's been leading us to think politics is a matter of "life and death" constantly certainly was one of the big contributing factors in choosing a target.
> 
> John Stewart's message about reestablishing civil discourse was spot on.




But wouldn't that involve recognizing the other side as actual people and then treating them with respect, despite the fact that they may disagree with you? I dunno man, that's asking a lot. I mean next thing you know, you might even want us to stop giving handguns to people with mental issues. Where's the line drawn here?



/sarcasm


----------



## Randy (Jan 11, 2011)

ss22 said:


> To my mind this incident draws some comparisons to the Virginia Tech shooting: a man with recognised mental health issues was able to procure handguns and subsequently use them to kill innocent people. It would appear that no lessons have been learnt in the 3 years between incidents, or that political inertia has prevented any meaningful steps being taken to stop such incidents from occurring.



Agreed. The problem you have is real issues being bounced around like a political football. To be fair, you have super-liberal anti-gun folks that go overboard trying to force wide sweeping bans on firearms, so naturally you have their far-right counterparts who decide the only way (politically) to combat this is completely or close to completely unrestricted access to guns, no screening periods, no license necessary for closed or open carry, etc. 

What you end up with are policies that vary from place to place which, on the surface, would seem good since different communities vary widely and deal with issues on a different scale (hence, local and state's rights). The problem comes from the laws varying SO widely from place to place based partially or even entirely on politics instead of the actual needs of the community at large, they ultimately end up missing their mark completely. Arizona's laws were too loose and watch... as a result of this, they're probably going to end up being too tight. 

The other issue is a non-uniform, or even non-existent policy regarding mental disease and violence prevention. It's sad how every one of these stories that pop up there's this "well, the guy was insane and everyone knew it but nobody told someone and even if they did, there was nothing they could do legally". That one I definitely don't have an answer for and you especially can't read minds to figure out if/when somebody's going to snap but this random violence business happens too often and claims too many innocent victims.


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 12, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> I think the point people are trying to make, Mr. Orb, is that there's an increasingly common atmosphere in the national discourse that says that if we don't get what we want, we should take it by violent means.



That is the American way. It has been like that since the colonial days. (It's also been that way for the rest of the world throughout history, but this is a US-based discussion)


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jan 12, 2011)

Sarah Palin Accuses Media of 'Blood Libel'

Noticed this


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2011)

She needed to just keep her mouth shut. She was winning this one because the consensus was "Sarah didn't mean to shoot Congressmen with her ad and it's using the death of people to smear her for political reasons, if you claim otherwise". This is fuel to the fire... she ultimately re-injected herself into this and that's a good way to lose the high-ground.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 12, 2011)

So Sarah Palin, in a video about the shooting, is condemning the media for using the news of the shooting to question her ads? That's just a little hypocritical, in my eyes. I don't fault her for responding to the media to defend her ads, though.

I hope somebody learns something from this, but I have a feeling that both sides of the aisle are too damn stubborn for any good to come of this, whatsoever. It upsets me how ad hominem attacks and BS have come to be more important than honesty and open discussion in this world.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 12, 2011)

Randy said:


> This is fuel to the fire... she ultimately re-injected herself into this and that's a good way to lose the high-ground.



At the risk of more ad hominem attacks, did anyone _really_ expect her to maintain the moral high ground? _Really?_


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2011)

If left up to her, no. I thought her PR people might've been wiser with their decision making, however.


----------



## Cuda (Jan 12, 2011)

Sucks this happened. 

I find it funny how all these politicians were calling for the wikileaks douchebag to get assasinated. Guess they don't realize how serious it is and that they are likely to be shot just for doing their job.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 12, 2011)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> Sarah Palin Accuses Media of 'Blood Libel'
> 
> Noticed this



I made it to 7 minutes before I couldn't take anymore. This came to mind: 

 


Typical Sarah Palin. Let's use buzzwords like congress, freedom and liberty along with phrases like 'Blood Libel' to take focus off of the subject and divert your attention elsewhere. It's like watching a bad magic act. 

Instead of directly denying all allegations and branding them as complete crap, she pulls the smoke and mirrors act. 

"America is so amazing that we all get along with peaceful debate. It is a tribute to how great our country is."
What fucking country does SHE live on!? We're not that peaceful if we're so busy shooting anyone we don't agree with.


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2011)

As Anderson Cooper mentioned, Sarah Palin didn't even MENTION THE NAMES OF THE VICTIMS in her speech. Clearly political and clearly badly executed and tasteless.

Onto more positive matters, the Tuscon Memorial was very fitting and very heartwarming. Also, apparently Congresswoman Giffords opened her eyes and was clearly responding to people speaking to her.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 13, 2011)

Randy said:


> As Anderson Cooper mentioned, Sarah Palin didn't even MENTION THE NAMES OF THE VICTIMS in her speech. Clearly political and clearly badly executed and tasteless.



Nitpicking much?


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2011)

No, that's not. If you're responding to a tragedy and trying to show your sympathy, you actually TALK about the people you're supposed to be TALKING about. She addressed them as if they were just collateral damage. Classless.

I'm not a speech writer or a public speaker of any sort and even I know how to fake sincerity better than that.


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2011)

I'll tell you what. Watch the video, put on your impartial hat and give a serious assessment of it. Democratic strategists say she looked like a selfish brute and Republican strategists says it was a huge mistake and she'd have been better off doing nothing at all. Non-politically motivated people, as I've read so far, said it was ineffective and insincere... didn't help the grieving and it didn't calm the rhetoric. It made it worse.

If you just chimed in here to make a bias swipe (because I know your political leanings) at me just because I'm recognizing what my eyes are seeing, rather than rendering some opinion of your own that's actually three-dimensional and is based on the video provided... you're wasting your time in here.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 13, 2011)

Randy said:


> As Anderson Cooper mentioned, Sarah Palin didn't even MENTION THE NAMES OF THE VICTIMS in her speech. Clearly political and clearly badly executed and tasteless.



I remember reading her initial response. It read like it'd been channeled through a lawyer. "My sincere condolences are offered...". The English teacher grammar-hawk in me recognises the passive form being used to deflect responsibility. For someone with a reality TV show, you'd think she'd have better PR.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 13, 2011)

What I truly hope comes out of this situation is that there is a bit more attention directed at inflammatory speech, not with a view towards limiting it, but with the intention of pointing out that it *is* inflammatory.

I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out those who use violent language towards Americans, whether it be Muslim clerics or any other politicians or religious figures, whether American or foreign. At some point, there is always a recognition of those whose viewpoints make them true enemies of the Constitution. The USA saw it with McCarthyism, with the accusation that usage of freedom of speech was *not* American (remember "Dissent is treason!" *laugh*), and will continue to see it. 

There's a reason the WBC has become isolated: people have come to the conclusion (some very slowly, of course) that the WBC is a hateful group with hypocrites who crap on what they profess to base their belief upon. What will happen when certain groups who wrap themselves up in the flag are revealed to not adhere to the principles represented by that flag? 

Okay, that turned into a rant. *laugh*


----------



## ddtonfire (Jan 13, 2011)

Randy said:


> If you just chimed in here to make a bias swipe (because I know your political leanings) at me just because I'm recognizing what my eyes are seeing, rather than rendering some opinion of your own that's actually three-dimensional and is based on the video provided... you're wasting your time in here.



I will concede that the video was 10% condolences and 90% defending herself against accusations by others. I don't particularly like Sarah Palin (and I find it very difficult to make it through her speeches), but I also don't particularly like people that obsess over every little thing she does, as I've voiced in this thread before. I find it unscrupulous how some people hold her to a double standard (as they turn a blind eye to others doing the exact same thing), use her as a scapegoat for any issue, and seethe at the mouth when she does or doesn't do the smallest thing, and then come up with stuff like this while denouncing her moral ineptitude and claiming the moral high ground:






She doesn't have my support, but she does have my defense.


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2011)

Her biggest problem is that she deliberately pandered to "anti-intellectualism". The whole "don'tcha know" hockey mom, common sense thing. That was a political tactic which had some positive results (my sister voted for McCain heavily for that, as did my friend's mom and probably others). However, she made clear she's not leadership material by abandoning her post as governor and also with gaffe-after-gaffe antics. You have two different groups of people obsessed with her and everything she does... the supporters that refuse to admit they were sold a bill of goods and the lefties who want to use her perpetual spotlight as "evidence the right is inept". The media panders to this, so they keep giving her airtime. The sad thing is that when she develops a few more wrinkles, all three groups will give her up completely.

There are far better Republicans and furthermore, far better Republican women out there to carry the banner for the party.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 13, 2011)

I have tended to lean more toward Democrat candidates in the national arena, lately, but I actually liked John McCain until he chose Palin as his running mate. I absolutely wretch at the thought of her in a leadership position. She just strikes me as a wreckless dummy, even moreso than GW Bush did.

I guess this has turned into a Palin thread now, much as the news has turned the story into a Palin story.

Anyway, back on topic, any comments on this "story?"


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2011)

Katherine Harris had a better rack.


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2011)

bostjan said:


> Anyway, back on topic, any comments on this "story?"



Guy's an inflammatory fuckhead. Seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 13, 2011)

I just thought I'd leave this here, as it's semi-related. It's a bit bizarre once you read it, but still good.

Radio host persuades U.S. church to drop funeral protest - CTV News



ddtonfire said:


>



It's a good thing I have my own office, otherwise lots of people would know I just saw that.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 13, 2011)

Xaios said:


> I just thought I'd leave this here, as it's semi-related. It's a bit bizarre once you read it, but still good.
> 
> Radio host persuades U.S. church to drop funeral protest - CTV News
> 
> ...




Brilliant move. Somebody buy that radio host a beer.


----------

