... that it's lupus?No, not seeing thread tools. I'm sure anyone who comes in here will understand the mix up.
Thats great! I hope she makes it and I hope the suspect makes it... all the way to jail.Reports are saying she is still alive and in surgery. Suspect is in custody.
Damn... I just watched his little videos. That's some grade-A crazy.http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u/4/E8Wr6AeZTCE
his youtube page.
Added at: 22:03
It is assassination when the person you are trying to kill is famous. He's 22, white, and wants to create he own currency.
I mentioned this above, but it ever hurts to point it out again.Apparently, they've detained another guy, and are looking for a third.
That explains why they're taking this seriously.I mentioned this above, but it ever hurts to point it out again.
Victims confirmed dead include a federal judge and a 9 year old boy.
Yeah, thats seems super strange.That explains why they're taking this seriously.
It doesn't explain why this lunatic had accomplices.
I agree. I have seen way too many instances where pundits and comment makers have used tragedies like this to push a political agenda. To them I say fuck off. This is a tragedy performed by a sick individual. There's no reason to turn this into an Us vs. Them battle.Yeah, thats seems super strange.
On a related note that is not in any way aimed at anyone on here: I am really getting tired of people taking tragedies like this and using it to blame a political party, ideology, religion or lack of religion, etc. I'm watching some serious assholes on facebook use this as a way to... well, act like assholes. People that I am actually friends with that are just really saying some out of line stuff.
Yup. I made the mistake of glancing at some of the comments under the news article on Yahoo. People were going back and forth, blaming the left or the right, and making subhuman comments. One person suggested that this should only be the beginning and encouraged others to shoot their representatives too. It was disgusting. I know the internet represents the worst of humanity at times, but I don't want our worst to be that bad.Yeah, thats seems super strange.
On a related note that is not in any way aimed at anyone on here: I am really getting tired of people taking tragedies like this and using it to blame a political party, ideology, religion or lack of religion, etc. I'm watching some serious assholes on facebook use this as a way to... well, act like assholes. People that I am actually friends with that are just really saying some out of line stuff.
I agree. I have seen way too many instances where pundits and comment makers have used tragedies like this to push a political agenda. To them I say fuck off. This is a tragedy performed by a sick individual. There's no reason to turn this into an Us vs. Them battle.
Amen to all your points here.Yeah, I've seen it. While this probably isn't what led to the tragedy, maybe this will convince people on all sides of the spectrum to consider toning down the rhetoric a bit.
The blog's been removed, but this tweet reported on a blog that wanted Olbermann shot:I saw none of those blogs. Link?
Woman Calls @KeithOlbermann "Target" & Asks For Him To Be "Stopped" #p2 #p21 #fbi #msnbc http://is.gd/krDO3
Because so many democratic candidates have been calling for "second amendment solutions".I'm really hoping that if anything good comes from this it's people on both sides of the aisle taking a little bit more care about their rhetoric.
Yikes. Myspace huh? So is the fact that he uses that going to get him an insanity plea? Seems like a lock for the defense.You know how I know that this guy is insane? He left his suicide message on MySpace.
Just to make sure he had a few Twinkies while he was in the grocery store.Yikes. Myspace huh? So is the fact that he uses that going to get him an insanity plea? Seems like a lock for the defense.
That is exactly what I said when I found out.I know. Who the hell still uses MySpace?
Yes, it will be days before the danger of swelling will pass. Last I heard she can respond to simple commands. Which is amazing at this stage. It was weeks for my brother to respond to commands after his wreck. He had a major closed head injury.Any news on her condition? Is she still considered in critical condition?
You wouldn't understand since you're already an evil, wealth-hating socialist drone from the north. The health care bill was merely a cover for the destruction of America from within. 'Cuz that's what Obama wants, afterall.Seriously. Only in America.
That picture on the top of this page is fucken retarded btw. Healthcare support? WHAT THE FUCK
More Grammar AnarchistI hate to be the one to make the obvious joke....
This guy was a literal Grammar Nazi.
By "not politically motivated" I meant it was not meant to advance one political party over the other.It was politically motivated, in that he hated politicians and wanted to kill her for it. But he's just bat-shit crazy, and for people like that the specific motivation is really more like an excuse.
But it's not ok to use this murder to teach a lesson which has little to do with it.It's ok to learn a lesson which doesn't necessarily correlate to the story.
Why are you using these murders as a grandstand for your diatribe against crosshairs on maps?Who is teaching?
I swear, people are looking for reasons to continue to be assholes to each other and pretend that putting a cross hair over someone is ok.
The sort of rhetoric that says the murders wouldn't have occurred if certain right wingers didn't use crosshairs on all their maps?Right, but it shouldn't be used as a political tool to motivate those unhinged individuals. That is where I have problems with that sort of rhetoric.
I dunno man, while I'd rather not see it politicized I think its alright for people to use this event to reflect on what kind of incendiary things they've used to attack the other side. It doesn't mean that any party or person is responsible for what this guy did in the least, only he is, but it should give politicians who use language like this pause I think.But it's not ok to use this murder to teach a lesson which has little to do with it.
I'm sorry. It seems I am unable to convey my point clearly. I will leave it alone.Wow. Just wow.
You know, I hate talking about this stuff on this forum. It feels like no matter what is said, someone is going to twist it into their own little agenda.
Read into it however you want. I am done trying to justify my concerns to people who refuse to admit there are any.
I'm not sure if he's saying that, only so far as he didn't actually use any of those words.So, what are you getting at TLB? We should just ban all guns? Is that your solution?
We have to ban all republicans. Duh.So, what are you getting at TLB? We should just ban all guns? Is that your solution?
I'm no fan of Bill O'Reilly but I think anyone who, even out of context, thinks that that comment isn't merely an over-the-top way to try and make a point about Sharia law has to be reaching here. It's not like he said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"*.When you have statements like this one above
November 4, 2010—Fox News host Bill O'Reilly fantasizes about killing a Washington Post reporter while on the air, saying, "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" O'Reilly also tells co-host Megyn Kelly, "I think you and I should go and beat him up."
and things like that are considered acceptable punditry that is a central part of our political culture then something is seriously wrong.
Because as we know, homicidal criminals always obey gun laws.Banning guns would be a nice start.
Gun laws are only good at one thing... keeping law abiding citizens honest... which isn't really the problem in the first place.Because as we know, homicidal criminals always obey gun laws.
This is like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because criminals speed.Because as we know, homicidal criminals always obey gun laws.
No, we shouldn't have speed limits because they're either an intellectually dishonest methods of revenue generation for municipal governments who want more money but are too cowardly to stand up for an overt tax, or an imperial method of dictating how much fuel the citizen is allowed to consume.This is like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because criminals speed.
These are actually numbers I would very much like to see as well. Unfortunately... I know in Canada we don't actually keep track of statistics like this even though they would actually help end the current debate on our gun registry. Does the USA have any numbers on this sort of thing?I'd like to see some statistics on the % of guns recovered from shooting like this that were legally purchased VS those stolen/ purchased illegally.
*facepalm*Rep. King to introduce gun law making it illegal to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a government official.
So black market sales comprise the biggest chunk of illegally obtained guns used in crimes... that's not surprising I suppose.According to the ATF, 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen.
I'll indulge you - the speed limit analogy is bad. Keeping with the gun control argument, one only need look around. Britain banned all handguns in 97, and their crimes involving firearms rate doubled over the next 6 years. Compare with Israel, where (mostly due to terrorist attacks) licensed citizens carrying guns are near ubiquitous and their crime rate is lower... or Switzerland, whose gun crime rates are so low they don't even bother tracking them, despite gun ownership levels that are at least as high per capita as the US, if not higher.I can't argue with crazy, Gas. At least give me something tangible.
The only use for a law against carrying a gun within an arbitrary distance of a politician is to make it easy for politicians to jail gun owners who legally carry. Can you imagine how hard it would be to enforce such a law?Assassinations are remarkably rare in America. The last sitting member of Congress to have been assassinated was Representative Leo J. Ryan of California, who was murdered by members of the People’s Temple when he was visiting Guyana in 1978. The last one to be assassinated on American soil was Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York in 1968.
The last mayor of a large city to be assassinated was George Moscone of San Francisco, who was killed along with a city supervisor, Harvey Milk, in 1978. The last American president to be assassinated was John F. Kennedy in 1963, although there have been attempts or very serious threats against several others since, most notably Ronald Reagan, who was shot but not killed by John Hinckley, Jr., in 1981. Gov. George Wallace of Alabama was shot and left partly paralyzed by a would-be assassin while running for president in 1972.
While it's easy to say that they have bigger and better weapons, those weapons are still controlled by soldiers who may well have something to say if ordered to train those weapons on their homeland.no matter how armed our populace is under current gun laws they would have zero chance against the full strength of our military if the government started to oppress us all the sudden.
Well sure. They are trained in the art of saying "It behooves us all to stop our bickering and mourn this tragedy" while thinking, "How many minutes must I wait before I can turn these lemons into lemonade!"Yes but pushing legislation that you can spin to make it sound like it could have stopped a recent tragedy sure does play well with your constituents I bet, and after all, whats the point to being a politician other than getting yourself elected?
Chris Rock.I'm with whoever said we can all have guns, but make the bullets $5000 a pop.
Great, now I am picturing the shooter with a light-bulb in his mouth.So Uncle Fester was the shooter? That makes sense.
No wonder politicians are so afraid of the "vote from the rooftops" mentality... every day we move closer to where it's inevitable. And not because of vitriol in the media.I agree with you Gas about the purpose of the second amendment, I think thats rather clear, but honestly, I think that argument becomes moot when, at this point in history in America, no matter how armed our populace is under current gun laws they would have zero chance against the full strength of our military if the government started to oppress us all the sudden. I'm not saying do away with gun laws but really, unless we allow private citizens to be as well armed as the military then it ain't gonna do no good.
I predict that you will say in response that we should allow private citizens to be as well armed as the government, to which I will respond that even if you and I agreed on that it will never happen anyway.
Your move.
I wonder why /b/ or anon don't just troll the ever-lovin' fuck out of the WBC. Are there not enough lulz to be had?New rule America:
When WBC does something, we don't talk about it. We don't make it the number one news story, we don't start a FB thing to raise awareness of their dickery, and we don't make legislation that they'll be happy to sue and probably win.
We. Don't. Do. Shit.
Ok?
That is a good read. Won't change a damned thing, but it's a good read.http://squidpq.blogspot.com/2011/01/pole-lit-is-i-shun.html
Reasonable read.
And fishing for hits for someone I know.
Isn't saying sorry unamerican...
Funniest part of this thread. Hands down.Banning guns would be a nice start.
Except for this on the very same page:You must have missed everyone NOT SAYING THAT.
I swear, maybe people should put things into the largest font so Gas can see it.
It is just a word, and words have no meaning...
What he said was a direct accusation against their "rhetoric." That was why my statement was twofold - addressing blaming republicans, and addressing blaming rhetoric.Tell ya what, lets ask @Li3n.
Were you directly blaming Republicans for this attack? (I bet just about anything it's a "no")
Saying "I bet they regret vitriolic rhetoric" is not the same as "They are the cause of the violence".
FTFY.I can't speak for him (and really, neither can you), so we'll just have to wait for him to backpedal.
Yeah, how was she to know that she just pinned sacrificing children to the Jewish God upon herself...She probably just didn't know what it meant and never gave it a thought after getting it from her writer. I didn't know it was a thing until I looked it up.
Fuck i just kinda defended palin. I don't recognize the man in the mirror anymore.
but that would mean that politician have to own up their mistake??? I didn't think they were program that wayI do wish Palin would shut the hell up. Just once, it would be nice to see her stop getting so damn defensive about this kind of stuff and just say that, yeah, maybe this is a great opportunity to change the tone of everyones rhetoric. Thats not saying you are responsible for it it's just taking the high road. But nooooooooo, she just comes out with the "NUH-UH, not ME, it's all the evil media!".
You mean to say that it's not their fault for using rhetoric that was plain to see would backfire as soon as some crazy dude decided to shoot someone on the other side? Because i'm pretty sure no one forced them to do it..."You know, i was actually wondering when some crazy person would actually take it upon themselves to shoot someone and make the republicans regret using such idiotic slogans and rhetoric..." - @Li3n
What he said was a direct accusation against their "rhetoric." That was why my statement was twofold - addressing blaming republicans, and addressing blaming rhetoric.
It is true until he denies it...In other news I heard that Glen Beck might have raped and murdered a little girl in 1990.
"When I say he is a monsterIt is true until he denies it...
Doesn't missing the point imply actually misunderstanding it, instead of just ignoring it just to promote an agenda?!Unfortunately both sides are so eager to pin it all on "the other guys" that they missed the whole fucking point.
Thanks for the clarification, Al. See, Krisken? I was right. At least he didn't backpedalMan, i knew blood libel sounded familiar... no wonder i found it that funny.
You mean to say that it's not their fault for using rhetoric that was plain to see would backfire as soon as some crazy dude decided to shoot someone on the other side? Because i'm pretty sure no one forced them to do it...
I've always wanted to do this, on the state level maybe. Just throw my name out there, hope I get asked all the dumb questions and answer honestly. No intention of trying to win, just be on record as having said, "My religion is none of your fucking business. Women should be able to abort at any time. Legalize it all." If anything I'd get my name on a blog.She's a Jesus-Killing JEW?!? Christian soldiers unite and strike down the infidel!
*facepalm*
Seriously, though, I truly wish a candidate would run and when asked say, "My religious beliefs are none of your business." Won't happen and if it did nobody would elect them, but I'd love to see it.
Thanks for the clarification, Al. See, Krisken? I was right. At least he didn't backpedal
No, it's not their fault for their rhetoric.
Fun fact 1: That "rhetoric" is in use by both sides.
Fun fact 2: There are just as many purported left-wing ideologues-turned-murderers as purported right-wing
Fun fact 3: There has been no actual link between this murderer, his acts, and fiery political rhetoric (of either party) other than the baseless mumblings of a sheriff who jumps to conclusions and the incestuous echo chamber of the mainstream media.
This is just like the Times Square bomber. Before there was even a single fact uncovered about that case, leftists were immediately on TV saying they "wouldn't be surprised if this person was somebody mad about ObamaCare." Then, whoops, it turned out to be a muslim extremist and they suddenly got very quiet. They've been looking for an opportunity for *months* to start this ridiculousness.
Oh noes, the democrats' rhetoric is gonna cause some crazy people to think the republicans are murderers... run for the hills.The truth of the matter is, as I linked in my political thread, "This flood of slanderous sludge is designed for nakedly political benefit: to paint a permanent black mark on conservatives as accessories to murder, and criminalize any expression of conservatism as a dangerous anti-government conspiracy."
Why would anything change?!Annnd I'm done here. It's a small sample to be sure, but it's obvious from this thread that absolutely nothing has changed.
No, what comes out of their mouth WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for, a factor in, or of any relation to this man's actions. Here is an interview with the shooter's high school friend, a young man by the name of Zach Osler. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Osler said: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."So you're not at fault for anything that comes out of your mouth?!
Exactly.And this boils down to him being crazy... whatever set him off on Giffords was incidental.
Maybe that would have been more clear (well ok, it was) if you where actually paying attention to what it was i said...The assertion is not that "republicans can say anything they want and not be held accountable," it's that "this tragic crime has absolutely nothing to do with what republicans, or anyone else for that matter, has said."
I wouldn't say that he didn't get some ideas from some conservatives, but they're pretty much run through the crazy filter until they're rather nonsensical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Wr6AeZTCENo, what comes out of their mouth WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE for, a factor in, or of any relation to this man's actions. Here is an interview with the shooter's high school friend, a young man by the name of Zach Osler. On ABC's "Good Morning America," Osler said: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."
The only thing the federal government "does" to earn its wage is spend money faster than it can be made. The only times in living memory in which the growth of government spending did not outpace the growth of GDP has been when the legislature is controlled by the opposite party from the president. Every year, we have hundreds of bills passed to create more federal agencies to regulate more and more aspects of the common citizen's life, while kicking the "cost" can down the road for "somebody else" to deal with. Is there really so much undone that we need approximately 40 bills passed by each house every month?See, that is where we differ. I'd much rather have my representatives earning their wages and serving their country than hemhawing back and forth just to fulfill some naive notion of the country being better when people are allowed to eat each other alive.
See Gas, you actually can make a good point when you try...But since you asked - No, I don't think anything is wrong with the "tone" of politics lately. I don't think anything was wrong with Obama talking about bringing a gun to a knife fight, or saying to reload instead of retreating, or anything like that. I think this tragic act of murder has been completely co-opted for political purposes when there was absolutely nothing political about the attack. There is absolutely no comparison between today's political "rhetoric" and "shouting fire in a crowded theater." Political rancor has always been acrimonious, personal, and laced with violent overtones - going all the way back to the founding of our nation. If you want to do something about the angry tone of political speech, maybe something ought to be done to address the causes of that speech.
GW Bush was routinely burned or beheaded in effigy. An NPR correspondent said she hoped Jesse Helms and his grandchildren contracted AIDS. Chris Matthews said he wanted to see someone shoot Rush Limbaugh in the head with a "CO2 pellet." Montel Williams told Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) to slit her wrists, or "better yet" cut her own throat. Bill Maher said it was a "fact" that if Dick Cheney were to die, more people would live. "Just saying."
What do all the above, and all the supposed "republican rhetoric" have in common? They're all protected by the first amendment, they're all emotionally emphatic political statements, and, at least to my mind, they're perfectly permissible and absolutely unconnectable with the commission of any violent crime.
Frankly, I think we could use a few more incidents of fisticuffs on the senate floor, personally.
You want to talk about what's bad for the country? Let's talk about bipartisanship. Backroom deals. Political bribery and backscratching. That's what's killing us, crushing us under the weight of our own federal government.
If we want actual debate, we need time for actual debate as well - as in, allowing bills up for a vote to be accessible (and available online even) for a minimum of 1 to 2 weeks before the actual vote on the bill - something Obama promised in his campaign on transparency and then was quickly shucked. Some of the most transformative (and to my mind, nation-damaging) legislation of the last two years has come about with the bill being made available for review around midnight of the night before the morning in which the vote on that bill was to take place.I never said number of bills.
I want actual debate, not shutting down bills before they've had a chance to even talk about it. I want the best ideas to rise to the top and for the legislatures to do the job intended for them- serve the public. I want the good of the people to be weighed as equal as the good for the businesses.
I admit, I want the impossible, just like you. We just think different roads will bring the most good.
Doh, took me longer to type.Add to your list: Giving everyone enough time to read and know whats in a bill before they vote for it. And maybe some reasonable term limits.
That wasn't the case with, for example, the health care legislation, or a number of other bills that got sneaked through and crammed past.Congress doesn't need to move slower. Many of the bills congress people say they need more time for have been available for half a year or more. It's intentional inefficiency on the part of many Congress people.
I'm for two weeks online available. That would be great for debate and democracy. However, filibustering it for 5 months and then complaining when it can be voted on isn't the same as 'not being available'.
You f%$#er.Hey, I'm with ya. There is a lot I want changed to allow better legislation.
(see what we did there? We talked about ways to improve things, agreed on the best ideas, and then moved on. That's how Congress should work)
No, of course not, but as human beings we are to some degree driven to find an explanation for behavior that is abnormal. It's a survival instinct.Just because some one talks about topics at odd times, and disrupts his class does not mean that he will shoot dozens of people.
I know Orwell was talking about Communism, but I think the quote still fits. Basically, I think that while everyone DOES believe that we are all equal on some level, that doesn't change the fact that some people get a leg up in life, ether through talent, ability, or influence. No one likes this (except the powerful and those who want to be powerful themselves) but we understand it's not something we can change without some kind of revolutionary means of allowing everyone to have everything they need/want in life. In other words, true equality is impossible until a post scarcity economy. Until then all we can do is get by with as much freedom as you can take."All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
Pfft, like that's enough to sustain a whole news cycle...Whatever happened to "He shot her because he was CRAZY" as a viable explanation?
The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. - Pseudo-StalinGas said:It seems to me that half a million plebs getting murdered doesn't equal the furor brought by the attack on one patrician, or really, even the threat of an attack on one.
Re-elevate?! Are you actually under the impression that there was ever a time when someone in a position of power/fame getting shot had the same effect on the population as someone of the middle class?Yeah, I've heard that pablum for years too, it doesn't make it any less irritating to watch us re-elevate a ruling class.
Believe it or not, there was a time in america when assassination attempts were almost as common as elections.Re-elevate?! Are you actually under the impression that there was ever a time when someone in a position of power/fame getting shot had the same effect on the population as someone of the middle class?
Not big enough to attempt to subvert an amendment to the constitution.And still big news.
Well, now my curiosity is piqued - which assassination attempt, other than this one, brought about calls for limitations on the freedom of speech? I mean, the Alien and Sedition acts were due to a war, not an assassination... and nothing else springs readily to mind.That isn't true, but ok. We can pretend this argument has never happened in the past if it helps you.
Death threats are not a protected form of speech, so Palin has every right to complain.Has there been legislation entered to limit freedom of speech? Or are people saying that they are sick and tired of being threatened?
Palin is now whining about the people that are sending her death threats, it is their right to free speech too. Gabby had her share of death threats following Palin's targeting of her.
Yes, i believe the Beatles wrote a song about it:Believe it or not, there was a time in america when assassination attempts were almost as common as elections.
...and Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin, and Bill Maher, and Keith Olberman, and...Someone should show that to Senator Liberman and Secretary Clinton.