Congresswoman Shot
- Thread starter Krisken
- Start date
- Status
I 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!".
C
Chibibar
but that would mean that politician have to own up their mistake??? I didn't think they were program that way
Man, 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 must say listening to the Libs on this reminds me of when the Boston Red Sox whine about the lack of salary cap and express the need to cut spending in baseball. Of course their proposed levels always fall just at the spending rate of the second highest paying payroll in Baseball, the Boston Red Sox.
In other news I heard that Glen Beck might have raped and murdered a little girl in 1990.
In other news I heard that Glen Beck might have raped and murdered a little girl in 1990.
It is true until he denies it...
"When I say he is a monster
When I set fire to his name,
It doesn't matter where you here it from,
Whether truth or lies, it gets said all the same.
Whatever's on the table plays."
Using violent rhetoric when discussing political differences is wrong. People should not be doing that.
Jumping all over a horrible tragedy to assign blame to political enemies is wrong too. People should not be doing that either.
Unfortunately both sides are so eager to pin it all on "the other guys" that they missed the whole fucking point.
Jumping all over a horrible tragedy to assign blame to political enemies is wrong too. People should not be doing that either.
Unfortunately both sides are so eager to pin it all on "the other guys" that they missed the whole fucking point.
Palin getting the attention over this does stick, IT IS NOT HER FAULT, but we have the Giffords on camera saying that if something ever happens from that poster Palin will have to answer for it.
Dave
Staff member
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.
*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.
Doesn't missing the point imply actually misunderstanding it, instead of just ignoring it just to promote an agenda?!
C
Chibibar
To me, I think they should look more into the shooter's motive. Maybe the guy just want to shoot a bunch of people and a "meet and greet" at the grocery location just happen to be a perfect spot. The guy's story (so far from various source) shows he is not right in the head (which will be proven in court one way or another)
News said the shooter used a Glock 19. I wonder which bullet capacity he used. If a person reload, doesn't usually mean intent? (19 people shot, 6 died) That is pretty accurate shooting one a single 19 bullet clip (or could have use 33 extended magazine clip)
Of course we should look more into WHY people are more prone to shooting. Why are more and more people resort to violence? Is it easier?
to me, banning guns doesn't really solve the problem. The internet age, you can make bombs from household goods. You can make traps. You can use sharp objects (that is what they do in China) so..... maybe we should look into people instead of means to restrict items from the people.
News said the shooter used a Glock 19. I wonder which bullet capacity he used. If a person reload, doesn't usually mean intent? (19 people shot, 6 died) That is pretty accurate shooting one a single 19 bullet clip (or could have use 33 extended magazine clip)
Of course we should look more into WHY people are more prone to shooting. Why are more and more people resort to violence? Is it easier?
to me, banning guns doesn't really solve the problem. The internet age, you can make bombs from household goods. You can make traps. You can use sharp objects (that is what they do in China) so..... maybe we should look into people instead of means to restrict items from the people.
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
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."
R
rabbitgod
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.
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.
So you're not at fault for anything that comes out of your mouth?!
Then guess it's not the democrats fault that they are blaming the republican, because the republicans blame the democrats for all sorts of stuff too.
Oh noes, the democrats' rhetoric is gonna cause some crazy people to think the republicans are murderers... run for the hills.
Why would anything change?!
What this boils down to, Giffords is the most famous person that he could get that close to. He was an utter failure, and wanted to be a big man, be FAMOUS...
Charlie Guiteau
Lee Oswald
John Hinkley
all failures at some level that likely thought being an assassin would mark their names in the history books.
Charlie Guiteau
Lee Oswald
John Hinkley
all failures at some level that likely thought being an assassin would mark their names in the history books.
Wasn't one of those about Jodie Foster?! And another was a crazy person that thought he was qualified to be an ambassador.
Why not go with the guy that shot Lennon, he even said he was in it for the fame.
And this boils down to him being crazy... whatever set him off on Giffords was incidental.
Why not go with the guy that shot Lennon, he even said he was in it for the fame.
And this boils down to him being crazy... whatever set him off on Giffords was incidental.
Leon Czolgosz is the assassin I was thinking about.
GasBandit
Staff member
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."
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."
Exactly.
OK, we keep doing the violent rhetoric until some one actually gets killed.
If some one comes after you with a knife, you bring a gun, then you don't retreat, you reload, if your presidential candidate does not win - foster open revolution.....
If some one comes after you with a knife, you bring a gun, then you don't retreat, you reload, if your presidential candidate does not win - foster open revolution.....
Gas, I guess I'm missing your point here. If someone is dumb enough to believe that this guy only did this because of Sarah Palins idiotic map then you arguing the point isn't going to change their minds.
However I think it's a great thing for people to take this opportunity and reflect on what exactly they are saying with some of their more vitriolic campaign statements, etc. You aren't saying thats a bad thing are you? For people to say, "hey, maybe some of this crap isn't good for the country whether or not it influenced this nutjob."
However I think it's a great thing for people to take this opportunity and reflect on what exactly they are saying with some of their more vitriolic campaign statements, etc. You aren't saying thats a bad thing are you? For people to say, "hey, maybe some of this crap isn't good for the country whether or not it influenced this nutjob."
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh, that last one I was just playing the word game with sixpack.
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.
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.
I bet the C-SPAN for the Japanese Diet gets some high ratings...
GasBandit
Staff member
The Diet just erupts into fist fights about once a year. It's like Groundhog Day there or something...
Maybe that would have been more clear (well ok, it was) if you where actually paying attention to what it was i said...
As in the rhetoric they used was gonna bite them in the ass as soon as some crazy person would decide to shoot a politician on the other side.
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=E8Wr6AeZTCE
But as i said before, those are rather incidental, guy was nuts. It really wouldn't matter if he did hold conservative views, being crazy is why he shot someone.
Well if you're a republican atm it is your biggest problem: https://www.halforums.com/threads/4-arizona-republicans-resign.24646/
And there's always the fact that they where stupid enough to think it wouldn't come back to bite them in the ass while being in the same country where a president got shot because some guy had an unhealthy obsession with a child star...
And there's always the fact that they where stupid enough to think it wouldn't come back to bite them in the ass while being in the same country where a president got shot because some guy had an unhealthy obsession with a child star...
- Status