Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by the anti, Jan 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Herro Member

    What about all the the people that haven't tried to be violent even though they despise the left? You're also assuming that those people wouldn't have done their fucked up shit without being prompted by violent rhetoric. Pattern? Sure. But we humans are reeeeeeeally good at "discovering" patterns. Sometimes we're a little too good at it...

    Honestly though I'm just doing the whole devils advocate thing in this case. Personally I think this thread is beyond fucktarded.
  2. I absolutely agree that the tone of political Rhetoric in the US has become unnecessarily dire, and this type of rhetoric certainly can lead to a person acting violently.

    In the case of Loughner it appears that he was so far beyond the mainstream that pointing your finger at things that appear to in the same vein as his thinking is about as useful as speculating on what level of influence his neighbor's dog had on him. You're trying to rationalize the demonstrably irrational, and the only way you can do that is by being irrational yourself.

    Every time an incident like this happens we play the Pin the Tail on the Element of Popular Culture That is Really to Blame for This game. It serves no purpose and has the ultimate effect of stigmatizing and sometimes restricting perfectly harmless avenues of free expression.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. Miranda Member

    That's well said, Rufus. I don't entirely agree although I think most people do. Statements by politicians and leaders have a lot of impact--people react to them. Unstable people may well be influenced. No, of course we can't track the act of a paranoid schizophrenic to political rhetoric and then prosecute the irresponsible lapse by the politician. But we can and should demand more care and thought than what we've gotten over the past few years.
  4. DeathHamster Member
    Chupacabras, I knew it!
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Onanymous Member

    Heh, yeah, agreed, it would have been really ridiculous if I had argued that his neighbour's dog had an influence on him.
  6. Again, I don't dispute that political speech can lead to a violent incident by a 3rd party and I don't dispute that political speech has been more extreme and polarized in recent memory. I do however dispute the notion that a politician, or anyone else should blunt their speech because they might be the hypothetical final straw for the hypothetical crazed gunman.

    I don't think our politicians or pundits should be using this type of speech because of a different reason. When American politician or pundits use extreme, violent, or frightening imagery against their opposition they are doing one of three things: embellishing, being disingenuous or lying.

    We can of go on ad nauseum about the futility of trying to get politicians to stop lying, but I see no reason to direct your outrage at the symptom instead of the disease.
  7. Zak McKracken Member

    beyond that.
  8. Miranda Member

    That's a good enough reason for me. I'm pragmatic, we agree on the objective so don't sweat the details.

    And, people who think this thread is fucktarded can always go read another one instead of continually posting about how fucktarded and beyond fucktarded this one is. Just a fucktarded thought.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Zak McKracken Member

    Some of us may be monitoring the thread for outside agencies
    and some of us may be genuinely concerned that some of you may hurt yourselves.
  10. Miranda Member

    Lol. Zak, so mysterious and compassionate.
  11. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    A not unreasonable assumption given the pattern you seem to acknowledge.
    Bit or a non-response that. Actually, it was completely devoid of a response tbh.
  13. Onanymous Member

    I don't see moving from ideologically-driven anger-laced arguments toward reasoned arguments as "blunting" (more like the other way around.)

    I don't want to control anyone's speech, I won't back off from pointing out why I think it's wrong.
  14. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Weak answer. And you know it.
    Did I defend anybody ? Lurk moar.
    I am always surprised that some individuals refer to christian values to kill fellow humans.
    You are changing the subject, IMHO. You were saying that racism is not an ideology. I disagree and wikipedia too.
    Oh, really ?
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    With all due respect TinyDancer, maybe I misstated my point.

    My point has nothing to do with the Huffington Post or what the article says. My point was that some people are trying to use this shooting as a means to push or drag into the spotlight some BS about politics. In all likelihood, the shooter may have done this without any political motivation whatsoever. This is what the HuffPost was saying in a more concise way without the game reference I used.

    My point is that this guy was a grade A, certified, genuine crackpot nutter. I really think that this whole "Oh noes! Political rhetoric was responsible for this!" is in the same vein as the whole violence in video games being responsible for school shootings: A desperate attempt to make order out of a pile of chaos. However, that has not stopped mainstream media bleating about it.Hell, even the Teabaggers are starting to say stuff about this. All the while, forgetting that this crazy loon could have been motivated to do this evil because his next door neighbor's rocks were telling him to do it and be an herro in the process. The fact he was involved in the Teabagger camp or whatnot is more coincidental than causational.

    We may never will really know any rational reason why he did this shooting. Whether or not it was politically motivated, one thing is for certain: There needs to be a tone down on political rhetoric. From what I have heard: People are tired of the negativity and bickering from government.
    • Like Like x 4
  17. Anonymous Member

  18. Miranda Member

    Interesting, the mainstream media I've been reading (NYTimes and Washington Post) leans strongly against the idea that rhetoric played any significant role.
  19. Yeah. Just like Switzerland. All they do is eat chocolate and make small knives and cuckoo clocks all day. It's not like most families have high powered assault rifles and their justice system is particularly unpleasant if you break their laws.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. So interesting.
  21. On a different note, I would like to offer my sincerest, most heartfelt appreciation for Sarah Palin. Never before have I seen someone commit such an elaborate political suicide. Gunsights="surveyor's marks" and the "blood libel" comment. The only people who will give her money or votes are lunatics, people who want to fuck her, or those who are both.

    To Ziptang, there are liberals whose libertarian nature includes a healthy respect for gun rights, and venison. Mmmmm, venison. I'm one of 'em, and though I don't like firearms myself, I respect those who do and do so responsibly. Gun safety can be summed up in four words: Don't be an idiot.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

    I've got a good pair of hipboots, and they have both left and right feet, so I thought I would wade in.

    People here have talked about how the shooter was so mentally deranged that environmental influences could not be blamed for influencing him to do the deed.

    What role do you think the fact that the Congresswoman was famous played in the selection of the victims, regardless of her political stance. If his mind was arriving at conclusions more or less randomly, as some have suggested, why didn't he just shoot a bunch of random people like Charles Whitman did at the University of Texas in the sixties.

    The Kennedy assassinations, the George Wallace shooting, attempted assassinations of Reagan and Ford, the John Lennon assassination, both from left and right all had the common characteristic of involving famous victims. Admitedly the victims in Arizona are not quite as famous, but not just plain folks either.

    A couple of movies in the seventies had the intersection of fame and violence as a theme. I am specifically thinking of Nashville and Taxi Driver. What role does the fame of the victims play in shootings by crazies. What do they hope to achieve by killing a famous person?

    The things which first come to mind is that the shooter is a person who feels that by killing he can acquire some of the attributes of the victim for himself. Or perhaps it is more of proving that he is powerful by conquering a powerful enemy.

    Ritual cannibalism is based on the idea ingesting the spirit of your foe and acquiring some of his power. If you look at the mugshot he seems like he is experiencing some kind of ecstasy. What is the source of that ecstasy for him?
  23. Anonymous Member

    He's looking forward to the awesome rush from the lethal injection drugs.
  24. anonymous9 Member

    Some of the posts ITT are beyond fucktarded, for sure. However the topic isn't-as long as we're going to have off topic discussions.

    The thing that's got most people going, and thus perpetuating this, is the palpable effort that some politifags are making to defend their spokesmen and distance them from the event.
    Regardless as to whether a straight line can or cannot be drawn from the shooter to the shooting, the fact is that he hated the government, and by far the bulk of anti-government rhetoric has been coming from the right-starting with Reagan.
    Fortunately, we have remedies for that(as evidenced by the last election) and promoting hatred for one's own government is not conducive to civil discourse.

    As for the MSM, I'm not surprised that they are defensive as well. They promote the discord, profit hugely from it and never want to be held accountable.

    Lastly, in regards to the butthurt ITT, some of you need to realize when YHBT.
    And , yes-I'm still retarded.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Orson Member

  26. Anonymous Member

    It's interesting to watch right-wingers start to cringe away from Palin. She's becoming an embarrassment. Doubt is good...
  27. the anti Member

    she always has been, i've heard about a lot of republicans getting turned off by mccain when he picked her as his VP
  28. Anonymous Member

    He doesn't seem like a lunatic.
  29. Ann O'Nymous Member

    - We do eat chocolate and make small knives and cuckoo clocks all day.
    - Active members of the Swiss army have assault rifles at home, but we are going to vote about locking them in the near future, even if abuses are quite uncommon,
    - A fraction of the population has weapons at home, mainly guns and hunting rifles (even if buying more deadly weapons is quite easy and legal).
  30. DeathHamster Member

    Non-active members have the option of purchasing their weapons, which are converted from full-auto to semi-auto. (I bet that's field-reversible, like the old trick of using match-stick in the right spot with an FN.) Umm, in spite of the completely different mind-set towards an army-issued weapon with a sealed box of 50 rounds (inspected) and severe penalties for abusing them, most domestic violence and suicide shootings in Switzerland occur with those weapons.

    (Officers, medics and postal personnel(?!) get a 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol.)
  31. I've been homicidal ever since I was given a Swiss army pocketknife over 45 years ago!
  32. Ann O'Nymous Member

    - Everybody can buy older versions of the assault weapon, that are converted to single shot (and not easily reversible, AFAIK); these are mainly used for training in public shooting ranges (is that the right term ?) where controls are quite strict and ammunition is bought and counted.
    - The misuses you mentioned are the reason for the coming vote I mentioned.
    - Army postmen are soldiers; they have to be ready to protect the letters and parcels in any situation.
  33. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    There are a few inaccuracies in your post:

    First: Sarah Palin is trying to make out like she is being singled out for this incident. She went so far as to post a vid on the internets and say something about the media not making it a "blood liable" against her... Well, wasn't she the one that made a map with crosshairs in specific areas, one being where Ms. Giffords was? Granted, I am not saying Correlation == Causality and I strongly believe the shooter is more screwed up than a big bag of screws.

    Second: the distance and defense of the Teabag party is because Sarah's own words are being thought of as a catalyst for the tosser's actions. In a way, and of my opinion, she is doing it for a PR stunt or spin-doctoring in order to make herself look good and get moar attention. This "distancing" is because if a footbullet is fired, they won't be around to catch it and can put another person as the cult leader of the Teabag party.

    Third: In the entire time of the US history, rhetoric and "hate" for the government has always been present. If you look into history, you would know that the discourse ended in gun duels and bloodshed. Then Thomas Jefferson's opponent printed an ad saying that blood would cover the streets... Somebody made a commercial showing a girl plucking flowers and counting. then a nuke goes off... So this didn't necessarily start with Regan or the right. It has been around for years.

    As for the last election: Most of the people voting were pissed off about jobs or "Obama-Care" or some felt change had to mean removing some in the House and Senate. However, if you look into history: Clinton had all Republicans in both House and Senate. Still, people were sick and tired of the same shit, different day more than they were with any rhetoric that was coming out of the place.

    Lastly, I want to say I am Independent. I vote for who is best and don't care for political parties. I didn't vote for the Teabags, but did vote Repub and Demo when I felt the persons fit the job.
  34. Zak McKracken Member

    I think Sarah needs to word-clear "Blood Libel".
    Most specifically (though the article doesn't state it as such) the main purpose of Blood Libel was as an excuse to kill jews.

    So Sarah Palin is: a jew
    Who makes matzoh with the blood of liberal babies
    And now the liberals are all lining up to kill her? :eek:
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. It's opposite day on illiterate island.

    / every day
  37. Kilia Member

  38. whosit Member


    Just to really piss off people.

    full transcript here:

    Just in case people think he's crazy and saying silly stuff:

    Hey Europe, how is all that working out for you? I don't know about you but I would really prefer to not have people rioting in the streets like you do every other month. I guess I'm just silly like that.

    /end trolling of lefties
  39. Anonymous Member

    lol the rich community organizer niggers are evil
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins