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

    You know Miranda, you're part of a community (Chanology) that enjoys using militaristic jargon and rhetoric all the time (raids, targets, war, destruction, ect, ect). In fact (this might be a bit before your time, I don't know when you came here) cameranonymous got taken down by a swat team because the statements he made looked like legitimate threats of violence to uninformed outsiders. Now of course all of that talk is meant not as an actual call to violence here. But if some crazy dude decided that it would be a good idea to "raid the fuck out of the org" and charged in swords akimbo, would it be right to hold WWP accountable for said crazy mofo's actions? You are right that the rhetoric comming from the fringe right has been useless and inflammatory. But when you start talking about culpability, that's pretty risky territory you're entering. I mean if someone is out there clearly issuing calls to violent action that's one thing. But using warlike imagery is different. Just my thoughts of course.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Miranda Member

    This is a good point. Often the instinct to cast blame arises from fear and panic in an uncontrollable situation--as when parents are blamed for children's disabilities or misfortunes. We reassure ourselves in this way that there is a cause, and this makes the problem seem more controllable.

    I have never said that right-wingers caused this violence. I don't know who this man associated with or who, if anyone else, may have been involved. My point is that while I do not advocate censorship I do believe it's time to stop using violent rhetoric in public life. Why would anyone argue with that?
  3. WMAnon Member

    Do I really have to be the asshole?

    High profile government officials need security. We've always known this. People in power are going to be targets for people who disagree with them no matter what and sometimes those people are going to have a gun. Why in all of this bullshit is no one asking where security was? Why a man with an automatic weapon was able to get within point blank range of a Congresswoman? Why he was then able to shoot wildly into a crowd and kill a nine-year-old girl before running away?
  4. Miranda Member

    See my post above--I clarified my position. I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. Personally I think protesters should take care not to give any impression of violent intent. There is a difference, though, between someone on a website making a casual reference to a raid and a prominent politician couching exhortations in suggestively violent terms. Not the same situation. To clarify once more, I am NOT saying Palin should be prosecuted for this murder. Lol. It does make a nice straw man, though, doesn't it?

    I do agree that warlike imagery is different from a direct call to action. But over time, a barrage of violent and suggestive imagery coming from a powerful source can have an effect. It's not a good thing.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BusinessBecky Member

    Politicians have greater authority to a lot of people and are very influential. I am amazed at how easy it is from them to point the finger and act like oh I am just the messenger. The retain their power mostly from manipulating minds and then take no responsibility for anything they every say. We don't really know what went through the kid's head, but I really have been watching the rhetoric and it was just a matter of time someone got killed. This is a perfect example why anyone in public office or public figures should be held accountable for the things they say when they can plant horrible thoughts into the minds of unstable individuals. They used to say sex sells, but I guess in the fanatical world that is America, anger = profit. I have heard plenty of Europeans and others state that Americans can be pretty shy about sex, while absolutely shameless about violence.
  6. Miranda Member

    Only because we're discussing something else right now. But yeah, those are good questions too.
  7. the anti Member

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Triumph Member

    Ex-Cubs GM Green's granddaughter dies in melee
  9. Herro Member

    Oh, I can probably agree with you on that.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Miranda Member

    I think my first post in this thread caused some confusion. I'd just heard the news of the shooting and was outraged and horrified and somewhat carelessly hyperbolic. I've self-moderated by adding an edit to that post.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Your bolding was eated by this site and did not show up on my screen. :(

    OK, I won't argue against the first part of that, but that's going waaaaaaaay back. Was there even any significant political debate happening then? I'm talking about the age of books and popular discussions, not kings and Magna Cartas. Things _have_ changed a lot since then, IMO.

    Agreed on that, for sure. :)

    Gross oversimplification, but I'll grant that there's a kernel of... well, I can't quite call it truth (IMO it's misleadingly blindered), but I'll call it accuracy, there. I don't agree that Hitler was "to the extreme right" but that depends on how "right" and "left" are defined.

    Delusion, eh? What about the great Soviet experiment? Red China? There have been scores of millions killed in "reform" efforts by "progressive" collectivist gummints trying to move the people out of their past and into a glorious future dreamt up by Dear Leaders. So, again, I'd say that your wording is grossly oversimplified here, despite -- again -- agreeing with a kernel of what is said (that trying to hold onto a past or a passing way of life can produce wrongs).

    Well, that's one way of looking at it, I guess. So, _any_ change in society should be supported, if the gummint is "progressive"? Are there any restrictions on that? And what do you mean by "support"? (I realize that it's verbal shorthand, and promise not to bust your chops too hard if it's a lot of work to flesh that out. I just think that it's overly terse and would like to know more of what you mean before addressing that point.)

    Granted. That's one reason I don't call myself "conservative" very often, and try to use more specific language in political discussions. Principles, not labels, should be supported.
  12. You know all democrats are hippy tree-hugging faggot communists who are all talk and no action, and all Republicans are gun brandishing bible beating blowhards.

    This is a universal truth and there is no middle ground.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Jarocku Member

    To Julian & All Warriors of Truth,

    The recent massacre in Arizona is appaling. I detest violence of any kind. I'm of the firm unshakable belief that
    the U.S Senator Gabrielle Giffords who survived miracously despite a bullet entering the back of her brain & exiting
    the front is the woman to guide us through the mire of political secrecy & corruption to a better state of existence.

    1. Will she survive
    2. Will she be brain-damaged
    3. Will she return to politics
    4. Will she run for President
    5. Will she be elected

    The only answer I can picture to these questions is a resounding "YES"
    I'm in Ireland, There's a caption on one of the rags here about the youngest
    victim of the atrocity.


    "CHRISTINA-TAYLOR GREEN, the youngest
    person killed in the Tucson shooting, was
    a symbol of hope. Born on September 11, 2001
    she once offered a reason to be optimistic.
    She was one of the babies in a book, Faces Of
    Hope, about children born that day. On another
    day of violence nine years later, the hope turned
    to despair.
    Christina-Taylor died in hospital after being
    shot in the chest outside a supermarket that she
    had visited many times with her mother."

    I respect everything you do. I wish you every success.
    I will keep my ear to the ground as long as I live.
    I believe that all we need is for Gabrielle to make a full recovery.
    Patriotism will look after the rest.

    Can you believe that "Heifer" Sarah Palin actually got away with
    placing a crosshairs symbol over the constituencies of Ms Giffords
    and other Democrats on her Facebook page no less.

  14. Jarocku Member

    Transcript from Firefox - Latest Headlines

    'Come together'
    Earlier, Mr Obama led the nation in a silent tribute from the South Lawn of the White House.
    About 300 White House staff members joined the brief outdoor ceremony, bowing their heads as a marine honour guardsman rang a bell three times.
    On the east steps of the Capitol building, hundreds of congressional staffers also paid tribute to Ms Giffords and the other victims of Saturday's shooting.

    The BBC's Jonny Dymond, in Tucson, says small groups gathered in public spaces, in offices and in shops and stopped in silence for a minute.
    This city did not come to a halt, our correspondent says, as many had done their mourning over the weekend in public vigils and private houses.

    The crew on board the International Space Station (ISS) also paused for a brief silence. The commander on the ISS is Ms Giffords' brother-in-law, Cmdr Scott Kelly. Her husband, Mark Kelly, is also an astronaut.
  15. Jarocku Member

  16. new guy Member

  17. She didn't pay anyone to be her security beyond the local police with her taxes.
  18. ziptang Member

    And that's called Totalitarianism, or a Dictatorship, a far cry from the "Gov't. GTFO my life" from the Right.
  19. ziptang Member

    The bottom line here is that the more and more we learn about the creep, the more and more it is undeniably clear that he is Bat. Shit. Crazy. There is not a shred of empirical, physical, tangible evidence to tie him to anything on the Right or Left that is in any way recognizable as a cogent political philosophy or statement. His thoughts are not related to anything in our world. To knee jerk and spew "Sarah did it!" is to be a political pirranah, smelling blood in the water and attacking mindlessly.

    IMHO, to continue arguing this is destructive to the fight (can I use that word?) against COS. I would sure hope that when it comes down to brass tacks, Anon's on the Left really don't give a fuck that they are standing shoulder with Anons from the Right.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. the anti Member

    wasn't i the first to say anti-government conspiracy theorist? then everyone else come up after seeing his videos believing he also had some mental illness?
  21. Anonomomily Member

    So now the WBC lunatic bastards are on the move....

    Meanwhile, the leader of Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay Kansas-based church best known for picketing the funerals of slain U.S. soldiers and gay-pride gatherings, said its members will picket the funerals of the 9-year-old girl and five others killed in Saturday's attack. In a video, Fred Phelps says God sent the shooter to avenge the nation's sins.

    "Thank God for the violent shooter," Phelps proclaims.

    "We will remind the living that you can still repent and obey. This is ultimatum time with God."
  22. Miranda Member

    This is still a bit of a straw man. The argument--in my opinion, anyway--is not that anyone else forced him to shoot those people. It is that the guns, ammo, gun sights, etc. rhetoric on the right (and on the left, as applicable) MUST stop. It is a factor in the environment in which this happened. It is a factor that is likely to affect unstable people. It is dangerous. With that caveat, I'm fine ending this discussion--I agree that it's potentially divisive. I'll once again ban myself from this thread...
  23. ziptang Member

    A last thought to chew on, then I will be out too......if I can control myself.

    If the symbology you mention is so potentially dangerous, why are shootings that can be definitively tied to said symbology so rare/non existent?

    Think about it. I don't need a reply.
  24. Because the SPLC sued the worst of their purveyors into submission, and good on 'em.

    Edit: Should've clarified what I meant by the SPLC. I meant the Southern Poverty Law Center. They sued the White Aryan Resistance and a few others into oblivion after their members committed crimes as a result of their actions and words.
  25. new guy Member

  26. TinyDancer Member

    Interesting. Who promoted that? Were they an elected representative?

    Okay, I see that the person who promoted the map was Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute. They are targets. A major distinction is that the words used in connection with the image indicate that the targets are the states, not the individuals. I do think it is when a target is used in connection with a person - and Sarah Palin's "Take Back 20" program listed people by name and reputation - that they are particularly dangerous.
  27. whosit Member

    DailyKos. But don't tell Barb.
  28. ziptang Member

    I am a Christian, and I say this as a prayer, without any hesitation.

    God, damn Westboro Baptist "Church". May they rot in hell.

    EDIT: I find that Westboro poster extremely offensive. Have no fear WBC, Patriot Guard riders will not let you get near the funerals of the victims.

    WBC=Jarod Loughner.
  29. andonanon Member

    In Germany, a coalition of the lower middle class and industrialists found common purpose in suppressing lower classes and intelligentsia. Workers rights were suppressed and industry and government became heavily entertwined. Often the industrialists still controlled the companies and profited from them, using free labor supplied from concentration camps or conquered territories such as Poland. Totalitarianism resulted because all power in the society was part of the same government-industrial-landowning-military complex under the ultimate control of one man.

    In the Soviet Union the lower classes and intelligentsia destroyed industrialists and middle classes and merged industrial sector with the state. Totalitarianism resulted because all power in the society was part of the same government-industrial-landowning-military complex under the ultimate control of one man.

    The opposite of totalitarianism isn't no government. It is a dispersal of power centers throughout the society with systems in place for peaceful mediation between competing interests. There is no such thing as a workable power vacuum that lets individuals live unmolested. Places with tiny governments are not good places to live. They are places like Somalia and the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, or parts of Colombia in the eighties. There will always be "collectives" of one sort or another interfering in your life, whether it is British Petroleum, the Church of Scientology or the Crips selling crack on your corner. The only question is how to exercise the most control over those collectives to further the ends of the individual. Lots of people think the best way to do that is investing the government with necessary power, because it is the only collective that people can vote for, and creating various other collectives to protect their individual rights. This website in an example of such a collective. Conservatives often offer market forces as an adequate means for the individual to influence their environment by using the "dollar vote". Unfortuneately, that means that some people (see industrialist/landowning classes mentioned above) have more votes than everyone else. That results in conmingling of power in the state with industrial/landowning sector resulting in less freedom for most individuals.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. TinyDancer Member

    My layman's hunch is that you are correct. There will be no legal causation between political rhetoric and the shooting.

    That said, we saw with the guy who was prevented from committing murders at the Tides Foundation that when prominent people, people who are esteemed by many or by some in the community, say things, other people can take those words as being true. I personally think there is a moral question mark over EVERYONE who has spoken approvingly of violent action against any individual (eg assassinating Assange) or who has recklessly used military language or imagery in the context of political conversation without bothering to clarify AT THE SAME TIME that they do not recommend violent action.
    • Like Like x 4
  31. ziptang Member

    Speak English. Do you want us here or not?
  32. andonanon Member

    Sure, the more the merrier.
  33. ziptang Member

    OK. Thank you.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. r3dan0n Member

    Jared's videos made me almost think he was a smart guy.
  35. andonanon Member

    Of course I am only speaking for myself. I really don't care what people's political affiliations are here in this context. We are both here to pursue our interest in either fighting Scientology or for other compatible kinds of free speech rights. I have no reason to believe we have strong differences in those areas.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. ziptang Member

    Agreed. See? Common ground. Would you liek some delishus caek?
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Miranda Member

    Ziptang is that Tom Cruise in your avatar?
  38. ziptang Member

    Why yes, I believe it is, except he is really Pope Tom the 1st. of the Co$...
  39. ziptang Member

    BTW, this is for andonanon...

    • Like Like x 2
  40. TinyDancer Member

    Will Marshall has an article in HuffPo today:

    • Like Like x 1
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