Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Tell me those of you on the right side of the isle, just what is your position here?

Is it your position that:
1) the rhetoric call to violence does not exist as is being described?
2) does not matter as is being described?
3) is really equal on both sides?
4) or just pisses you off that the right wing is being condemned for it?
5) something else?
 
eeyore1954 said:
Amazing
Click to expand...

I know. The beginning of this thread was a circle-jerk of fantasizing political junkies. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why I think it is pathetic.

As to the anti-free speech rhetoric, I don't think Palin can be held responsible for having a poster convince someone go on a shooting spree. I seriously doubt "heated rhetoric" could be the cause of a person who would do such a thing.

The "free speech has consequences" thing sounds like a vague blaming technique. Pointless, moralizing, and impossible to change. Perfect media message.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Olberman had an excellent rant at the end of his program tonight, mentioning the Sheriff pointing at the unrestrained calls for violence on radio and some of the tv programs.
The loosely wrapped will take these calls to heart, QED.
Click to expand...
I heard it. And I had forgotten about how bad the violent rhetoric was on those radio programs.

The following was also talked about on the program from Talking Points Memo:

Tucson Tea Party Leader: We Won't Change Our Rhetoric After Giffords Shooting That was the guy who had the M16 shooting campaign event.

Flashback: Giffords Warned Of 'Consequences' To Palin's Target Imagery (VIDEO) Well worth the time to watch the interview which was done with Gifford asking her response to Palin's crosshair map and vandalism of Gifford's campaign office.

There was also a brief comment on the current violent climate in AZ.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No one is blaming any one person. And we don't know yet what fantasies this guy was operating under. The concern is the volume of rhetoric calling for violent solutions and the issue is that rhetoric risks setting off people already near the edge.
Click to expand...

I originally suspected that he was "set off" by Palin/Beck etc rhetoric. Now it's looking like he probably wasn't. (not much evidence to work with here, though.)

I agree that the "SOCIALIST NAZI MUSLIM COMMUNIST TERRORISTS" rhetoric both sucks and is dangerous, though.
 
Thunder said:
And no, I am taking no pleasure in any of this.
Click to expand...

Republican or Democrat?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, real important... first thing you asked.

I hope he lives, so we can find out if he was a fan of Alex Jones or some other ass.
Click to expand...
I hope it was a Tea-Bagger, Birther, or Truther.
Click to expand...

You are taking great pleasure in this. If it will score you some points in your internet flame warz, hooray for nutjob.

SOCIALIST NAZI MUSLIM COMMUNIST TERRORISTS
Click to expand...

His list of favorite books kind of confirms he was a socialist nazi mulsim communist terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know. The beginning of this thread was a circle-jerk of fantasizing political junkies. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why I think it is pathetic.

As to the anti-free speech rhetoric, I don't think Palin can be held responsible for having a poster convince someone go on a shooting spree. I seriously doubt "heated rhetoric" could be the cause of a person who would do such a thing.

The "free speech has consequences" thing sounds like a vague blaming technique. Pointless, moralizing, and impossible to change. Perfect media message.
Click to expand...
Anti free speech rhetoric? Oh my what a straw man.

You know it was a right leaning post saying the speech was protected, while NO ONE on the left ever said one word about BANNING such speech.

You are waaay off the mark here.
 
Judging from this guy's youtube channel, politics had squat to do with it. He was as schizophrenic as they come.

The only voices he was listening to were the ones in his head.
 
The thing is that there is no evidence at this point that this had anything to do with politics, no indication that it had anything to do with left vs. right, no indication that it had anything to do with partisan politics or rhetoric, and no indication that it was anything but a disturbed individual shooting rather indiscriminately.

So, in my view, it would be preferable to stick to what we know at present (as limited as it is) rather than turn it into a left vs. right dichotomy.

I'm pretty sure that the 9 year old girl was neither left nor right, after all.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know. The beginning of this thread was a circle-jerk of fantasizing political junkies. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why I think it is pathetic.

As to the anti-free speech rhetoric, I don't think Palin can be held responsible for having a poster convince someone go on a shooting spree. I seriously doubt "heated rhetoric" could be the cause of a person who would do such a thing.

The "free speech has consequences" thing sounds like a vague blaming technique. Pointless, moralizing, and impossible to change. Perfect media message.
Click to expand...
I think you're exactly right.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I heard it. And I had forgotten about how bad the violent rhetoric was on those radio programs.

The following was also talked about on the program from Talking Points Memo:

Tucson Tea Party Leader: We Won't Change Our Rhetoric After Giffords Shooting That was the guy who had the M16 shooting campaign event.

Flashback: Giffords Warned Of 'Consequences' To Palin's Target Imagery (VIDEO) Well worth the time to watch the interview which was done with Gifford asking her response to Palin's crosshair map and vandalism of Gifford's campaign office.

There was also a brief comment on the current violent climate in AZ.
Click to expand...

...and yet, all we know about the shooter, based on what is purported to be his youtube account, is that he was anti-gov't in a loony conspiracy theorist kind of way...

nope, no partisan bias in the cherry picked evidence you're using to support your pre-drawn conclusion... :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Did it come from the mainstream Democratic Party, the Democratic Party leadership or any other mainstream left wing source?

Which Democratic Party Candidate included a reference to shooting or killing Bush in a campaign ad?

If there was one I missed it. And no, I certainly never advocated for such a solution nor would I encourage that rhetoric nor support it. But to ask if I personally went out of my way to what, condemn some flake that was of no importance?

You'll have to be more specific.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the post? Is Senator, and former Presidential candidate, John Forbes Kerry not mainstream enough for you?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So the First Amendment is what keeps the Repubs using dangerous fear mongering campaign tactics?
Click to expand...


The First Amendment is what protects the rights of everyone to say what they think, from people like you who would prefer to silence the opinions of those with whom they disagree, by fraudulently describing such opinions as “dangerous fear mongering campaign tactics”.
 
WildCat said:
No, but I know crazy when I see it.

The guy was a raging schizophrenic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, dude is ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane. Probably thought he was fighting Genghis Khan's army or something.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Tell me those of you on the right side of the isle, just what is your position here?

Is it your position that:
1) the rhetoric call to violence does not exist as is being described?
2) does not matter as is being described?
3) is really equal on both sides?
4) or just pisses you off that the right wing is being condemned for it?
5) something else?
Click to expand...

6) Does not seem to have anything to do with the current tragedy but is being offered as proof without any connection between this loon and any conservative movement. Before the blood was dry people were calling this guy a teapartier. Turns out he was more of a leftist, yet you are still beating the same drumbeat you always do.
 
Oh, and we cant change free speech laws based on what crazy people might think. Sarah Palin's website was metaphorical crosshairs, and everyone knows it. As much as I hate her, it is ridiculous how quickly some people are trying to pin this on her.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know. The beginning of this thread was a circle-jerk of fantasizing political junkies. I'm not going to bother trying to explain why I think it is pathetic.

As to the anti-free speech rhetoric, I don't think Palin can be held responsible for having a poster convince someone go on a shooting spree. I seriously doubt "heated rhetoric" could be the cause of a person who would do such a thing.

The "free speech has consequences" thing sounds like a vague blaming technique. Pointless, moralizing, and impossible to change. Perfect media message.
Click to expand...

Palin probably could not be convicted in a criminal case. But in a civil case, charged with incitement for that map with crosshairs, she may be toast.

And yes, words do have consequences and can be criminal.

Threatening assault, murder, robbery, extortion, blackmail, etc...is criminal.

Discussing with someone a conspiracy to commit robbery, assassination, terrorism, is grounds for criminal conviction.
 
Two more individuals are now being reported as deceased. Dorothy Murray, age 76, and Phyllis Scheck, age 79.

That seems to complete the death toll of 6 (so far).

John Roll, Christina Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Dorwan Stoddard, Dorothy Murray, and Phyllis Scheck (not sure of the spelling).

:( :( :( :( :( :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom