Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Biscuit said:
How do some people equate toning down violent political rhetoric with an assault on freedom of speech? No one is saying you can't just that you shouldn't.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

Can you use these "metaphors?" These cross-hairs, targets, bull's eyes?
Sure, you can.

Should you? Is it responsible? Is it what we ought to expect from those we apparently trust to govern us?

It's not what I want or expect, no.

For crying out loud, if you need to highlight a district or a particular official, what the hell is wrong with the image of a simple dot, or a push-pin?

And no wise cracks about the deadly use of push-pins, please. I'm serious. There are other symbols, innocuous symbols. Use them instead, please?
 
deepatrax said:
35 pages so far...

so have we come to some agreement yet??

Palin's use of "crosshairs" on her political map is wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's wrong.

Democrat's use of "bullseyes" and "targets" on their political maps is right?
Click to expand...

No. It's equally wrong.

Democratic Leadership Council:
Click to expand...

Equally wrong.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
Click to expand...

Equally wrong.


Will you ever abandon this fallacious and repeatedly answered argument, or will you continue? Because every time you ask, I'm going to be there to say they are equally wrong.

Want to play again? I have time.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I expect some right-wing demagogues may even suggest a Democratic inside-job, to attack the Tea-Party and Republicans.
Click to expand...
Already plenty of that in the right-wing nutjob world.
Example from the comments here:
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com...f-gabrielle?commentId=2600775:Comment:3076194
It could also be a false flag, where the enemies of liberty, freedom & limited government*get (3) for the price of*(1) fringe lunatic: a ramped up call for gun control, the death of a conservative FEDERAL judge & had she died, the death of a Democrat who did not always*follow the party line.* Very suspicious.
Click to expand...
I will say that the author of the piece there does not go along with this. A search finds lots of what appears to be comments at many sites that it was a false flag attack.
 
Thunder said:
UWdude said:
Your hopes have been affirmed. He was a truther.
Click to expand...

figures. now I hope he rots in Hell.
Click to expand...


You hate him that much, not because he shot twenty people, killing six of them; but because he believed something with which you disagree?

Lately, it seems that every time I think you've posted the most thunderous thing I'll ever read, you go and prove me wrong.
 
Biscuit said:
How do some people equate toning down violent political rhetoric with an assault on freedom of speech? No one is saying you can't just that you shouldn't.
Click to expand...


Precisely. Yes. This.

Say it, blog about it, put up as many maps with crosshairs and targets as you like. Hell, go ahead and drop n-bombs and f-bombs if you want. It doesn't mean doing so is a great idea or that there won't be opposition to said rhetoric.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not saying that is this guy, or that is what the rhetoric triggered in this case. This guy was most likely an unstable paranoid schizophrenic. I'm saying the constant background noise as it would be in his case, promoted the kind of homicidal delusion in this guy's head that might not have happened without it.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why several posters claim that Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic. I've been trying to find an article on what was found in his house, but my recollection is that his writings included an acknowledgement that his friends might disapprove of what he was going to do. That doesn't seem like something that a schizophrenic would do. Currently he is not cooperating with the police and using his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. To me, this implies that he is in touch with reality and understands the situation that he is in. This also doesn't meet my stereotype of a schizophrenic. Could someone explain what I am missing?
 
slingblade said:
Yes, it's wrong.



No. It's equally wrong.



Equally wrong.



Equally wrong.


Will you ever abandon this fallacious and repeatedly answered argument, or will you continue? Because every time you ask, I'm going to be there to say they are equally wrong.

Want to play again? I have time.
Click to expand...

slingblade, I understand this is your position, it's also my position...however, it doesn't appear to be the position of more than a few people on here...I'm just wondering why.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Fortunately, in this country, nobody is compelled to let you tell them what symbols they may or may not use.
Click to expand...

No, they don't have to listen to my request, Bob.
Fortunately, in this country, nobody is compelled to let you tell them what they may or may not ask.

You want to move that straw? It's likely to catch on fire.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I'm curious as to why several posters claim that Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic. I've been trying to find an article on what was found in his house, but my recollection is that his writings included an acknowledgement that his friends might disapprove of what he was going to do. That doesn't seem like something that a schizophrenic would do. Currently he is not cooperating with the police and using his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. To me, this implies that he is in touch with reality and understands the situation that he is in. This also doesn't meet my stereotype of a schizophrenic. Could someone explain what I am missing?
Click to expand...

watch his youtube videos...he's more than a bit out there.

I've also read email posting by people who attended college classes with him, and they say he creeped out the entire class...one lady even said something along the lines of, "This guy scares me...I'm sitting by the door...and if you hear something happened, you'll know why"
 
deepatrax said:
slingblade, I understand this is your position, it's also my position...however, it doesn't appear to be the position of more than a few people on here...I'm just wondering why.
Click to expand...

All right, then I won't take any further comments of yours on this to heart. But I don't see anyone saying one side is "more righter" than the other for it. I see those who care about this saying that it's wrong, period. I'll be glad to look, if you can give me some post numbers to check. There's a lot being said. I may have missed it.

And if I have missed it, and someone has said that it's okay when it's the left, but wrong when it's the right, they're going to get a dressing-down from me.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
This also doesn't meet my stereotype of a schizophrenic. Could someone explain what I am missing?
Click to expand...

I have to say I grudgingly agree. He may very well have some undiagnosed mental illness, things where oppositional-defiance plays a strong role or bipolar/manic depression.

I am by no means a mental health professional, and am not entirely certain how one would arrive at a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but he doesn't seem like he fits.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
I have to say I grudgingly agree. He may very well have some undiagnosed mental illness, things where oppositional-defiance plays a strong role or bipolar/manic depression.

I am by no means a mental health professional, and am not entirely certain how one would arrive at a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but he doesn't seem like he fits.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree that we can't make that absolute diagnosis. Not totally sane, possibly unbalanced, somewhat mentally ill? Sure looks like it to me. Schizoid? I couldn't say. I don't have that information.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
I'm curious as to why several posters claim that Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic. I've been trying to find an article on what was found in his house, but my recollection is that his writings included an acknowledgement that his friends might disapprove of what he was going to do. That doesn't seem like something that a schizophrenic would do. Currently he is not cooperating with the police and using his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. To me, this implies that he is in touch with reality and understands the situation that he is in. This also doesn't meet my stereotype of a schizophrenic. Could someone explain what I am missing?
Click to expand...

I think it's way too early to diagnose anyone with anything. I wouldn't want anyone to diagnose me with anything based on a couple YouTube videos (text only) and a MySpace page. No responsible or licensed (for long) psychologist or psychiatrist would do such a thing. And I agree that refusing to talk to the police might suggest there's more to him than just "crazy."

And also, doesn't it let him off the hook a little to immediately throw the mental illness flag? It's a disgusting act either way, but he's really a bastard if he's in control of his actions and thoughts. My guess? Disaffected and alienated, prone to misreading people/texts as he sees fit to his own philosophies, which are probably in flux. This alone doesn't separate him from most guys in their early 20's. The question is, what separates him enough to start shooting at people, particularly a political figure? I don't think you have to be a paranoid schizophrenic to do that or have feelings that might lead to that - a few assassins have proven it already.
 
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts said:
I still say it is far too early in the investigation to draw a direct causal link between current right-wing political rhetoric coming from people like Sarah Palin and his actions.

It may very well be that he was influenced by them, but we don't know that for certain yet. A signed copy of 'Going Rogue' would have been telling, as would if he had printed out that poster from SarahPAC and had it up on his wall. But he didn't, so far as we know right now.

Hell, he's being branded as both a left-winger and a right-winger by both sides. I don't think he fit into any political camp. But we'll know more soon. The SPLC is following some leads on him that suggest he may have had ties to an extremist racist organization. But I want to see the extent and nature of his associations with such groups before I make up my opinion.

ETA: SmartyPants nailed it.
Click to expand...

You mean we shouldn't project our own biases onto the situation, cease the wild speculation & finger-pointing, and wait for actual evidence before coming to any conclusions?

Sounds a lot like what I was saying all day yesterday. Nice to get some other voices of reason in here.

Good luck pushing that boulder up the hill, Sisyphus :)
 
Last edited:
deepatrax said:
35 pages so far...

so have we come to some agreement yet??

Palin's use of "crosshairs" on her political map is wrong?

map.png


Democrat's use of "bullseyes" and "targets" on their political maps is right?

Democratic Leadership Council:

DLC-Targeting-map%5B1%5D.gif
Click to expand...


I saw the Democrat one yesterday, but not the Palin/Republican one until just now. These are my observations:


1. Seeing the target one yesterday was a bit disturbing, in the current context.

2. Seeing the crosshairs one today is a bit more disturbing. But outside of this context? I have no idea if I'd have treated the two equivalently. Or, more importantly, as if either were some kind of crypto-violent suggestion, beyond the obvious targeting-for-action motif.


For that matter, perhaps the Palin one was a response-without-copying of the Democrat one. A one-ups, perhaps.


One thing's for certain, you're not gonna get anything but hopelessly poisoned analysis of either at this point.
 
Ranb said:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/...fords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban/index.html

It looks like Justin Elliott has an ax to grind. It starts out with a lie in the headline and includes several inaccuracies in the article. Bad enough that she was shot, no need to lie to gain headlines.

Ranb
Click to expand...
Being Canadian I don't know the law but this quote from the Brady Center seems to me to be an obvious problem:
Our gun laws are so weak that someone who couldn't get into the military, who was kicked out of school, and who used drugs walked into a gun store and was able to immediately buy a semiautomatic weapon
Click to expand...
 
SmartyPants said:
Precisely. Yes. This.

Say it, blog about it, put up as many maps with crosshairs and targets as you like. Hell, go ahead and drop n-bombs and f-bombs if you want. It doesn't mean doing so is a great idea or that there won't be opposition to said rhetoric.
Click to expand...

The solution to bad, awful speech is more better speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom