Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

I can imagine what a Tea Party provided defense attorney would trawl out as a "defense."

"My client cannot be guilty of attempted murder of a Federal Representative because Democrats are not really human."

They might not have such a good argument when it comes to the Judge.


But this is what it has come to. The right no longer even sees Liberals as human. They see them as a vile disease that needs to be exterminated not reasoned with or worked with.
 
I hope you're right, but in this is the Internet Age and the events in question took place in Arizona, which has a highly charged political environment already. Personally, I think a trial by judge (what's the proper term?) might be better than a jury trial.

I'm surprised the DA has'nt told the Sheriff to shut up.

Or maybe he does'nt care, he's campaigning or something I guess.
 
I can imagine what a Tea Party provided defense attorney would trawl out as a "defense."

"My client cannot be guilty of attempted murder of a Federal Representative because Democrats are not really human."

They might not have such a good argument when it comes to the Judge.


But this is what it has come to. The right no longer even sees Liberals as human. They see them as a vile disease that needs to be exterminated not reasoned with or worked with.


I know I posted this elsewhere last night, but it bears repeating:

You may want to tone done the hyperbole. Or at the very least, stop using blanket generalizations.
 
I'm only popping into the thread to see if we've gotten to the point yet where half the posters believe the gunman was Sarah Palin in disguise. Not yet? Maybe another 45 pages will get us there!
 
I can imagine what a Tea Party provided defense attorney would trawl out as a "defense."

"My client cannot be guilty of attempted murder of a Federal Representative because Democrats are not really human."

They might not have such a good argument when it comes to the Judge.


But this is what it has come to. The right no longer even sees Liberals as human. They see them as a vile disease that needs to be exterminated not reasoned with or worked with.

For the most part, I agree with your criticism. However, you're painting with a broad brush of your own. Try to set a good example.
 
I know I posted this elsewhere last night, but it bears repeating:

You may want to tone done the hyperbole. Or at the very least, stop using blanket generalizations.

For the most part, I agree with your criticism. However, you're painting with a broad brush of your own. Try to set a good example.

Quite right, both of you.

I should have included a "many" in there.
 
Really, any source for this? I am just asking because I have always expected that the terrorists will strike with mortars against a massive event like a football match or a concert where people are packed together. Its pretty simple technology and if a militia group can get them then it's inevitably going to be used in the future.

I knew this pagan woman who got involved with a guy she met on a BBS (this was long ago) who was a norse pagan. So she moved off to live with him in Alabama and we later found out that he was a white supremacist militia guy, and the way we found out was the feds busted them with some light antitank weapons. I presume that matters have not improved in the last 20 years.
 
I can imagine what a Tea Party provided defense attorney would trawl out as a "defense."

"My client cannot be guilty of attempted murder of a Federal Representative because Democrats are not really human."

They might not have such a good argument when it comes to the Judge.


But this is what it has come to. The right no longer even sees Liberals as human. They see them as a vile disease that needs to be exterminated not reasoned with or worked with.

Even with your "many" qualifer which you posted after getting called on it, this is nice example of the rhetoric that so many here are talking about. Way to stoke the fire.
 
What the hell does that even mean?

Schizos are by definition disconnected from reality.

Let me interpret;

Their minds process what they hear as do yours and mine, but in ways that are illogical. If they hear somebody calling Democrats "Demon-rats" and they already have a paranoia about Demons, they may then extend that to Democrats and decide to Save The World.
 
I knew this pagan woman who got involved with a guy she met on a BBS (this was long ago) who was a norse pagan. So she moved off to live with him in Alabama and we later found out that he was a white supremacist militia guy, and the way we found out was the feds busted them with some light antitank weapons. I presume that matters have not improved in the last 20 years.

Something more recent;

https://www.irehr.org/index.php?opt...ing-a-grenade-launcher&catid=9:news&Itemid=23
 
Quite right, both of you.

I should have included a "many" in there.

You're on the right track, but I'm gonna have to agree with applecorped, here. To say that it's "many" people (not all) still makes the issue personal in nature. I think the heart of the matter is that the trend in American politics is to ignore the merits of ideas and to instead focus on the individuals who hold those ideas. Modern political discourse is one big ad hominem fallacy.

I think we would be better suited by not wasting our time focusing on what the right or the left is doing, in what quantity, and to what degree. Rather, focus on what is proper and improper behavior. For example:

Yes, you should explain why your opponents' ideas are wrong.
No, you should not accuse your opponents of hating America, or pretend that it's even relevant to the truth of their ideas.
No, you should not make light of opposing politicians or laws with violence.


When you start sweeping ideological labels into the accusation of specific actions, you end up offending those who are innocent of such behavior. To say "Liberals do X," one will inevitably garner the reaction of, "I'm a liberal and I've never done X. You're just saying that because you're a conservative who believes in Y." That gets us nowhere. Instead, it would be superior to explain why X and Y are wrong, and let the the individuals throughout our audience decide whether or not we are correct.

But I'm probably being too idealistic.
 
You're on the right track, but I'm gonna have to agree with applecorped, here. To say that it's "many" people (not all) still makes the issue personal in nature. I think the heart of the matter is that the trend in American politics is to ignore the merits of ideas and to instead focus on the individuals who hold those ideas. Modern political discourse is one big ad hominem fallacy.

I think we would be better suited by not wasting our time focusing on what the right or the left is doing, in what quantity, and to what degree. Rather, focus on what is proper and improper behavior. For example:

Yes, you should explain why your opponents' ideas are wrong.
No, you should not accuse your opponents of hating America, or pretend that it's even relevant to the truth of their ideas.
No, you should not make light of opposing politicians or laws with violence.


When you start sweeping ideological labels into the accusation of specific actions, you end up offending those who are innocent of such behavior. To say "Liberals do X," one will inevitably garner the reaction of, "I'm a liberal and I've never done X. You're just saying that because you're a conservative who believes in Y." That gets us nowhere. Instead, it would be superior to explain why X and Y are wrong, and let the the individuals throughout our audience decide whether or not we are correct.

But I'm probably being too idealistic.

Well stated and sums up my feelings exactly.
 
I hear lots about gun control. But, speaking as a liberal, this is looking like a problem gun control can't solve: the random nutcase.

In Japan, they go apes*** and stab s*** up, like schools.
 
Let me interpret;

Their minds process what they hear as do yours and mine, but in ways that are illogical. If they hear somebody calling Democrats "Demon-rats" and they already have a paranoia about Demons, they may then extend that to Democrats and decide to Save The World.
.
And those dod-rotted Reptilicans! Be afwaid, be wery wery afwaid!
 
I can't even do that NOW.

In the crowd at the AZ shooting was a fellow with a holstered weapon. He did not get it un-holstered before the shooting was all over.

If you think your piece gives you an assurance of safety, you probably shouldn't be carrying one.

I am sure that indoors will be quite safe. Its on a college campus so no guns are allowed period. However there will be a large crowd out doors waiting to get in. The arena is near two major roads and there will no doubt be a great deal of people walking the area to get to campus. Apparently people have camped overnight and there are already about 1000 waiting in line. I am more concerned that some jack ass will try and gun down people outside.

There is a bar nearby that has a great happy hour so I will probably go there and watch on TV.

This is all anyone is talking about in my coffee shop and nearly all of them are very thankful to President Obama for taking the time to come to our town and express his condolences.

Personally I think the people that brought down the gunman and took his gun deserve the presidential medal of freedom. Especially the young aid who began to issue medical attention to Giffords before the shooting have even stopped.
 

Back
Top Bottom