Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

I'm watching O'Reilly and I want to vomit. It's hard to believe Juan Williams was ever considered a liberal.
 
applecorped said:
No matter what Loughner does eventually say (if anything), right-wing extremism contributed to this.

No really.
Click to expand...

1.5 weeks after the murders, there is no evidence to indicate this.

At first I did speculate that right-wing violent and revolutionary rhetoric did have something to do with the shooting.

But now, with the evidence that we have, it appears that Tea-Party/Conservative rhetoric had nothing to do with Loughner.

The only politics that DOES seem to have influenced him however, is Conspiracy Theorist/anti-Fed/9-11 Truther/anti-NWO type crap.

Though, did it force him over the edge? There is no evidence to indicate this.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm watching O'Reilly and I want to vomit. It's hard to believe Juan Williams was ever considered a liberal.
Click to expand...
Being on NPR is not the definition of a liberal. I've never felt Wms was a liberal. But it is unfortunate that he's unaware of how bad Fox's cred is.
 
Pardalis said:
So how can you possibly claim to know what motivated him?
Click to expand...

Do we have to go around and around on this again? Can't you just address what I already posted and say you disagree? Must you keep pretending that because you don't agree with what I posted, I didn't post anything?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Do we have to go around and around on this again?
Click to expand...

We will as long as you keep ignoring the point.

You can't predict, or know what a schizophrenic will think, and what will make him act. You just admitted their minds are disorganized.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't both be saying that the schizophrenic is not thinking normally, rationally, realistically, and that their minds are a jumble of disorganized thought (your words), and at the same time pretend to know why and how they came to think what they think, and what lead them to act upon their ideas.

Is what I am saying making any sense to you, or am I speaking to a brick wall?
 
Last edited:
I know that the conversation has moved on somewhat, but I just wanted to note in passing that the 'Together We Thrive' slogan is by no means unique, and has been used in various places by various people for a long time.

That's not to say that there is no connection to the Obama programme mentioned, but there are other sources as well - who knows where such things come from? Any reasonably short, snappy phrase is likely to have been used elsewhere.

For instance.

Western Mass. Regional Library System
The Elling Family
Online 'Empowerment Groups'

I have no agenda here, I was just intruiged that nobody seemed to look at where else the slogan has been used.
 
applecorped said:
No matter what Loughner does eventually say (if anything), right-wing extremism contributed to this.


No really.
Click to expand...

The US is a violent nation, awash with instruments of violence, more shocked by exposed nipples than violent death. Centuries of right-wing extremism have contributed to this state of affairs so what's your problem, applecorped?
 
Thunder said:
1.5 weeks after the murders, there is no evidence to indicate this.

At first I did speculate that right-wing violent and revolutionary rhetoric did have something to do with the shooting.

But now, with the evidence that we have, it appears that Tea-Party/Conservative rhetoric had nothing to do with Loughner.

The only politics that DOES seem to have influenced him however, is Conspiracy Theorist/anti-Fed/9-11 Truther/anti-NWO type crap.

Though, did it force him over the edge? There is no evidence to indicate this.
Click to expand...

You've come a long way since the beginning of the thread, T-bone.
 
applecorped said:
No matter what Loughner does eventually say (if anything), right-wing extremism contributed to this.


No really.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that there was a lot of violent rhetoric about JFK, especially in the Dallas radio market, and that at the time, people believed that it may have had a role in Oswald's choice of target?

Contributed is not CAUSED. Oswald was a nutter and was going to kill somebody. But if you know there are people like that out there, and you repeatedly identify a target in violent terms, are you not intentionally attempting to direct their rage?
 
Pardalis said:
We will as long as you keep ignoring the point.

You can't predict, or know what a schizophrenic will think, and what will make him act. You just admitted their minds are disorganized.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't both be saying that the schizophrenic is not thinking normally, rationally, realistically, and that their minds are a jumble of disorganized thought (your words), and at the same time pretend to know why and how they came to think what they think, and what lead them to act upon their ideas.

Is what I am saying making any sense to you, or am I speaking to a brick wall?
Click to expand...
the point some of us have been making, which you seem not to acknowledge, is that, as Ben Burch puts it, "contributing is not causing." We can't know how Loughner came to think what he thought, but we can know a good deal of what he thought, and we can know a good deal about where he got it from. It's not the whole thing, by far, but it is not nothing either.
 
I live in Tucson and I have not been following this thread, but I can say that the people that live here are still talking about it. After the last election, which was pretty nasty, and this shooting, which may or may not have had some political motivations, I am ready for things to calm back down.

Over in the "JREF pictures" thread, I posted some pictures of the memorial and media coverage, if anyone is interested.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6775355&postcount=6798
 
I just don't see how this incident should have any effect on our political speech.
If the argument is that "the shooting is the product of our political speech and therefore we should moderate our political speech", then I think it's important to quantify what sorts of political speech will cause a crazy man to be violent. What things do we need to avoid saying, and what sorts of things are okay? As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, metaphors involving violence and war are universal when talking about election strategies. Besides, it seems unreasonable to connect our political speech to the actions of the crazy; crazy people will do crazy things.
But perhaps, as many have said, we just think our current tone of political speech is bad for reasons other than the shooting. In which case, let's discuss those reasons independently -- and bringing up the shooting is then an appeal to emotion that may negatively impact our ability to discuss the real issues openly.
 
Worm said:
I know that the conversation has moved on somewhat, but I just wanted to note in passing that the 'Together We Thrive' slogan is by no means unique, and has been used in various places by various people for a long time.

That's not to say that there is no connection to the Obama programme mentioned, but there are other sources as well - who knows where such things come from? Any reasonably short, snappy phrase is likely to have been used elsewhere.

For instance.

Western Mass. Regional Library System
The Elling Family
Online 'Empowerment Groups'

I have no agenda here, I was just intruiged that nobody seemed to look at where else the slogan has been used.
Click to expand...
.
The Beatles had a song with "all together now" in it.
 
Tarring and feathering and riding the miscreant out of town on a rail were extreme responses in the past to political differences.
Shouting down the speaker is popular today, I've heard, and has been so for a long time.
Just how much of a unruly environment assists a loon in going further will be a problem quantifying, and even more of a problem controlling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom