Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

picture.php


candlelight vigil outside the Capital building, for the injured Congresswoman and the dead in Arizona.
 
Rat said:
AFAIR, it was here, then in US Politics, and then back here again. It really makes more sense here, since while it relates to a US politician, it doesn't, as far as we know, relate to US politics.
Click to expand...


I believe that this thread is the result of three merged threads on the same subject, two in Current Events and one in US Politics, and yes, it fits Current Events better at this point.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:

If any Republican politicians get attacked with a dart, we'll know who to blame.

In other news, several people were murdered. Maybe save your insensitive political bile for another time.
Click to expand...


So “insensitive political bile” is acceptable at this time only if it comes from the left?
 
MattusMaximus said:
You are allowed to talk about whatever you want... and others are allowed to criticize you for your words.

It's called the First Amendment. A lawyer would know that :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

the First Amendment does NOT protect incitement to violence, threats, etc etc.

Post on Facebook how you want to kill the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and see what happens in a few hours.

(Mods, this is not advising anyone to do such a thing. Its just an example of how violent statements can bring action by the authorities)
 
Dorwin (or perhaps Dorwan?) Stoddard, 71 years old, is now being identified as another one of the deceased victims. :(

ETA: His wife is reported to be one of the others shot and injured, but her injuries are not life threatening.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
the First Amendment does NOT protect incitement to violence, threats, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's kind of vague. I read up on it somewhat after the thread on the chaps who were charged in this country with inciting hatred to see how the situation differed in the US, and while Chaplinsky vs NH stated that 'fighting words' are not protected, there have been a couple of cases since then that seem to have weakened that ruling.
 
Thunder said:
this is disgusting. :mad:

this man needs to fry..and soon. i'd like to watch it happen.

and Sarah Palin needs to be sued in civil court for political incitement.


...and of course, Truthers and other nuts will use this detail as proof of an "inside-job".
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment, but I think now of all times is a good time to step down on the violent imagery a bit. Nothing can be said with certainty at this point, but there are signs that this man was insane, not in the rhetorical sense, but literally.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Isn't that ironic?
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
So the First Amendment is what keeps the Repubs using dangerous fear mongering campaign tactics?
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing keeps the Left from fear mongering, demagogic tactics.

Perhaps you missed it Ginger, but for the past two years your leftish democratic president has been repeatedly bashing biz/finance type - blaming them for all the ills of society, blaming nebulous "greed", to the point of pushing his SEIU union 'friends'/thugs to surround and terrorizing a teen trapped in a suburban home
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/
and to beat a wheelchaired black man in St.Louis named Gladney for selling "don't tread on me" flags.

The right are NOT the only ones to push over-the-top rhetoric and promote violent reactions.

Again for a 3rd time -
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS A SOLUTION ?
WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO ?

You unthinking do-gooders are actually promoting a repressive closed totalitarian society but you haven't the guts to state it openly.
If you haven't the fortitude to tolerate other's opinions stated bluntly, then you don't deserve a society free enough to tolerate your ideas.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
You unthinking do-gooders are actually promoting a repressive closed totalitarian society but you haven't the guts to state it openly.
If you haven't the fortitude to tolerate other's opinions stated bluntly, then you don't deserve a society free enough to tolerate your ideas.
Click to expand...

I'm betting I could come up with some "opinions" that would make your blood boil, which you wouldn't be inclined to tolerate, and which you'd berate just as stridently.

But they'd fall under abuse of the membership agreement, and it's simply not worth it to me to demonstrate.
 
kellyb said:
I dunno. He appears to be extremely, extremely mentally ill. Looks like genuine insanity to me.

He's crazy enough to where I really don't think we can blame Palin et al on this at all.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rat said:
Actually, it's kind of vague. I read up on it somewhat after the thread on the chaps who were charged in this country with inciting hatred to see how the situation differed in the US, and while Chaplinsky vs NH stated that 'fighting words' are not protected, there have been a couple of cases since then that seem to have weakened that ruling.
Click to expand...

I don't think the law, or outlawing certain call-to-violence political speech is on the solution list anyone has suggested here. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical or a good idea or benign.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
Wrong. It was an attack against the victims only. As heinous as it was, there is no need for anyone except the victims and their families to go all emo about it.
Click to expand...

Those who are close to the victims may feel the aftermath of the assassination attempt more keenly, but there will still be a lingering effect for all citizens and all politicians in the entire nation.

The People cannot rightfully vote their political choices when their elected politicians cannot represent said choices for fear of assassination. And though this assassination attempt will not transform our nation into one where the leadership is too afraid lead as they ought, it will, however, be a step in that dark direction. If that ever happens, the violent minority will rule this country, not those who vote politicians into office.

Nor can the People be full and rightfully represented if their own elected leadership is too afraid to appear in public areas without immense security. I dread the day when all of our Senators and Representatives have to be protected as our presidents are.
 
stevea said:
Apparently nothing keeps the Left from fear mongering, demagogic tactics.

Perhaps you missed it Ginger, but for the past two years your leftish democratic president has been repeatedly bashing biz/finance type - blaming them for all the ills of society, blaming nebulous "greed", to the point of pushing his SEIU union 'friends'/thugs to surround and terrorizing a teen trapped in a suburban home
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/
and to beat a wheelchaired black man in St.Louis named Gladney for selling "don't tread on me" flags.

The right are NOT the only ones to push over-the-top rhetoric and promote violent reactions.

Again for a 3rd time -
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE AS A SOLUTION ?
WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO ?

You unthinking do-gooders are actually promoting a repressive closed totalitarian society but you haven't the guts to state it openly.
If you haven't the fortitude to tolerate other's opinions stated bluntly, then you don't deserve a society free enough to tolerate your ideas.
Click to expand...
Such a poor analogy it's hard to know what to address.

Do you understand the difference between crosshair symbolism, citing "second amendment remedies", an M16 shooting at your opponent's picture campaign event and simply disagreeing with something?
 
stevea said:
Apparently nothing keeps the Left from fear mongering, demagogic tactics.
Click to expand...

dude, have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage?

they are the Kings of right-wing demagoguery.
 
novice skeptic said:
So answer me this please: When lefties called for the death of George W. Bush, then president, did you stand up and call this dangerous and ask for the end of such dangerous rhetoric?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
.
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.
 
deepatrax said:
Go back and read pages 1-5 of this thread...and you'll see things like this:

Thunder said:
Sarah Palin better take down that map NOW...and apologize to the Congresswoman's family and the families of the rest of the victims.

And if she doesn't....Palin, you are through.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A rather poor example, actually. I think most of us know that that particular poster very, very rarely ever says anything worth paying attention to. That he said something thunderous in this thread means no more than when he says similarly thunderous things anywhere else.

There are, however, plenty of other things early in the thread that very well support the point you are making. No sense trying to cite a completely pointless posting to try to support a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom