Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

quadraginta said:
Considering the absence of any coherent expression in what we have seen of his writings, I doubt it would be possible to describe him as anything other than profoundly confused.
Click to expand...

pfft, yeah, you and the other 1% of the country. the rest of political America already has his ideologies figured out: opposite of theirs.

Everyone is hoping that he turns out the be one of 'theirs' and not one of 'ours'.
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
I would say to all the hullaboo in this thread that Bullseye's are definitely not the same thing as cross hairs of a weapons.
Click to expand...


A bullseye, to me, simply marks a location at which an action should be directed. The action is ambiguous (archery, darts, a dunk tank?). Crosshairs, to me, not only indicate a location, but also a certain type of action. It's not a stretch to point out that crosshairs are most commonly associated with guns.

Of course, neither are appropriate imagery to use, but bulleyes seem... less direct. A simple X would probably be more "neutral". Then again, neutrality isn't exactly a useful attribute in politics, is it?
 
Last edited:
When someone throws a dart at a democratic politician, I'll think of the bullseye as a violent incitation.
 
UWdude said:
quadraginta said:
Considering the absence of any coherent expression in what we have seen of his writings, I doubt it would be possible to describe him as anything other than profoundly confused.
Click to expand...

pfft, yeah, you and the other 1% of the country. the rest of political America already has his ideologies figured out: opposite of theirs.

Everyone is hoping that he turns out the be one of 'theirs' and not one of 'ours'.
Click to expand...
exactly.
Click to expand...


That second quote comes from someone else's post.

... but I don't disagree with the point being made.
 
I don't fully understand why this is already politicized to such an extent. I find the politicization extremely bizarre and distasteful.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
I don't fully understand why this is already politicized to such an extent. I find the politicization extremely bizarre and distasteful.
Click to expand...

Maybe the discussion of specific politics is speculative but he has made it a political act in both deed (the political official) and word:

"... a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon."

This does beg the question: "What was his political object?" And so by its nature it is politicized.

If he is erad3 as it appears he is, was this his political object he refers to in this post of the above mentioned thread:

"Is it possible that politicians are taking advantage of the money system?

It's possible to overthrow a government and change the currency."
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
A bullseye, to me, simply marks a location at which an action should be directed. The action is ambiguous (archery, darts, a dunk tank?). Crosshairs, to me, not only indicate a location, but also a certain type of action. It's not a stretch to point out that crosshairs are most commonly associated with guns.

Of course, neither are appropriate imagery to use, but bulleyes seem... less direct. A simple X would probably be more "neutral". Then again, neutrality isn't exactly a useful attribute in politics, is it?
Click to expand...


In this case even an X could be construed as trying to "remove" the target. But the cross hairs are absolutely ridiculous.

Also I do love how everyone just jumped right on the bandwagon that this guy was a raging tea bagger. However, I do wonder who the 50 year old man who was with him was. I'm sure we'll have the guy arrested in the next day or two. The fact that a nine year old child was killed sounds way more than what this 22 year old intended.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
I don't fully understand why this is already politicized to such an extent. I find the politicization extremely bizarre and distasteful.
Click to expand...


It may be a reasonable speculation, given that a politician was the intended victim. Very few may kill a politician simply because they're a high-profile target, but the vast majority have some politically-related reason (even if they are absolutely insane).

Still, the politicization may simply be the effect of an "illness" that has dug deep into our society. I think that's the more unfortunate possibility...
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
I'm sure we'll have the guy arrested in the next day or two. The fact that a nine year old child was killed sounds way more than what this 22 year old intended.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. Consider he went armed to the teeth and "sprayed" his firing around indiscriminately according to witnesses. Sounds like he intended a bloodbath, and murdered a nine year old girl in the process. According to this facebook page this will be obvious to everyone that she was an innocent nonviolent civilian, and that therefore this is clearly for people of all religions and none an unjust war assault. http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-More-Unjust-War/120338904702676?v=wall
 
Last edited:
You political hacks tend to think everyone is as politically fixated as you are. Even schizophrenics. Such is not the case.

I will be very surprised if the loon has anything resembling a real political doctrine. These loon assassins target politicians because of their celebrity. Politics, if it plays any role at all, is typically just an excuse and a convenient path to fame.

One of the few good things that can be said about real political hacks is that they hardly ever resort to murder over their political fixations. Out of tens of millions of political hacks, only a few have actually snapped and gone ballistic.

So here's my speculation: This perp went ballistic because he is crazy. Politics and political rhetoric had nothing to do with it - except to the extent that politics resembles it.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
You want to speculate? OK, here's my politically ummotivated speculation:

This perp apparently thinks in tautologies. He went to the grocery store to pick up some rolling papers because he needed to go to the store to pick up some rolling papers. Of course he would have his trusty Glock with him on such a high priority errand, lest anyone attempt to thwart his high priority mission. Mrs. Giffords just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The perp reasoned, "Aha! Here is my chance to be famous. If I go ballistic now, then I will have gone ballistic. Therefore I will go ballistic now. And when I go ballistic, then I will have gone ballistic. And everyone everywhere will be talking and talking about how I went ballistic. And I will be very important."

So the perp went ballistic. We have seen this same kind of thought process in his videos. It's called "crazy". Politics has nothing to do with it - except to the extent that politics resembles it.
Click to expand...

He posted a good bye message before doing this, thus showing prior planning and intent.
 
case#46cw39 said:
This does beg the question: "What was his political object?" And so by its nature it is politicized.

If he is erad3 as it appears he is, was this his political object he refers to in this post of the above mentioned thread:

"Is it possible that politicians are taking advantage of the money system?

It's possible to overthrow a government and change the currency."
Click to expand...

You can only hope so.
 
case#46cw39 said:
I'm not so sure. Consider he went armed to the teeth and "sprayed" his firing around indiscriminately according to witnesses. Sounds like he intended a bloodbath, and murdered a nine year old girl in the process. According to this facebook page this will be obvious to everyone that she was an innocent nonviolent civilian, and that therefore this is clearly for people of all religions and none an unjust war assault. http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-More-Unjust-War/120338904702676?v=wall
Click to expand...


I think he really didn't intend to kill a child. He probably thought he'd get a lot of adults. I think he's obviously stupid and deranged. And I think he thought he'd go down in history in jail as a hero. But child killers don't do so well in prison. So I'm hoping that it will motivate him.

Plus he may have been setting himself up as a lunatic. From what his facebook friends say of him he seems like he was a drunk not crazy. So he may have set it up so he'd go to a mental hospital and then think he could escape. I have a feeling it's going to implode in the next day.
 
UWdude said:
You can only hope so.
Click to expand...

Why would I hope so? I only want the truth. What does it actually prove? It has long been proven that both the right and left, alcohol drinkers and I guess even pot smokers can commit violent crime. I'm just reporting what he said.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom