Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

[Magyar]

Let me add the fact that Obama invited Boehner to fly down to Tuscon on Air Force One so they could show a united front. Boehner declined, choosing to attend a political event:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47521.html#ixzz1As7VKb6y

Of course, some folks have decided that Obama can do no right, so if he hadn't gone he would have been a weak leader. If he goes, he's crassly taking advantage of the situation for political gain.

Yea welll, I guess crying for 9 year old dead girls would reduce his bribe money from the gun freaks.

 

[TraneWreck]

Maybe he didn't want to be shown weeping on national tv again.

I know that sounds like a slight, but I'm not trying to be insulting to the speaker by saying that. He does tend to cry, that is an event that it's very likely anyone would cry at, and it was an event that a LOT of people were sure to watch.

This would be the first time such a reaction was warranted, at least given the other occassions I've witnessed the waterworks from Boehner.

He did cry on the floor of Congress when he discussed the issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When do you expect we'll see apologies from people who blamed the right for this attack?

Why not ask the people who blamed the right? I certainly never did.

I blame the right (especially the Palin-fringe crowd) for misinforming the electorate with their inflammatory rhetoric, but have consistently denied that they were in any way culpable for this act of violence.

 

[Biscuit]

No, my skepticism is based on the way the Obama Whitehouse has used other *events* and all the cute slogans/logos they came up with to do it.

In fact, "Together We Thrive" is not something thought up by the University of Arizona at all … but something that clearly came from the Obama camp (Organizing For America). And here is the proof:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2656595/posts



The creator of the slogan, a guy name John Berry, introduced the slogan this way:



In other words, the slogan was introduced to push socialism, Biscuit.

Not real togetherness. Or thriving (i.e., prosperity) ... since socialism and prosperity do not go hand in hand.

I honestly can not believe how vile you are being.

There was not a single economic or political statement made at this event.

The U of A put on this event on their own. You can not show any link between our memorial and a 3 year old blog post. They have the same name but entirely different themes. In our case Together We Thrive was a call to come together in the wake of a tragedy and not hide or scatter in fear. There was not any political or economic message delivered. You have no proof that any one at the U was even aware of this blog post. The U organized promoted and held this event at the behest of our community. It was not connected to any one political party or economic model. It was a memorial and your pathetic attempt to use it as a feather in your cap is sad.

 

[DavidJames]

I honestly can not believe how vile you are being.

Don't waste your time with him. Think of how you would react if you were out walking and passed an obnoxious tiny yipping dog behind a fence. You might go over and try to be friendly and maybe even try and pet him. But they pretty much ignore you and keep jumping up on the fence and yipping non stop. At some point you'd just walk away.

Walk away.

 

[bikerdruid]

Don't waste your time with him. Think of how you would react if you were out walking and passed an obnoxious tiny yipping dog behind a fence. You might go over and try to be friendly and maybe even try and pet him. But they pretty much ignore you and keep jumping up on the fence and yipping non stop. At some point you'd just walk away.

Walk away.

excellent analogy.

 

[TraneWreck]

excellent analogy.

If you just add in the detail that instead of barking, the dog just says, "Vince Foster," over and over, the analogy is perfect.

 

[babycondor]

I've gone back to re-read your post. The problem is you started off answering my quote posted by ProbeX, not something ProbeX directly said. So it looks like you are answering what I said about the fear mongering with a post about violence in society in general.

I'll take your word for it now, that is not what you were saying. So my comments about the straw man and time wasting don't now fit in the exchange either. You're welcome to take my word for it I've withdrawn the comments.


Moving on, yes, a lot of what I post as well helps gel my own thoughts.

Cool! Yes I intended to reply to ProbeX so I shouldn't have quoted you, that was confusing. Thanks.

 

[Pardalis]

So you refuse to discuss my comments once again, while insisting I address the straw man you falsely attribute to me.

Still refusing to answer. Incredible!

One issue here is the shooting. There are multiple aspects of the shooting. And different people are focusing on different aspects of the shooting.

The shooting was done by a lone nut, and some people are trying to pin this on the Republicans, because they are obsessed with them, and might have some unresolved issues themselves.

 

[tyr_13]

At the very least this has shown many reasonable people what the politics sub-board has to deal with all the time.

 

[applecorped]

At the very least this has shown many reasonable people what the politics sub-board has to deal with all the time.

This is verging on CT territory.

 

[ProbeX]

Look at this as a logical exercise. ...

No, I understood the logic you implored. I looked for sources to back the statement and found your scrutiny is well-placed.

Not sure if Time magazine can be trusted on its own merits either, considering an absence of listed sources. But just for further fun, claims have been made re:his behavior regarding Giffords, from 2007, as quoted in this latest issue (Jan. 24).

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2042197-2,00.html

My larger point in this thread btw is that the content of a madman's speech (grammar, currency, gov't), and where he picked it up, is not the problem. It's the madman's inability to control his thinking and his actions. That point seems to be lost on a lot of people in favor of political posturing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Walk away.

That's what I do. I reply to the point the return replies escalate instead of respond. Then I just move on.

 

[Pardalis]

Skeptigirl, is Björk's music responsible for her schizophrenic stalker's suicide?

 

[Vortigern99]

Was Judas Priest responsible for teen suicide in the 80s?

Was The Matrix responsible for Columbine?

Are each of the child-stabbings in China responsible for the next one?

Is violent Republican rhetoric responsible for Tucson?

No, no, no, and no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snipped falsehood]

The shooting was done by a lone nut, and some people are trying to pin this on the Republicans, because they are obsessed with them, and might have some unresolved issues themselves.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how/why the blame applies.

When your primary campaign message is one of, "fear the illegal government, they are a danger to you", and, "the government is so bad, an armed revolution could be needed", that is a message that can reinforce the beliefs of a paranoid schizophrenic whose delusions center around the same theme.

They have now released an additional video made by Loughner before he was expelled from the community college. He repeats multiple times throughout the video that the government is unconstitutional and the currency is illegal. That is the same theme in his MySpace and YouTube videos. The specifics, (illegal currency and unconstitutional government) are not the themes in every homicidal schizophrenic who acts on their delusions.

Cho, for example, in the VA Tech shootings, had delusions about violence, women and persecution by fellow students and "rich kids".

During the investigation, the police found a note in Cho's room in which he criticized "rich kids", "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans". In the note, Cho continued by saying that "you caused me to do this."[4] Early media reports also speculated that he was obsessed with fellow student Emily Hilscher and became enraged after she rejected his romantic overtures.[93][94][95][96] Law enforcement investigators could not find evidence that Hilscher knew Cho.[97] Cho and one of his victims, Ross Alameddine, attended the same English class during Autumn 2006.[98] Also in one video, he mentions "martyrs like Eric and Dylan", apparently referring to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators of Columbine High School massacre.[99]

If one looks at delusions of other paranoid schizophrenics, there are certain consistent themes, persecution and control is one kind of overriding theme. But the details of that overriding theme take on sociocultural and political specifics from the environment of the schizophrenic.


It extremely unlikely to be a coincidence that Loughner's theme in his delusion of persecution was specifically about the gold standard and the unconstitutionality of the current government at the same time these messages have dominated the current political messages from the right.


So, is this me claiming Palin's tiny piece of the whole picture is directly responsible for these homicides? No. To tell you the truth I find Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch and the Repub Party leadership that has been intensely exploiting the fear mongering message much more culpable than Palin.

And would this guy have committed these murders without the fear mongering going on around him? Maybe, who knows? Does that make the fear mongering any less dangerous if it led to these specific homicides or not? No. Fear mongering has undeniable consequences. And that fact should not be buried by the defensive conservatives who prefer not to think about the fact the fear mongering is a campaign lie. If you believe the false message Obama is a dangerous socialist and the government itself is dangerous and unconstitutional, you are unlikely to be able to see how that message has dangerous consequences.

 

[Noztradamus]

I disagree. As the highest ranking republican he should have gone to show national unity. He was invited. He skipped it for a service no one watched or even knew about.

Of course, his real purpose was to show support for a particular candidate in the RNC leadership election, but the prayer service was a nice excuse.

National unity to go to some university rally? If it's ratings rather than the appropriate venue that are important why not go on Oprah?

And while we are speculating about "real purpose", we might observe that Obama went to Tucson because Mark Penn suggested he needed an Oklahoma City like event to reconnect to the people.

 

[TraneWreck]

National unity to go to some university rally? If it's ratings rather than the appropriate venue that are important why not go on Oprah?

And while we are speculating about "real purpose", we might observe that Obama went to Tucson because Mark Penn suggested he needed an Oklahoma City like event to reconnect to the people.

It wasn't "some university rally." It was the memorial for the victims of the shooting in the city where the shooting took place.

Clearly no progress is going to be made in this discussion. There's no point to going on.

 

[Pardalis]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how/why the blame applies.

And you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a delusion is.

A delusion is by definition unreal, and there is no way we can predict what a schizophrenic is going to believe, and we can never really understand why they believe what they believe, because they are not rational. They make associations nobody else would, they see things nobody can see, because they re not there.

When your primary campaign message is one of, "fear the illegal government, they are a danger to you", and, "the government is so bad, an armed revolution could be needed", that is a message that can reinforce the beliefs of a paranoid schizophrenic whose delusions center around the same theme.

So we should ban all movies, music and literature that follow that theme?

So no more The Conversation, The Matrix, The X Files, Jacob's Ladder, Megadeath, Pantera, Green Day, Robin Cook, Richard Condon, Michael Crichton, John Le Carré? We should ban them so that schizos don't get "ideas".

He repeats multiple times throughout the video that the government is unconstitutional and the currency is illegal.

Yes, a common theme amongst conspiracy theorists. Should we ban all conspiracy theorist websites, should we ban Alex jones? Should we ban Ron Paul and Lyndon Larouche?

had delusions about violence, women and persecution by fellow students and "rich kids".

So we should ban all media that present themes about powerful women and rich kids?

Maybe we should ask Hillary Clinton to resign, so that schizos who have issues with women don't act upon their delusions.

If one looks at delusions of other paranoid schizophrenics, there are certain consistent themes, persecution and control is one kind of overriding theme. But the details of that overriding theme take on sociocultural and political specifics from the environment of the schizophrenic.

Yes, America is a very schizophrenic nation, that's one of its quirks. So what?

I guess America has its own kind of schizos, so does France and South Korea, and Québec. I doubt schizophernics in Russia have delusions specific to the Federal reserve. We're all products of our culture, the insane included.

It extremely unlikely to be a coincidence that Loughner's theme in his delusion of persecution was specifically about the gold standard and the unconstitutionality of the current government at the same time these messages have dominated the current political messages from the right.

He read whatever he could find that would fuel his delusions. That's what he found, but he would have found another source for his delusions if it fitted him.

And would this guy have committed these murders without the fear mongering going on around him? Maybe, who knows? Does that make the fear mongering any less dangerous if it led to these specific homicides or not? No.

Again, you can't predict what will tick off a schizophrenic.

A TV commercial can tick them off, a verse in a song, a sign on a bus, a wrong number call.

Could anyone have predicted Björk's innocuous songs could generate such delusions and violence in one person?

Fear mongering has undeniable consequences.

And you're making such a racket about Republicans that you're not helping. Every post you make in the politics forums is about how evil the Republicans are.

You are doing the same fear mongering you are accusing other of making. What you need to do is to solve your personal issues you have with Republicans. It's unhealthy.

If you believe the false message Obama is a dangerous socialist and the government itself is dangerous and unconstitutional, you are unlikely to be able to see how that message has dangerous consequences.

And people said much sicker things about Bush 43. Some people think he's a reptilian.

 

[bruto]

I haven't read all the way through this thread, and undoubtedly will be repeating something someone has already said, but will ad my two cents.

I don't think we can blame any one person or group for the actions of a madman, but at the same time there is at least a little responsibility to go around for the poisoned climate of political discourse that's developed lately, with the rhetoric of revolutions, violence and thinly veiled threats of overthrow. Conservatives, like many others, have made a long practice of blaming many of our misfortunes on symbols and gestures. If I had a dime for every time George W. Bush framed a decision on "sending a message," I'd be a rich man today. What conservatives condemned Dan Qualye for blaming the decline of family values on, among other things, the depiction of a single mother on a TV show? Plenty of conservatives have made the wearing of a flag pin a talking point, asserting that even that little bit of symbolism is hugely significant. Stupid then, stupid now, but if you're going to blame our woes on symbolism, then you should be prepared to accept the responsibility for your own symbolism.

Once again, there's a difference between influence and responsibility, and ultimately, nobody is to blame for the actions of a madman even if he got his ideas from you. But if you don't believe your symbols have some power, then you shouldn't use them, or call others on theirs.

In this sense, although I think Sarah Palin's assertion of "blood libel" is over the top and stupidly expressed, I think she has some legitimate gripe about being so immediately linked to the shooting on account of her rehetoric, no matter how stupid and vile one might find it. Unfortunately, by denying (or having an aide deny) that her crosshairs were anything but survey marks, she has utterly destroyed her own case. If she truly believes that her symbolism has made no contribution to the actions of a nut, she should stand by her own expression, instead of lying about it.