Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[JoeTheJuggler]

I should mention though, I don't claim to know his motivations (or lack thereof), unlike Newtons Bit and apparently you.

That's not at all fair. I think NB and I are both arguing against the claim of knowledge that someone's inflammatory speech is what set off Loughner.

We do know however that (1) Loughner hated Giffords (2) he was upset by people who don't speak English (3) illegal immigration was a cornerstone of Jesse Kelly's campaign (4) Jesse Kelly used incendiary rhetoric.

So you are making the case that Jesse Kelly is somehow responsible for Loughner's actions?

There are plenty of people in this country who hate specific politicians (even Giffords, probably) and are rabidly against using languages other than English in the U.S., and none of them tried to murder a politician. Looking for a rational link for a cause for irrational thinking and behavior doesn't make sense.

ETA: Don't get me wrong: I'm very much against such despicable speech as Kelly's, however I'm also in favor of the First Amendment right to free speech. I think it's very important to protect speech even many of us find despicable, and that it's very important to distinguish between acts of violence and speech acts.

ETA:

Anything can set off someone as disturbed as Loughner. For all we know it was a cartoon.

Why presuppose the existence of anything in the real world being required to set him off?

David Berkowitz claimed that the neighbor's dog ordered him to commit murder. Even if there is a perceived external stimulus, is there any reason to put any credibility to it? (We don't in any way at all hold the neighbor or the dog or the devil that he said possessed the dog responsible for the Son of Sam murders, do we?)

 

[Cain]

No. He flew a space shuttle mission.

What mission are you talking about?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/22/kelly_retirement/

"Gabrielle is working hard every day on her mission of recovery. I want to be by her side. Stepping aside from my work in the Navy and at NASA will allow me to be with her and with my two daughters. I love them all very much and there is no doubt that we will move forward together. After some time off, I will look at new opportunities and am hopeful that one day I will again serve our country."

ETA: Giffords also flew to Washington to vote to extend the debt ceiling since the shooting.

So? She's still disabled. Being in Congress means more than casting one vote. She should retire.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What mission are you talking about?

This one:

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So? She's still disabled. Being in Congress means more than casting one vote. She should retire.

Are you suggesting that disabled people can't serve in Congress?

Or worse yet, that a disabled person should retire against her will?

 

[varwoche]

What is heinous:

"Get on Target for Victory in November : Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office : Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly
Teaparty Candidate Jesse Kelly Campaign Promo"

note: stolen signature.

I'm not sure what you mean. I am sure, however, that Jesse Kelly ran the ad that you quoted from my sig.

That's not at all fair. I think NB and I are both arguing against the claim of knowledge that someone's inflammatory speech is what set off Loughner.

If you re-read the exchange, you will see that I made no such claim. I was speculating, which is reflected in my word choice: "for all we know" , "it's possible", etc. Whereas Newtons Bit, whom you expressed agreement with, claimed with certitude:

Loughner's actions have nothing to do with anyone's politics, and it cannot be tied to anyone elses political rhetoric.

So you are making the case that Jesse Kelly is somehow responsible for Loughner's actions?

No. I make the (obvious) case that the heated rhetoric could have influenced him.

There are plenty of people in this country who hate specific politicians (even Giffords, probably) and are rabidly against using languages other than English in the U.S., and none of them tried to murder a politician. Looking for a rational link for a cause for irrational thinking and behavior doesn't make sense.

I don't dispute that he's mentally ill, and that his illness is the primary driver.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Whereas Newtons Bit, whom you expressed agreement with, claimed with certitude:

Yes, I agree 100% that it's wrong to portray Loughner's actions as being a political act. He's mentally ill. It's also wrong to portray Hinkley's shooting as being related to romance. He was also mentally ill.

No. I make the (obvious) case that the heated rhetoric could have influenced him.

And Berkowitz could have been influenced by the neighbor's dog. And Hinkley could have been influenced by Jodie Foster. What does that mean?

I don't dispute that he's mentally ill, and that his illness is the primary driver.

So should we give any credence to his delusional thinking? His hatred of people who don't speak English for example. Is that any more relevant than Berkowitz' claim that the dog ordered him to do it, or Hinkley's delusion that shooting the president would somehow impress Jodie Foster to further a romance that only existed in his mind?

 

[varwoche]

Joe, I made it crystal clear that where I think the primary responsibility lies. Notwithstanding, I reject the patently absurd notion that Loughner was definitely not influenced by the world around him. To argue against such an obvious reality is downright strange.

You're subtly misrepresenting my posts and I'd like you to stop please.

 

[varwoche]

So should we give any credence to his delusional thinking? His hatred of people who don't speak English for example. Is that any more relevant than Berkowitz' claim that the dog ordered him to do it

For sure.

For Berkowitz' actions to have been influenced by a demonic dog, the dog would have to have been possessed by a demon, and the dog would need the ability to project it's demonic power.

For Loughner's actions to have been influenced by political rhetoric, all it would take is for him to see news coverage.

 

[Bri]

What mission are you talking about?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/22/kelly_retirement/

From your own source:

Kelly was the commander of Endeavour on its last mission - STS-134 to the ISS - while his wife, Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was recovering from the headshot she received in the Tucson shooting in January.​

He didn't retire until after he flew a shuttle mission, which was while his wife was recovering.

So? She's still disabled. Being in Congress means more than casting one vote. She should retire.

Should everyone be immediately fired from their job if they become disabled, or should they be allowed time to recover? If she didn't want to continue with her job, she would probably retire from it.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For Berkowitz' actions to have been influenced by a demonic dog, the dog would have to have been possessed by a demon, and the dog would need the ability to project it's [sic] demonic power.

For Loughner's actions to have been influenced by political rhetoric, all it would take is for him to see news coverage.

Again, does that mean that everyone who saw that same news coverage went over the edge?

And what about Jodie Foster? Is she really what made Hinkley shoot Reagan?

How about the race war that Manson thought he was participating in? Were the Manson Family murders political?

Why do you insist that Loughner's actions had to have any outside stimulus?

ETA: I guess I'm trying to see the parallelism. If we can ignore Berkowitz's delusion because the dog really didn't command the murders, why can't we dismiss Loughner's political delusions (or at least the delusion you're contemplating that he took Jesse Kelly's campaign rhetoric as ordering or approving of the shooting of Rep. Giffords)?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, I made it crystal clear that where I think the primary responsibility lies. Notwithstanding, I reject the patently absurd notion that Loughner was definitely not influenced by the world around him. To argue against such an obvious reality is downright strange.

You're subtly misrepresenting my posts and I'd like you to stop please.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe I am. I believe that every statement you've made linking Jesse Kelly's campaign rhetoric to Loughner's shooting could have been said about the neighbor's dog and Berkowitz or Jodie Foster and Hinkley.

It's possible that Berkowitz could have been set off by the neighbor's dog. One possible consequence of Jodie Foster's movies is the impact on someone who doesn't have a reasonable mind.

Again, what does that mean? I realize you're carefully not coming out and saying that Jesse Kelly is somehow responsible for Loughner's action, but what exactly are you saying about the relationship between the two?

 

[citizenzen]

But in the US house, you cannot have someone cast votes in your place.

I think one of the subtle messages she's tried to send by not resigning is the old, "you can't let the terrorists think they've won" message.

(and yes, I realize her attacker is not necessarily a terrorist)

By not resigning from her job through this horrible ordeal she is showing a strength of spirit and in some ways encouraging others to persevere through their difficulties in the hope of finding a better future.

Her one vote out of 435 means less than that larger message she can convey. I don't know if you saw the video of her return to congress, but it was one of the few uniting moments congress has seen these past few years. I don't fault her at all for abstaining this past year. I think her struggle for survival has said more than any vote on a bill ever could.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I remember when it first happened the left wing sites on the internet went crazy proclaiming the shooter was (not might be, not could be but actually was) a right wing, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, teabagger who was inflamed by some political rhetoric (that both sides have used to some degree in the past I might add) .

Once it was shown after a few days that that wasn't the case at all the same internet sites all of a sudden went quiet about the incident other than to say that Rep. Giffords should be allowed to keep her position until she is well enough to go back to work. When asked how long is long enough to wait the typical response is as long as it takes and it's up to her constituents to decide when it's been long enough (which I happen to agree with by and large).

I see that some people seem to have forgotten that the left-wing hysteria and finger pointing over the cause of the shooting was completely unfounded in fact or evidence and are trying to do it again. And people wonder why they eventually get ignored. It's called "Crying wolf". Look it up.

 

[jj]

I I see that some people seem to have forgotten that the left-wing hysteria and finger pointing over the cause of the shooting was completely unfounded in fact or evidence and are trying to do it again.

Dear Sam,

Please prove the claim insinuated in your posting, which is that the insanely violent tea-party rhetoric, and the repeated shouting of 'second amendment remedies' had nothing to do with this.

Until you can show same, all you can do is try to shift the burden.

 

[angrysoba]

I remember when it first happened the left wing sites on the internet went crazy proclaiming the shooter was (not might be, not could be but actually was) a right wing, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, teabagger who was inflamed by some political rhetoric (that both sides have used to some degree in the past I might add) .

Once it was shown after a few days that that wasn't the case at all the same internet sites all of a sudden went quiet about the incident other than to say that Rep. Giffords should be allowed to keep her position until she is well enough to go back to work. When asked how long is long enough to wait the typical response is as long as it takes and it's up to her constituents to decide when it's been long enough (which I happen to agree with by and large).

I see that some people seem to have forgotten that the left-wing hysteria and finger pointing over the cause of the shooting was completely unfounded in fact or evidence and are trying to do it again. And people wonder why they eventually get ignored. It's called "Crying wolf". Look it up.

Basically, I agree with you that far too many accusations were made about, in particular, Sarah Palin essentially being to blame for the shootings. I thought it was wrong to blame her.

As for whether Giffords should not be a Congresswoman any more, then yes, it surely is down to the voters who will get their chance to vote her out in November 2012 if they so wish to.

It isn't Bob the Coward's decision to make unless he has a vote in her constituency, in which case he can exercise his democratic franchise.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I see that some people seem to have forgotten that the left-wing hysteria and finger pointing over the cause of the shooting was completely unfounded in fact or evidence and are trying to do it again. And people wonder why they eventually get ignored. It's called "Crying wolf". Look it up.

You're painting with a broad brush.

I'm a leftist liberal. When the shooting happened, I immediately said that I suspected it was a case of mental illness and not a political act. It turned out I was right.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Dear Sam,

Please prove the claim insinuated in your posting, which is that the insanely violent tea-party rhetoric, and the repeated shouting of 'second amendment remedies' had nothing to do with this.

Until you can show same, all you can do is try to shift the burden.

Shift the burden? Have you not been reading this thread? The nutjob who pulled the trigger wasn't a teabagger. He was never observed listening to political talk radio of any stripe nor has anyone said that he was repeating what they said. He was ticked off at Giffords before any of the speech(es) that people like to spout off about were given. There is no burden to shift.

The guy was a lone nut who decided in his own disturbed head that he wanted to shoot Giffords and there is no evidence that he was influenced by any rhetoric in particular. This isn't McVeigh or the UnaBomber (both of whom were swayed by political rhetoric and propaganda) this was an insane person who was just as likely to shoot a Republican as a Democrat who held the position she held. From all of the evidence I've seen the tiny letter next to her name meant nothing to the guy other than "Politician".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dear Sam,

Please prove the claim insinuated in your posting, which is that the insanely violent tea-party rhetoric, and the repeated shouting of 'second amendment remedies' had nothing to do with this.

Until you can show same, all you can do is try to shift the burden.

I disagree. I think anyone claiming a connection between political rhetoric and the actions of a mentally ill man has the burden of proof.

If someone tried to hold Berkowitz's neighbor's dog (or the neighbor) responsible for his actions, wouldn't that person have the burden of proof? If someone said Jodie Foster is the reason for Hinkley's shooting, wouldn't that person have the burden of proof?

ETA: Also, "had nothing to do with this" is a very strange moving of goalposts. One could argue that it's impossible to prove that the breakfast cereal Loughner ate that morning "had nothing to do with" the shooting. We're really talking about whether or not the people who made these inflammatory speech acts are somehow even partially responsible for Loughner's actions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Shift the burden? Have you not been reading this thread? The nutjob who pulled the trigger wasn't a teabagger. He was never observed listening to political talk radio of any stripe nor has anyone said that he was repeating what they said. He was ticked off at Giffords before any of the speech(es) that people like to spout off about were given. There is no burden to shift.

The guy was a lone nut who decided in his own disturbed head that he wanted to shoot Giffords and there is no evidence that he was influenced by any rhetoric in particular. This isn't McVeigh or the UnaBomber (both of whom were swayed by political rhetoric and propaganda) this was an insane person who was just as likely to shoot a Republican as a Democrat who held the position she held. From all of the evidence I've seen the tiny letter next to her name meant nothing to the guy other than "Politician".

And even if his insanity did have political elements, I still think there's no reason to claim these various speech acts were connected.

Speaking of the Unabomber--just because he spouted a particularly incoherent form of leftist ecological positions in his manifesto doesn't mean that environmentalists are in any way responsible for his actions.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You're painting with a broad brush.

I'm a leftist liberal. When the shooting happened, I immediately said that I suspected it was a case of mental illness and not a political act. It turned out I was right.

You're right. It was a very broad statement and that's why I intentionally avoided pointing fingers. It was just an observation I had on what the vast majority of people that I observed were saying at the time. There were a lot of cooler heads in the mix as well but from what I saw at the time most of them were being drowned out by the ones screaming that they already knew who and what was involved.

The people taking a wait and see attitude at the time seemed to be few and far between and many that I saw were called some pretty nasty names that they didn't deserve (myself included). I apologize to you and anyone else who did take that position and got swept into the larger group by my comment.