Worst voting record in the house, this is heinous

[BobTheCoward]

I challenge both of these (which are really the same thing expressed two different ways) since there is a history of exactly that sort of thing being done. Giffords got no special treatment.

As has been pointed out, part of the "duty" of a representative is just holding the seat for their party. There are plenty examples of members of Congress retaining their seat even when they are mostly incapacitated and can only rarely actually cast a vote at times when the one vote might really matter.

Those are my assumptions about what is right. Your challenge would fail because I do not feel those people you describe are good public servants, either.

 

[Newtons Bit]

But you admit there there was plenty of violent, Right Wing rhetoric. Thanks for that honesty.

A tree fell in the forest. All of my friends and family said I was in the city when it happened.

Did I hear the tree fall?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A tree fell in the forest. All of my friends and family said I was in the city when it happened.

Did I hear the tree fall?

More to the point, is it reasonable to think the tree falling caused (or "influenced" without being causal--whatever that means) you to do something?

 

[RandFan]

It is tragic and wrong what happened to her.

Given your strong rhetoric and delight to find that she stepped down do you think anyone will believe you? I certainly don't. Whatever point you have is lost.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Given your strong rhetoric and delight to find that she stepped down do you think anyone will believe you? I certainly don't.

How could anything I have said be construed as seeing the attempt on her life as neither tragic nor wrong?

As I have made clear, my sympathy stops where the representative function begins.

 

[RandFan]

How could anything I have said be construed as seeing the attempt on her life as neither tragic nor wrong?

As I have made clear, my sympathy stops where the representative function begins.

Yeah, not buying it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Those are my assumptions about what is right. Your challenge would fail because I do not feel those people you describe are good public servants, either.

The people who voted them into office wouldn't agree with you. Luckily, they are the ones with the authority to make the decision and not you.

[ETA: If Ted Kennedy were at all alive, his constituents would have him still in office. Here in Missouri we once elected Mel Carnahan to the Senate posthumously, defeating incumbent Sen. John Ashcroft!]

 

[TheAnachronism]

Yeah, not buying it.

You don't have to buy what he says.


Instead you can just buy a gun.

 

[varwoche]

When you take something out of context (also known as cherry picking) to make your point then you have lost the debate.

Bogus. See below.

See there. I said based upon known facts. That means evidence and not speculation. I find it funny that you attempt to criticize me for sticking with facts over speculation on a skeptics forum.

Bogus. As I posted up-thread, the shooting itself is evidence, his rants about non-English speakers is evidence, his rants about gold/silver currency is evidence, the fact that he was active on the internet is evidence. These are facts, not speculation.

These are bits of evidence that must be weighed alongside the contradictory evidence of course, such as the fact he was obsessed with Giffords before the election.

 

[TimCallahan]

How could anything I have said be construed as seeing the attempt on her life as neither tragic nor wrong?

As I have made clear, my sympathy stops where the representative function begins.

Since Gifford has announced she's resigning as congresswoman because she can't function and still work on her recovery from being shot in the head by a scum-bag nut-case, You should be extremely happy - and the rest of us should also be happy to see the end of this ill-conceived and offensive thread.

BTW, I never asked, but do you live in her district? If you don't, why did you even bother raising the issue?

 

[varwoche]

...that there is no proof that he ever listened to, much less payed attention to. You forgot that part.

You need to sort out the difference between proof and evidence in your writing, if not your thinking.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bogus. As I posted up-thread, the shooting itself is evidence, his rants about non-English speakers is evidence, his rants about gold/silver currency is evidence, the fact that he was active on the internet is evidence. These are facts, not speculation.

These are bits of evidence that must be weighed alongside the contradictory evidence of course, such as the fact he was obsessed with Giffords before the election.

Evidence of what? (Sorry, I haven't followed all of the exchange between you and Sam.I.Am.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You need to sort out the difference between proof and evidence in your writing, if not your thinking.

Meh--the usage of both words overlap.

At any rate, as I said, it's irrelevant whether Loughner did or did not hear Jesse Kelly's rhetoric. There's still no reasonable way Kelly's speech could be taken as inciting Loughner's actions.

And I don't buy there is any such a thing as "influence" that isn't causal, or some way in this context for Kelly's speech to be "irresponsible" without implying a responsibility for Loughner's actions.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Bogus. See below.

Bogus. As I posted up-thread, the shooting itself is evidence, his rants about non-English speakers is evidence, his rants about gold/silver currency is evidence, the fact that he was active on the internet is evidence. These are facts, not speculation.

These are bits of evidence that must be weighed alongside the contradictory evidence of course, such as the fact he was obsessed with Giffords before the election.

The shooting is evidence that he didn't like Giffords and nothing else.

Ranting about non-english speakers is not evidence of anything other than he didn't like non-english speakers. You are making assumptions about what that means with no evidence to back it up.

The whole gold/silver backed currency thing is hardly something new nor is it a right/left issue. As such it is not evidence of anything other than he had an opinion on the subject as many people do (both for and against).

You apparently are also active on the internet. Are you planning on doing what he did? No? Then being active on the internet is not evidence of anything.

That he was obsessed with Giffords is the evidence. What you keep ignoring is that he was obsessed with her for being "Fake". Now I don't know about you but when someone from one political party is considered fake it usually means that the person calling them fake thinks that they are actually closer to the other party than they originally let on to. For Giffords, being a Democrat, that would mean that he thought that she wasn't Democrat enough (her being known as a "Blue Dog" Democrat supports this view). In other words it indicates he thought that she was to far to the right. Hardly a position that a right winger would take.

I can only assume that you take the position on this that you do because you want it to be true irregardless of the facts and evidence (AKA "proof") that do not support your opinion.

 

[RandFan]

I can only assume that you take the position on this that you do because you want it to be true irregardless of the facts and evidence (AKA "proof") that do not support your opinion.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[varwoche]

It's as if you have no clue what the word evidence means Sam.

The shooting is evidence that he didn't like Giffords and nothing else.

It's also evidence that he possessed a gun.

I'm just showing how ridicuous these absolute statements are that you continuously bandy about. You are exaggerating your knowledge. 0%, ya sure.

The entirely of your post consists of this sort of irrational exaggeration.

 

[varwoche]

Yeah, that's it.

I regret to inform, irregardless has been promoted to real word status. I say so unirregardless that it's a derail.

 

[varwoche]

I can only assume that you take the position on this that you do because you want it to be true irregardless of the facts and evidence (AKA "proof") that do not support your opinion.

Delete. Your sentence is so confusing that my parsing efforts are likely to have been errant.

 

[Spindrift]

How could anything I have said be construed as seeing the attempt on her life as neither tragic nor wrong?

As I have made clear, my sympathy stops where the representative function begins.

Is it too soon for you to start demanding Senator Kirk's resignation?

 

[Bri]

I regret to inform, irregardless has been promoted to real word status. I say so unirregardless that it's a derail.

Wouldn't "irregardless" be the opposite of "regardless?" Disunirregardless, I agree that we should stop this derail.

-Bri