NPR wrote:Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot In Arizona
by NPR Staff
text size A A A
January 8, 2011
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot outside a grocery store in Tucson while holding a public event, Arizona Public Media reported Saturday.
The Democrat, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a "Congress on Your Corner" event at the Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.
At least five other people, including members of her staff, were hurt. Giffords was transported to University Medical Center in Tucson. Her condition was not immediately known.
Giffords was talking to a couple when the suspect ran up firing indiscriminately, and then ran off, Michaels said. According to other witnesses, he was tackled by a bystander and taken into custody.
Giffords was first elected to represent Arizona's 8th District in 2006. The "Congress on Your Corner" events allow constituents to present their concerns directly to her.
As if other countries haven't had government buildings bombed, politicians stabbed in session, or people taking headers off the balcony into the legislators. Be very careful about making ignorant statements like that. Take away the gun, and someone would have been stabbed or something else. Guns are simply tools; banning them just makes the determined sickos become more determined, not deterred...
And she's been pronounced dead:http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms.
The 40-year-old Democrat, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a "Congress on Your Corner" event at a Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.
At least three other people, including members of her staff, were injured. Giffords was transported to University Medical Center in Tucson. Her condition was not immediately known.
Giffords was talking to a couple when the suspect ran up and fired indiscriminately from about four feet away, Michaels said.
The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s.
Giffords was first elected to represent Arizona's 8th District in 2006. The "Congress on Your Corner" events allow constituents to present their concerns directly to her.
Conflicting reports, too, about how many other people and how bad. The NPR article right now says at least nine other people injured, but doesn't say who if anyone was killed.
olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: reuters reporting that Giffords is dead.
That's not neccessary.
No, but it's likely. Other options include cartel hitman, coked up WE DO NOT USE THIS WORD THIS WAY ON DAKKA (can work with first prediction), and wacky militia guy defending his right to own a gun. Or maybe he just listened to Eminem.
To be entirely honest I'm surprised it took this long for something like this to happen considering what fox has turned our democracy into.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coked up WE DO NOT USE THIS WORD THIS WAY ON DAKKA (can work with first prediction)
They why isn't it filtered? It doesn't really have a whole lot of other uses, it's the noun form of slowed which is used pretty much exclusively to describe the mentally handicapped in a poor light.
I told you guys this would happen. in a thread many moons back. Back when that abortion doctor and lib church killings, and again when that wacko slammed his plane into an IRS building. Now we have at least four dead. "Don't retreat, reload!"
coked up WE DO NOT USE THIS WORD THIS WAY ON DAKKA (can work with first prediction)
They why isn't it filtered? It doesn't really have a whole lot of other uses, it's the noun form of slowed which is used pretty much exclusively to describe the mentally handicapped in a poor light.
It's perfectly usable in its verb form. I agree with you that the pejorative noun form seems to be used more. Exactly which words to filter is always a judgment call.
Melissia wrote:Great, so some republican nutjob decides he doesn't like the fact that a Democrat was put into office, so he decides to become a murderer.
Soladrin wrote:Only in America...
Yeah right.
The political leanings/agenda of the shooter have yet to be established.
At least 11 others including some of her staff members were reported to have been injured, some seriously, and there were reports that between four and six people had died. There were conflicting reports over whether Miss Gifford had herself been killed.
A respected US website reported another eye-witness, Steven Rayle, who was on the scene at the time of the shooting and helped to hold the suspect down while waiting for police. He told Gawker.com: “The event was very informal: Giffords had set up a table outside the Safeway and about 20-30 people were gathered to talk to her. The gunman, who may have come from inside the Safeway, walked up and shot Giffords in the head first.”
According to Mr Rayle, who is a former Accident and Emergency doctor, Gifford was able to move her hands after being shot.
Melissia wrote:No, but I imagine my guess is pretty close.
Perhaps,but ATM it's still speculative...and,I doubt that the people who were injured are overly concerned with the politics of the person who shot them,at least not ATM.
Sorry it had to be this lady, but somebody is gonna have to die to wake this country up a bit. Yes, I know I'm unkind and all kinds of other words. A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands. While I absolutely do not support or advocate violence in any situation save for defense of an innocent, I can understand the mentality that would drive someone to this behavior.
That being said, its in AZ so at least he'll be made to pay for his crimes in a suitably uncomfortable manner.
Sorry it had to be this lady, but somebody is gonna have to die to wake this country up a bit. Yes, I know I'm unkind and all kinds of other words. A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands. While I absolutely do not support or advocate violence in any situation save for defense of an innocent, I can understand the mentality that would drive someone to this behavior.
That being said, its in AZ so at least he'll be made to pay for his crimes in a suitably uncomfortable manner.
So, you don't aprove of violence, but you aprove of violence against political parties you disagree with? Amazing. Brilliant.
I hope she survives. I've been angry at politicians before, and there's a good few irish ones I wouldn't mind seeing bankrupt and unhappy, but this has made me admit that anything I ever said about killing them was in-the-pub bravado.
Sorry it had to be this lady, but somebody is gonna have to die to wake this country up a bit. Yes, I know I'm unkind and all kinds of other words. A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands. While I absolutely do not support or advocate violence in any situation save for defense of an innocent, I can understand the mentality that would drive someone to this behavior.
That being said, its in AZ so at least he'll be made to pay for his crimes in a suitably uncomfortable manner.
So, you don't aprove of violence, but you aprove of violence against political parties you disagree with? Amazing. Brilliant.
No, thats not at all what I said. Plus I'm a registered democrat.
Like I said, I don't approve of violence but I understand that its a natural result of the internal pressures that America is undergoing. Its sad that this lady bears the wounds of a disenfranchised society, but somebody is gonna die before things start to change. Its the nature of the beast.
As for the comment about suitibly uncomfortable....its AZ. They have a really mean justice system. I lived in Phoenix for 3 years in school...Sherrif Joe is a real prick. This guy shot a local politician, and will be processed through the system. He's NOT going to have an enjoyable time. Plus, he killed someone and he has to pay for that action. Simple enough neh?
Sorry it had to be this lady, but somebody is gonna have to die to wake this country up a bit. Yes, I know I'm unkind and all kinds of other words. A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands. While I absolutely do not support or advocate violence in any situation save for defense of an innocent, I can understand the mentality that would drive someone to this behavior.
That being said, its in AZ so at least he'll be made to pay for his crimes in a suitably uncomfortable manner.
So, you don't aprove of violence, but you aprove of violence against political parties you disagree with? Amazing. Brilliant.
No, thats not at all what I said. Plus I'm a registered democrat.
Like I said, I don't approve of violence but I understand that its a natural result of the internal pressures that America is undergoing. Its sad that this lady bears the wounds of a disenfranchised society, but somebody is gonna die before things start to change. Its the nature of the beast.
And how exactly was the teen, that we know nothing about, disenfranchised by something we know nothing about, leading him to commit violence? I mean, I know you love taking giant logical leaps, but claiming this is the direct result of disenfranchisement is foolish.
olympia wrote:CNN detailing all the threats against her and the vandalism of her office by tea baggers. Where the F@#% was the secret service?
Secret Service doesn't do security for Congress, I think it's the Capitol Police when they're in DC and local police when in their districts. FBI would handle investigating threats.
Y'know, there is a strong chance the shooter was an anarchist. Here in MO, a man at a similar rally was stabbed by an anarchist/mentally deranged man during the summer. The stabber had mistook the victim for our state governor.
Oh, and at the genius who said "Only in America", look at Europe, and most of what I see is news reports about riot after riot.
_Tim?
P.S. Oh yeah, and we'd better get ready to kiss our gun rights away.
Sorry it had to be this lady, but somebody is gonna have to die to wake this country up a bit. Yes, I know I'm unkind and all kinds of other words. A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands. While I absolutely do not support or advocate violence in any situation save for defense of an innocent, I can understand the mentality that would drive someone to this behavior.
That being said, its in AZ so at least he'll be made to pay for his crimes in a suitably uncomfortable manner.
So, you don't aprove of violence, but you aprove of violence against political parties you disagree with? Amazing. Brilliant.
No, thats not at all what I said. Plus I'm a registered democrat.
Like I said, I don't approve of violence but I understand that its a natural result of the internal pressures that America is undergoing. Its sad that this lady bears the wounds of a disenfranchised society, but somebody is gonna die before things start to change. Its the nature of the beast.
And how exactly was the teen, that we know nothing about, disenfranchised by something we know nothing about, leading him to commit violence? I mean, I know you love taking giant logical leaps, but claiming this is the direct result of disenfranchisement is foolish.
One would HAVE to be either mentally ill or seriously disenfranchised to commit an act of violence from a stance of political motivation. Is this incorrect?
Or perhaps he is just a cold blooded killer. I don't see any other options. Enlighten me if you do.
One would HAVE to be either mentally ill or seriously disenfranchised to commit an act of violence from a stance of political motivation. Is this incorrect?
I don't think you know what the word disenfranchised means. I mean, if you intend to imply that they believe that they are disenfranchised then I can accept that. However belief and reality are not one and the same.
Or perhaps he is just a cold blooded killer. I don't see any other options. Enlighten me if you do.
He's likely some wacked out teabagger teen with no real life options, possible drug habit, likely connection to conservative extremist movements, and the need to throw away his life doing something big. Politically motivated violence doesn't have to stem from disenfranchisement, just idiocy.
I mean, what is a white teen being disenfranchised by? His parents?
One would HAVE to be either mentally ill or seriously disenfranchised to commit an act of violence from a stance of political motivation. Is this incorrect?
I don't think you know what the word disenfranchised means. I mean, if you intend to imply that they believe that they are disenfranchised then I can accept that. However belief and reality are not one and the same.
Or perhaps he is just a cold blooded killer. I don't see any other options. Enlighten me if you do.
He's likely some wacked out teabagger teen with no real life options, possible drug habit, likely connection to conservative extremist movements, and the need to throw away his life doing something big. Politically motivated violence doesn't have to stem from disenfranchisement, just idiocy.
I mean, what is a white teen being disenfranchised by? His parents?
Bolded part for "yes this is what I meant" its entirely possible for me to use words incorrectly. The perception of something IS reality to the one perceiving it.....make sense?
As someone who grew up in suburbia, I can tell you that the FEELING of disenfranchisement is entirely possible by your average white teenager.
Do you think he read The Turner Diaries recently? Hmmmm lol
ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
Bolded part for "yes this is what I meant" its entirely possible for me to use words incorrectly. The perception of something IS reality to the one perceiving it.....make sense?
Since I'm not that guy you should probably speak more plainly. Especially when being considerate of the opinions of mass murderers.
As someone who grew up in suburbia, I can tell you that the FEELING of disenfranchisement is entirely possible by your average white teenager.
As someone who grew up in rural Maine I can tell you that the FEELING of disenfranchisement is pretty common to being a teen. I mean, you are disenfranchised until you turn 18, and even then you can't drink. Most people fething deal with it, we don't need to be "considerate" of their opinions when that is the best justification you can come up with.
It'd be kind of funny in a dark and sad way if it was an anarchist; then we can blame the majority of political extremism in this country on them. Yes, I do understand that there are many lunatics who are not anarchists, and not all anarchists are lunatics.
- Toss TNT into the Haymarket Square rally, ensuring that the movement to an 8-hour work day stalls for years? Check
-Assassinate a president who was immensely popular, at a World's Fair? Check
-Assassinate a Congresswoman who was actually trying to do a good job by hearing the voice of common people?
(P.S. I am using the definition that assassination = the murder of an elected official)
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
_Tim?
Because they created the political environment that allowed for this kind of violence. They have been trying to create a civil war with words for years, it should follow that eventually they are going to convince some downtrodden crazy to use his gun to defend his life against the death panel socialists that want to steal his freedoms and give America to Muslims (which they already did with our muslim president).
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
_Tim?
Because they created the political environment that allowed for this kind of violence. They have been trying to create a civil war with words for years, it should follow that eventually they are going to convince some downtrodden crazy to use his gun to defend his life against the death panel socialists that want to steal his freedoms and give America to Muslims (which they already did with our muslim president).
Actually, BOTH sides of the political spectrum are at fault here. The Conservative talk-show people have been very vocal against the Liberals in the Government, and the Liberals in the Government have not listened to the people, even if the people are wrong. Both sides are at fault here. Just remember, in ANY politically charged environment, some politician always seems to die/be attacked by some whacko with no purpose in life.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
_Tim?
Because they created the political environment that allowed for this kind of violence. They have been trying to create a civil war with words for years, it should follow that eventually they are going to convince some downtrodden crazy to use his gun to defend his life against the death panel socialists that want to steal his freedoms and give America to Muslims (which they already did with our muslim president).
Sorry, but the greatest badass to help our country and whose integral decisions lead to our current form of government (Ben Franklin) said that we needed compromise. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, all working together. That's how our country should and sometimes still does work.
Actually, BOTH sides of the political spectrum are at fault here. The Conservative talk-show people have been very vocal against the Liberals in the Government, and the Liberals in the Government have not listened to the people, even if the people are wrong.
So one side is at fault for taking the demagogues pulpet and lying to the people and the other side is at fault for following the political path it lined out that got it elected? Brilliant.
Both sides are at fault here.
No. Not really. Not at all. One side fans the flames of extremism and ignorance because it's base votes on fear and the other side did was it was voted into place to do. If you think both of those are wrong, then there is something you don't understand about democracy.
Just remember, in ANY politically charged environment, some politician always seems to die/be attacked by some whacko with no purpose in life.
At least one thing in your post made some semblance of sense.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
_Tim?
Because they created the political environment that allowed for this kind of violence. They have been trying to create a civil war with words for years, it should follow that eventually they are going to convince some downtrodden crazy to use his gun to defend his life against the death panel socialists that want to steal his freedoms and give America to Muslims (which they already did with our muslim president).
Sorry, but the greatest badass to help our country and whose integral decisions lead to our current form of government (Ben Franklin) said that we needed compromise. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, all working together. That's how our country should and sometimes still does work.
Thats not actually relevant to what I said, and if conservatives wanted compromise they wouldn't have used the filibuster to block debate in record numbers. Kinda hard to conciliatory when the other party wont even let you debate something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valhallan42nd wrote:CNN affiliate reports that a pistol with extended mags was weapon used, and the suspected assailant is a 22 year old white male.
At 22 you're looking at a possible military affiliation if he enlisted straight out of high school.
Bolded part for "yes this is what I meant" its entirely possible for me to use words incorrectly. The perception of something IS reality to the one perceiving it.....make sense?
Since I'm not that guy you should probably speak more plainly. Especially when being considerate of the opinions of mass murderers.
As someone who grew up in suburbia, I can tell you that the FEELING of disenfranchisement is entirely possible by your average white teenager.
As someone who grew up in rural Maine I can tell you that the FEELING of disenfranchisement is pretty common to being a teen. I mean, you are disenfranchised until you turn 18, and even then you can't drink. Most people fething deal with it, we don't need to be "considerate" of their opinions when that is the best justification you can come up with.
When have I been considerate of him? I simply stated that I can understand the pressure (internal and external) that would drive a young man to act in this manner. I truly feel that this type of thing is going to happen more in America and that is something I accept. I don't like it, I don't condone it, but I accept it. I also clearly stated that this young man should be fully prosecuted to the extent of the law.
Those are not mutually exclusive, nor is there any kind of logical fallacy involved. I think perhaps I do not articulate things clearly enough. Does this help?
simply stated that I can understand the pressure (internal and external) that would drive a young man to act in this manner.
con·sid·er·ate [kuhn-sid-er-it] Show IPA –adjective 1. showing kindly awareness or regard for another's feelings, circumstances, etc.: a very considerate critic.
Christ alive.
I truly feel that this type of thing is going to happen more in America and that is something I accept. I don't like it, I don't condone it, but I accept it. I also clearly stated that this young man should be fully prosecuted to the extent of the law.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:ShumaGorath: Why exactly do you insist upon blaming it upon the conservatives? Try being a little open minded about this, man. It could really be anyone.
_Tim?
Because they created the political environment that allowed for this kind of violence. They have been trying to create a civil war with words for years, it should follow that eventually they are going to convince some downtrodden crazy to use his gun to defend his life against the death panel socialists that want to steal his freedoms and give America to Muslims (which they already did with our muslim president).
Sorry, but the greatest badass to help our country and whose integral decisions lead to our current form of government (Ben Franklin) said that we needed compromise. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, all working together. That's how our country should and sometimes still does work.
Well said!
@Shuma: You really do not understand the basic rules of politics, do you? When you have frag tons of people gathered outside a governmental building while a key piece of legislation is being voted upon, and that piece of legislation passes with almost all the member of one party voting for it, people are bound to become angry. As Michaphone said, compromise is key, Governments should NEVER try to pass a large, life changing law all at once, people will only become hostile and fearful. Move to fast, expect trouble. Basic rule of politics that applies to any kind of huge bill, good or bad.
simply stated that I can understand the pressure (internal and external) that would drive a young man to act in this manner.
con·sid·er·ate
[kuhn-sid-er-it] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
showing kindly awareness or regard for another's feelings, circumstances, etc.: a very considerate critic.
And continue to go 3-10 in every game.
Bolded. I am unkind. Semantics?
Hey now, I do really well every time I solo que. I think we are bad luck for each other...the romance is getting tarnished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Columbine, Oklahoma City, need I list more? Typical white domestic terrorist is typical.
Both columbine and Oklahoma city were incredibly disimilar. You are seriously making yourself out to look pretty ill informed here.
Broad similarities: They were white, they were American, they commited acts of violence against the perceived figures of persecution and authority.
I'm thinking he may have been on of the intenet trolls on Yahoo or aol that turns everything into a slam against democrats. Who started beliving his own hag wash. Grown ups know whats just political trash speak. An angry 22 year old raised on Violent games with possible military stress and hyped up on radio jock talk, ends up like this.
"She should be shot" turns into "we should shoot her", in his mind.
I don't blame Video games PTS or radio shock jocks, or even guns. I'm just saying they can make a nut case do something stupid
@Shuma: You really do not understand the basic rules of politics, do you? When you have frag tons of people gathered outside a governmental building while a key piece of legislation is being voted upon, and that piece of legislation passes with almost all the member of one party voting for it, people are bound to become angry.
Especially when they are told that that legislation would kill their grandparents and bankrupt the country (both untrue) by the opposing political party that had no interest in passing a health reform bill because it would give the other side a political victory (exactly who had no interest in compromise here?). Like I said, they are woefully uninformed by a party that breaks its bread on misinforming its base to elicit emotional reactions. You can gather a hundred thousand idiots to stand outside a building. It's not hard. Code pink does it all the time. It doesn't mean they are right.
As Michaphone said, compromise is key, Governments should NEVER try to pass a large, life changing law all at once, people will only become hostile and fearful.
Except thats how those things are done. Remember the patriot act? Two governmental declarations of armed conflict? There were plenty of people protesting those, and you know what? The democrats didn't go around saying that wiretapping would kill your family. Thats the difference. Conservatives trade in lies.
Move to fast, expect trouble. Basic rule of politics that applies to any kind of huge bill, good or bad.
There was over a year of public debate on the bill and its mockups had been public for just as long. If thats moving too fast then the conservative party is built out of a bunch of (i'm not allowed to use this word in this way).
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Edit: Screw this, I am sick of talking to narrow minded people. Bleh. I leave this thread in peace.
_Tim?
And I'm sick of talking to conservatives who don't understand how democracy works and can't understand the concept of yellow journalism. Glad to see you go.
Peter Wiggin wrote:A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands.
bs, the populace isn't "at the breaking point", it's just a few nutjob extremists who are. This idiot isn't a representative of the majority of the population.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Edit: Screw this, I am sick of talking to narrow minded people. Bleh. I leave this thread in peace.
_Tim?
And I'm sick of talking to conservatives who don't understand how democracy works and can't understand the concept of yellow journalism. Glad to see you go.
Well thank you for that (sarcasm). I usually side with the liberal democrats, but blaming the other guys and refusing to see the bad part of your own party, or the fact that the other side has some good points is, just like assassinations, bad for the country.
I'm kind of surprised on anarchists jumped on me for that first post.
Peter Wiggin wrote:A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands.
bs, the populace isn't "at the breaking point", it's just a few nutjob extremists who are. This idiot isn't a representative of the majority of the population.
Enough of it that this mentality took root, grew, and resulted in direct action. Not a majority, but then one doesn't generally see the majority engaged in acts of terrorism against the country they live in.
Peter Wiggin wrote:A populace pushed to the breaking point will take matters into their own hands.
bs, the populace isn't "at the breaking point", it's just a few nutjob extremists who are. This idiot isn't a representative of the majority of the population.
Enough of it that this mentality took root, grew, and resulted in direct action. Not a majority, but then one doesn't generally see the majority engaged in acts of terrorism against the country they live in.
Or am I missing the mark?
Please, give an example of what would cause this man to be disenfranchised.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The principle on which our country was founded. Working as intended I dare say.
So, either you're saying that the woman was a tyrant, or that the saying means that patriots have to be killed by crazy people every now and then. Genius.
Please, you're making tons of unfounded assumptions, even more than my assumption on what the killer was.
All it takes is one SINGLE motivated person with a gun to have an assassination happen. Just one. One person, one opinion, one state of agitation. One person, one mentally unstable bastard is not representative of the feelings of 300 million others, they're just representative of themselves. People murder others all the time, it just so happened that this time it was someone whose name might be recognized by more than a dozen people so now you're attempting to assign a greater meaning to it, doing a disservice to the deceased and the country as a whole all the while.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The principle on which our country was founded. Working as intended I dare say.
So, either you're saying that the woman was a tyrant, or that the saying means that patriots have to be killed by crazy people every now and then. Genius.
No, the system itself is the tyrant. As such we all represent both the patriot and the blood that must be spilled. Purely allegorical mind you, but then again its from a pretty complicated man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Please, you're making tons of unfounded assumptions, even more than my assumption on what the killer was.
All it takes is one SINGLE motivated person with a gun to have an assassination happen. Just one. One person, one opinion, one state of agitation. One person, one mentally unstable bastard is not representative of the feelings of 300 million others, they're just representative of themselves. People murder others all the time, it just so happened that this time it was someone whose name might be recognized by more than a dozen people so now you're attempting to assign a greater meaning to it, doing a disservice to the deceased and the country as a whole all the while.
A politician is by definition a symbol that has greater meaning than the average citizen. That is the mantle they take on themselves. IF (and yes it is an if) there was political motivation behind the killer's action then this murder does have a greater meaning than the crack head that got shot over 3 vials. At least in the sense of the impact it has on the society in which it happened.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Edit: Screw this, I am sick of talking to narrow minded people. Bleh. I leave this thread in peace.
_Tim?
Hear yeh hear yeh, Baron Pot of the province Kettle has made his proclamation of Blackness!
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
The principle on which our country was founded. Working as intended I dare say.
Yeah, and all the tea-baggers are doing are trying to equate their struggle with that of the British subjets who founded this country. Sorry, two different levels of severity...
Peter Wiggin wrote:A politician is by definition a symbol that has greater meaning than the average citizen.
A politician is also just another person in the end. A murderer is, too.
This politician person was murdered by a murderer person. The murderer is not representative of the population of the USA. He's not even representative of the conservative portion. He's not even really representative of the ignorant, stupid, and completely obtuse far right wing conservatives that still, to this day, argue that Obama isn't a natural born citizen.
No, the system itself is the tyrant. As such we all represent both the patriot and the blood that must be spilled. Purely allegorical mind you, but then again its from a pretty complicated man.
No. No, thats a pretty literal historical quote. It means what it says. You can use it in a more distributed maner, but it doesn't really reflect the intention of the original speaker.
So when a Member of congress is gunned down and kids and judges murdered, that's democracy at work? I thought that is the opposite of democracy when you can just vote them out in 2 years. Remember when there was talk of texas leaving the union, how about in Florida with that "If votes won't work, bullets will."
micahaphone wrote:The system itself? Someone's sounding a little anarchist, here.
+1!
For being "the greatest country in the world", there are some things that are sadly behind the times, like health care. None of these Tea-baggers seem to care that our infant mortality rates are close to those in Africa, among the worst in the world. Sadly ironic that for as many of them are creationists, they seem to think that the concept of "the weak will perish, the strong survive" works...
Study social contract theory, you have to give up something to be a part of society; unfortunately, money is the main thing people see taken from them. Those same people who say we have too many taxes whine when the streets are cleared of snow fast enough to get their lattes, or the cops don't respond to their emergency. Something's gotta give! Franklin was right.
"Obama is the antichrist" is a hilarious discussion. On the parts of "and he who shall destroy the world will be pure evil" (paraphrased), they argue, "he's a democrat. No explanation needed". lol.
Oh, and the book of Luke defines an antichrist as someone who doesn't beieve in Jesus. So every agnostic, atheist, buddhist, ect is the antichrist.
I also find it funny how those people are usually fundamentalists (believe in literal definition of the bible; i.e. 7 days is 7 days, evolution = lies, ect), yet they will twist the book of Revelations this way and that way in the most symbolic meanings possible for their arguments.
micahaphone wrote:The system itself? Someone's sounding a little anarchist, here.
+1!
For being "the greatest country in the world", there are some things that are sadly behind the times, like health care. None of these Tea-baggers seem to care that our infant mortality rates are close to those in Africa, among the worst in the world. Sadly ironic that for as many of them are creationists, they seem to think that the concept of "the weak will perish, the strong survive" works...
Study social contract theory, you have to give up something to be a part of society; unfortunately, money is the main thing people see taken from them. Those same people who say we have too many taxes whine when the streets are cleared of snow fast enough to get their lattes, or the cops don't respond to their emergency. Something's gotta give! Franklin was right.
now I'm done
One caveat, none of the Western European nations that have Socialized Medicine count premature births as live births, and don't consider a new born child a living being until 6 months of age. We report everyting.
What's also funny is that Glenn Beck likes to selectively quote Thomas Paine (the genius who wrote "Common Sense"), yet most of his ideas were very socialist.
I was under the impression that the breaking point for the colonists was taxation without representation.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of peopled pissed off at the government's desire to constantly up taxes for programs that continue to not work. Not every American is on board with the idea of having the government redistribute wealth.
There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
The only way to solve the healthcare issue is with blood. Amazing. Why is this the greatest country on earth again?
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of peopled pissed off at the government's desire to constantly up taxes for programs that continue to not work. Not every American is on board with the idea of having the government redistribute wealth.
Taxes bottomed out after clinton and have stayed down. What the hell are you or they talking about?
Amaya wrote:I was under the impression that the breaking point for the colonists was taxation without representation.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of peopled pissed off at the government's desire to constantly up taxes for programs that continue to not work. Not every American is on board with the idea of having the government redistribute wealth.
There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
You know, talking and compromise (see: previous post about Ben Franklin) have worked pretty well for a while, now, and are working fairly well right now.
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
Glad to know shooting freshly elected people in supermarkets is your idea of rebellion. May you experience what you advocate one day!
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Just wanted to thank everyone on this thread that said, and I am paraphrasing here... "Dur-Hur! Republicans are dumb and evil! LOL Teabaggers!"
That is the kind of compassionate and intelligent conversation that I come to Dakka to read!
On the grounds that a democrat was shot, we "obviously know" Sara Pailn and GW Bush are behind it!
I live in one of the most conservative states in the union, I deserve to be able to mock the people that I have to listen to every day online, because yes, I hear people blame Obama for all of their problems these days. Lose your job? It's Obama's fault. A thief took something from your home? Obama's fault. Your car engine failed? Obama's fault. Your doctor prescribed you expensive medication? Obama's fault. "Messicans takin' arr jobs"? Obama's fault.
Just like with people blaming Bush when he was president, oddly enough.
Impossible. Everyone knows that every single Muslim is trying to destroy the Western World, including christianity. I mean, they worship Mohammad, and he was trying to create war, and he hates peace loving people, right?
This is sarcasm. Please do not think that I am really that ignorant.
Melissia wrote:I live in one of the most conservative states in the union, I deserve to be able to mock the people that I have to listen to every day online, because yes, I hear people blame Obama for all of their problems these days. Lose your job? It's Obama's fault. A thief took something from your home? Obama's fault. Your car engine failed? Obama's fault. Your doctor prescribed you expensive medication? Obama's fault. "Messicans takin' arr jobs"? Obama's fault.
Just like with people blaming Bush when he was president, oddly enough.
I would expect that being surrounded by idiocy, you would avoid the cheap mockery and go for sound reasoning. Much like being out at sea and wanting fresh water. We may disagree on politics, but I always respect intelligent arguments.
Amaya wrote:I was under the impression that the breaking point for the colonists was taxation without representation.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of peopled pissed off at the government's desire to constantly up taxes for programs that continue to not work. Not every American is on board with the idea of having the government redistribute wealth.
There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
You know, talking and compromise (see: previous post about Ben Franklin) have worked pretty well for a while, now, and are working fairly well right now.
Yeah, I heard that talking and comprimising went over really well in the 1860s.
There will always be factions that do not want to talk. It's sad, but you have to be realistic about it. America is not going to make a major change in any direction without growing pains. Right now we're in limbo. Once one side gains a significant upperhand words will be replaced with weapons.
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
Glad to know shooting freshly elected people in supermarkets is your idea of rebellion. May you experience what you advocate one day!
It's not pretty, but sometimes that's the only sort of message that can be sent. Besides, she did vote for Obamacare, and even though I'm in no way a Palin supporter, I recognize institutionalized evil when I see it. Stop being such sheeple.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Just wanted to thank everyone on this thread that said, and I am paraphrasing here... "Dur-Hur! Republicans are dumb and evil! LOL Teabaggers!"
That is the kind of compassionate and intelligent conversation that I come to Dakka to read!
On the grounds that a democrat was shot, we "obviously know" Sara Pailn and GW Bush are behind it!
I live in one of the most conservative states in the union, I deserve to be able to mock the people that I have to listen to every day online, because yes, I hear people blame Obama for all of their problems these days. Lose your job? It's Obama's fault. A thief took something from your home? Obama's fault. Your car engine failed? Obama's fault. Your doctor prescribed you expensive medication? Obama's fault. "Messicans takin' arr jobs"? Obama's fault.
Just like with people blaming Bush when he was president, oddly enough.
Obama doesn't get blamed half as much as Bush did. Everyone disliked or hated Bush. We're not quite at that point with Obama.
Amaya wrote:I was under the impression that the breaking point for the colonists was taxation without representation.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of peopled pissed off at the government's desire to constantly up taxes for programs that continue to not work. Not every American is on board with the idea of having the government redistribute wealth.
There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
You know, talking and compromise (see: previous post about Ben Franklin) have worked pretty well for a while, now, and are working fairly well right now.
Yeah, I heard that talking and comprimising went over really well in the 1860s.
There will always be factions that do not want to talk. It's sad, but you have to be realistic about it. America is not going to make a major change in any direction without growing pains. Right now we're in limbo. Once one side gains a significant upperhand words will be replaced with weapons.
You see, before the Civil War (we'll have to rely on Melissia for debates about what actually started it) the Federal Gov't was kind of screwing the South and ignoring its requests and only pandering to northern industrial interests. Conservatives and Liberals have actually existed ever since the first income tax was created, it is just that right now, several of them have become extremely public, vocal, and stupid.
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
Glad to know shooting freshly elected people in supermarkets is your idea of rebellion. May you experience what you advocate one day!
It's not pretty, but sometimes that's the only sort of message that can be sent. Besides, she did vote for Obamacare, and even though I'm in no way a Palin supporter, I recognize institutionalized evil when I see it. Stop being such sheeple.
I'm not sure you could recognize an industrialized chair from the thing you put on it, but thats neither here nor there. Just judging from past posting habits.
Obama doesn't get blamed half as much as Bush did. Everyone disliked or hated Bush. We're not quite at that point with Obama.
Conservatives blame him for everything, it's quite like what happened with bush and the liberals. He hasn't screwed up as much in office and we haven't been thrown into any wars yet, but the reality never really matters. People blame the other side because its easy, not because its always logical.
micahaphone wrote:(we'll have to rely on Melissia for debates about what actually started it)
You realize that I was merely arguing that there was more than one reason for the war, and slavery was one of them? Yes? Good, I'm glad you're intelligent enough to figure that out
Melissia wrote:I'll save my well thought out, well worded, logical arguments for people who I actually respect.
Besides, everyone has to relieve stress somehow. Not everything has to be dead serious.
How do you know that all those 'un-respectable idiots' aren't doing the same with you?
I don't mean to single you out. I am just saying that the condescension from one side fuels the anger from the less educated on the other. (Both ways)
Calling someone a teabagger is a sure fire way to make them want to sock you in the jaw.
micahaphone wrote:(we'll have to rely on Melissia for debates about what actually started it)
You realize that I was merely arguing that there was more than one reason for the war, and slavery was one of them? Yes? Good, I'm glad you're intelligent enough to figure that out
Hey, just saying that you were pretty darn good at explaining that to the nonbelievers (in multiple causes)
Amaya wrote:What started it was Lincon unlawfully invading a sovereign nation.
The south was a sovereign nation now? The whole debate is chicken and egg anyway, the south both lost, was economically dysfunctional before that, and was morally reprehensible before that. What started it at this time is truly irrelevant, what matters now that it passed long long ago is who was right. It certainly wasn't the semi industrialized agrarian south that relied on slavery to maintain its economy.
micahaphone wrote:Well, the South DID formally secede, so you could call it a sovereign nation.
You can't really "formally" secede without the consent of the other part of the country you are seceding from. Otherwise there would be twice as many countries in africa.
Amaya wrote:What started it was Lincon unlawfully invading a sovereign nation.
The south was a sovereign nation now? The whole debate is chicken and egg anyway, the south both lost, was economically dysfunctional before that, and was morally reprehensible before that. What started it at this time is truly irrelevant, what matters now that it passed long long ago is who was right. It certainly wasn't the semi industrialized agrarian south that relied on slavery to maintain its economy.
1) By that logic the original USA was morally rephrensible because they had slavery and denied voting rights to all but a select group of white males.
2) Slavery was not as significant as the pro-Union history books made it out to be. Lincoln was a racist utterly convinced that the black man was inferior to him all ways. They also like to ignore the wage slavery taking place in the North, the disgusting war crimes perpetrated against the South, the fact that the Union fought their war with drafted poor/immigrants as opposed to an army of patriots, etc.
Yes, slavery is wrong. Does it justify invading, raping, and pillaging a nation?
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
So we have a sombody actively praising illegal activity, the murdering of children and homicidal violence and they aren't banned?
Seriously Dakka, seriously...
And seriously Warpcrafter perhaps pretend to have some basic level of common sense or decency, no matter how difficult it might be for someone like you...
I am horrified thinking about the little girl that was murdered...
Amaya wrote:What started it was Lincon unlawfully invading a sovereign nation.
The south was a sovereign nation now? The whole debate is chicken and egg anyway, the south both lost, was economically dysfunctional before that, and was morally reprehensible before that. What started it at this time is truly irrelevant, what matters now that it passed long long ago is who was right. It certainly wasn't the semi industrialized agrarian south that relied on slavery to maintain its economy.
If you are from the south, then yes it was a sovereign nation. And the war is still called "The War of Northern Aggression" in some places.
1) By that logic the original USA was morally rephrensible because they had slavery and denied voting rights to all but a select group of white males.
Yep. It was. It also engaged in mass slaughter of natives. Funny thing about morals though is that they're relative. In early Americas case it wasn't being defined against a more moral backdrop, during the civil war the south was. Thus the north was more morally justified then the south.
2) Slavery was not as significant as the pro-Union history books made it out to be. Lincoln was a racist utterly convinced that the black man was inferior to him all ways. They also like to ignore the wage slavery taking place in the North, the disgusting war crimes perpetrated against the South, the fact that the Union fought their war with drafted poor/immigrants as opposed to an army of patriots, etc.
I dont think anyone ignores the massive number of "war crimes" (which didn't exist at the time) perpetrated on both sides.
Yes, slavery is wrong. Does it justify invading, raping, and pillaging a nation?
It could be considered another nation by only the most barebones standards. It certainly wasn't recognized as one anywhere.
So far I've been accused of being a liberal, a tea bagger, and an anarchist all in the same thread. Interesting.
You should probably present more coherent opinions then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Peter Wiggin wrote:So far I've been accused of being a liberal, a tea bagger, and an anarchist all in the same thread. Interesting.
This is what happens when you are capable of independant thought and don't fit into stereotypical political positions.
Craziest thing in there was his belief in a monetary gold standard. Odd that he would list the communist manifesto and Mein Kampf as favorite books as the videos imply that he is virulently anti state.
micahaphone wrote:What, just because several of them completely contradict each other?
Partially, but also becuase there are about 300 books listed. I'm using exaggeration to make a point. I normally wouldn't have to point that out but looking at the level of discourse happening in the thread, it would seem I have to.
Well "The Phantom Tollbooth" isn't that hard of a read. But seriously, listing the memoir of (among many other things) a communist hater, and the communist mannifesto?
I don't see anything in his videos that points to a particular political group, he just seems paranoid and anti state, and his writings remind me a distressing amount of some of the stuff a friend of mine wrote when he started suffering from schizophrenia.
Hell, just The Origins of Species is a difficult enough read (many people still don't necessarily agree on what it really says), nevermind political stuff which is typically far more banal and preachy.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov
Can't convince people that your way of thinking is the correct one? Get a gun and go kill them because when they're dead, they can't laugh at your insane ramblings any longer.
Sadly, the nation that I live in is swiftly becoming an intolerant wasteland with a similar moral compass to the Taliban. We all are becoming petty tyrants that want the world around us to conform to our image of what is right or we will lash out like so many petulant children. All I need do is look at all the raving, red-faced hypocrits on TV and radio shows to realize that there is no room for compromise or even polite discourse any longer.
This event saddens me deeply and I grieve for the families of all those affected. The deranged person that woke up this morning with murder in his heart is not deserving of understanding or sympathy; he is deserving of whatever justice that society is able to throw his way. I especially feel for the family of the nine year old girl that was robbed of whatever bright future she had simply because some person decided that he was upset with someone else and did not agree with her politics or way of thinking.
agnosto wrote:"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov
Can't convince people that your way of thinking is the correct one? Get a gun and go kill them because when they're dead, they can't laugh at your insane ramblings any longer.
Sadly, the nation that I live in is swiftly becoming an intolerant wasteland with a similar moral compass to the Taliban. We all are becoming petty tyrants that want the world around us to conform to our image of what is right or we will lash out like so many petulant children. All I need do is look at all the raving, red-faced hypocrits on TV and radio shows to realize that there is no room for compromise or even polite discourse any longer.
This event saddens me deeply and I grieve for the families of all those affected. The deranged person that woke up this morning with murder in his heart is not deserving of understanding or sympathy; he is deserving of whatever justice that society is able to throw his way. I especially feel for the family of the nine year old girl that was robbed of whatever bright future she had simply because some person decided that he was upset with someone else and did not agree with her politics or way of thinking.
Sad.
Very sad.
Aside from the fact you ignore that this has been going on since the dawn of man, +1.
micahaphone wrote:But-but, you need a label. Otherwise how will others know that to think of you?
Why do you believe that the label necessarily has anything to do with what one thinks of another, at least to the extent that it is exclusively deterministic?
If I call you a person of nationality X, am I presuming that nationality X defines all that you are, or am I merely describing the part of you that is defined by nationality X?
Well why should you learn about a person, when you can just generically assume what they are like based off of a label? That'd make sense, which isn't allowed on the internet.
micahaphone wrote:Well why should you learn about a person, when you can just generically assume what they are like based off of a label? That'd make sense, which isn't allowed on the internet.
I didn't see any assumptions in this thread. I saw some things that some people said called certain things, but no conclusions were drawn as a result of the labels assigned.
There is a difference between labeling something for convenience, and labeling something for the purposes of committing a package deal fallacy.
For example: "You said X, therefore you must also be Y." is an example of a package deal fallacy, a formal fallacy. Whereas "You said X, and Y says X, therefore you are Y." is, at best, cherry picking, which is merely a poor generalization.
3. and stated his hatred for the Current Corrupt government
4. stated his hatred for "Federal" government. not state.
5. belived in the "Gold money" bs you hear on shock jock radio stations.
What saddens me is everybody who says things like this are mandatory for a democracy to work. It's NOT. All you need is a vote. If your side doesn't win too bad. Watering the tree of liberty with blood only grows a Tyrant tree, who will crush you with his boughs of violence and branches of armed agression. Tyrant tree is now trade marked by me.
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
Glad to know shooting freshly elected people in supermarkets is your idea of rebellion. May you experience what you advocate one day!
It's not pretty, but sometimes that's the only sort of message that can be sent. Besides, she did vote for Obamacare, and even though I'm in no way a Palin supporter, I recognize institutionalized evil when I see it. Stop being such sheeple.
You are disgusting.
Several people are dead, including a 9 year old girl.
I hope you are immediately removed from this site for your repellent opinion.
warpcrafter wrote:One down, how many left until the powers that be get the message? Corruption and greed have gotten too strong a hold on this country for peaceable means to work any more.
Glad to know shooting freshly elected people in supermarkets is your idea of rebellion. May you experience what you advocate one day!
It's not pretty, but sometimes that's the only sort of message that can be sent. Besides, she did vote for Obamacare, and even though I'm in no way a Palin supporter, I recognize institutionalized evil when I see it. Stop being such sheeple.
You are disgusting.
Several people are dead, including a 9 year old girl.
I hope you are immediately removed from this site for your repellent opinion.
+1
I already stated same, but I really think this needs to be stated over and over until the mods grow a pair and take action.
They are always Jolly on the spot to pass out suspensions and strikes when some someone is butt hurt over stuff far less important/serious then this, but here we have a classless troll celebrating the death of women and children and promoting/praising homicidal violence and the mods are no place to be found...
Thus illustrating the point that people often assume nothing is happening, just because they can't see it happening.
If you look back in the thread, you may notice that the original post was deleted two and a half hours ago. It was only after reading more of the thread and seeing said post argued and defended that the decision was made to let the quotes of the post stand for now, so people could see what the offender wrote, and speak against it.
We do not discuss suspensions or user discipline with any other users. If you wish to make sure that Moderators take appropriate action, your first action should always be to hit Alert Mod on the offensive post in question.
DEUS VULT wrote:Cmon guys. He's probably a troll or a teabagger. No need to go dropping banhammers just cause he's a turd and offends you.
Again with the "Dur hur hur... I am cool because I say teabaggers. That way everyone knows that I am cool and smart and stuff."
I am not associated with any of the Tea Party stuff (frankly it all seems lame) but it really annoys me to hear people regurgitate anti-right political phrases feed to them and think they are somehow clever.
DEUS VULT wrote:Cmon guys. He's probably a troll or a teabagger. No need to go dropping banhammers just cause he's a turd and offends you.
Again with the "Dur hur hur... I am cool because I say teabaggers. That way everyone knows that I am cool and smart and stuff."
I am not associated with any of the Tea Party stuff (frankly it all seems lame) but it really annoys me to hear people regurgitate anti-right political phrases feed to them and think they are somehow clever.
Insulting the enemy is the first step in dehumanizing them.
It's also one of the signs of someone who has nothing to say so he spits out the party slogan.
Funny or insulting nicknames for people you disagree with or are rivals are a time-honored tradition. Here in NH we have funny/insulting nicknames for people from Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine, for example.
Calling people names is not a good substitute for an argument. The better use I've seen for the term "teabagger" is to apply it to the extremists and nutjobs within the larger Tea Party movement, which also contains a good number of decent and reasonable human beings.
People should not be dehumanizing other people, or labeling political rivals or opponants as "the enemy". That's the kind of mentality which leads to tragic instances of violence like this one, and like 9/11.
DEUS VULT wrote:Cmon guys. He's probably a troll or a teabagger. No need to go dropping banhammers just cause he's a turd and offends you.
Again with the "Dur hur hur... I am cool because I say teabaggers. That way everyone knows that I am cool and smart and stuff." I am not associated with any of the Tea Party stuff (frankly it all seems lame) but it really annoys me to hear people regurgitate anti-right political phrases feed to them and think they are somehow clever.
When the tea party ceases to deserve scorn and ridicule it'll.... Ok, it'll keep coming but they'll deserve it less. Until then you should probably just work do distance yourself from the moment. It uses very violent and incendiary metaphor in its rhetoric, it makes sense that people would link it to an event like this.
ShumaGorath wrote:
When the tea party ceases to deserve scorn and ridicule it'll.... Ok, it'll keep coming but they'll deserve it less. Until then you should probably just work do distance yourself from the moment. It uses very violent and incendiary metaphor in its rhetoric, it makes sense that people would link it to an event like this.
Every group has those that are, shall we say, "idealist without understanding".
But don't slander an entire group based on the fringe.
That would be like a Christian witnessing the 'gay sexy Jesus parade' in San Fran and concluding that all homosexuals are freaks and anti-religion. Not a fair conclusion.
DEUS VULT wrote:Cmon guys. He's probably a troll or a teabagger. No need to go dropping banhammers just cause he's a turd and offends you.
Again with the "Dur hur hur... I am cool because I say teabaggers. That way everyone knows that I am cool and smart and stuff."
I am not associated with any of the Tea Party stuff (frankly it all seems lame) but it really annoys me to hear people regurgitate anti-right political phrases feed to them and think they are somehow clever.
Insulting the enemy is the first step in dehumanizing them.
It's also one of the signs of someone who has nothing to say so he spits out the party slogan.
Wait, so Teabaggers can call themselves Teabaggers, but other people cant? The Derp is strong with you.
Lrn 2 history. And yes, people generally use derisive terms to refer to those that they dont hold in high regard.
Well, no accounting for taste I suppose. For what it is worth, I have told my black co-workers to not use the term "n-word" (filter) when addressing each other. Not because I am personally offended, but that it made them look like uneducated idiots.
As to the Tea Party making references to baggers, they are attempting to embrace the derogatory term and turn it around. Others have tried to take insults and "own them" to take the power away from it. But again, shouting out "Teabagger!" (an insult derived from a sexual act) them moment anything not "left" of the american spectrum shows up only brings the conversation down.
Here we have a tragedy where a loon killed innocent people. We need not jump to try and score political jabs at their expense.
ShumaGorath wrote: When the tea party ceases to deserve scorn and ridicule it'll.... Ok, it'll keep coming but they'll deserve it less. Until then you should probably just work do distance yourself from the moment. It uses very violent and incendiary metaphor in its rhetoric, it makes sense that people would link it to an event like this.
Every group has those that are, shall we say, "idealist without understanding". But don't slander an entire group based on the fringe. That would be like a Christian witnessing the 'gay sexy Jesus parade' in San Fran and concluding that all homosexuals are freaks and anti-religion. Not a fair conclusion.
The teaparty is built on a set of conflicting ideals, it has no platform, fractured leadership, and is in every way the ignorant flock that neocons want. They were created by the conservative movement to house enfranchised bush era idealists without bushes fall effecting them. They are a tool of idealistic resistance, and little more. I have no problem slandering the entire movement because it's a movement predicated on ignorance and populism. Two things I enjoy slandering. It's the 21st century no nothing party, but without the smarts.
Here we have a tragedy where a loon killed innocent people. We need not jump to try and score political jabs at their expense.
People stopped when it came to light that he was probably not connected to them.
Sorry, while the extremists in the tea party (see: Palin) are horrible, there are many normal Americans who are fed up with the government, which is why its multiple branches are doing great. The media just likes to show pictures of the stupid ones. And the "Know Nothing" party was based off of xenophobia, and was worse, as it was completely based off of a lunatic fringe,and their regular meeting agendas were to ride through the streets in wagons, shooting at people who looked Irish, or Polish, by some strange identification method.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes, I'm a history nut, proud of it, and nothing gets the blood boiling like misinterpreting events or people (*cough*Glenn Beck *cough*).
There ARE normal people who are members of the Tea Party; they're pissed off at how the government is being run. Then there are the people who dress up in bastardizations of revolutionary war era clothing to hoist racist signs about our president.
micahaphone wrote:There ARE normal people who are members of the Tea Party; they're pissed off at how the government is being run. Then there are the people who dress up in bastardizations of revolutionary war era clothing to hoist racist signs about our president.
Allying yourself with a political group because of a shared interest in being "dissatisfied with the government" is a piss poor reason. Political groups are based on politics, not resistance, or in the very least that resistance should be based in something real, not imagined. The tea party is a poor facsimile of a real political movement. It boxes the hate and perceived repression, and turns it into standard neoconservative demagoguery. "Normal" people can be members of the organization just as much as "normal" people can be a part of an ignorant and reactionary political movement with no aim or purpose. Being "normal" doesn't make you "right", with as much weight as either of those terms actually have.
They are a political party with a very conservative outlook. Some people agree with this, not because they feel "resistance", out of hate, or other emotions, but because they honestly believe in less spending, less taxes, less gov't. Basically, they are the new Anti-Federalist movement. And, just like the anti-federalists and the federalists, compromise is necessary. Except for Palin. She is a fool who should be sent to whatever nations we hate as a form of psychological warfare.
They are a political party with a very conservative outlook. Some people agree with this, not because they feel "resistance", out of hate, or other emotions, but because they honestly believe in less spending, less taxes, less gov't.
Except when they dont. Almost every one of the tea parties outlined principles of directly contradicted by another one of such principles and there is no consensus within the movement on how to solve this issue. They want to spend less on the military, but they do not want to deprive the military of funding. They want the government to get its hands out of medicare, but they want increased medicare benefits. They want us out of the UN (sometimes) they want us out of NAFTA (sometimes) they want us out of nato (sometimes) but they also want an increased American role in counterterrorism operations abroad in foreign countries. They want to reduce the deficit and they want to lower taxes. They want to reduce government interference in business but they want banks and corporations regulated.
They hate everything thats bad and love everything thats good, even when they are the same thing.
Basically, they are the new Anti-Federalist movement. And, just like the anti-federalists and the federalists, compromise is necessary. Except for Palin. She is a fool who should be sent to whatever nations we hate as a form of psychological warfare.
If you want compromise on principles look at the tea party. They have none. If you want compromise between parties don't look their way, they'll stonewall everything you could ever want to discuss.
The Tea Party is a very large collective of many oft-conflicting ideals and goals.
Small-government conservatives alongside religious social conservatives alongside liberarian anti-tax fanatics alongside paranoid militia types alongside hardcore racists.
I said there are some reasonable human beings in the movement. But IME they're mostly there because they're dissatisfied with how things are but haven't noticed how many crackpots they've allied themselves with.
micahaphone wrote:There ARE normal people who are members of the Tea Party;
Lulz...
IF you wear a whote robe and a hood it is pretty clear what your beliefs are. IF you declare yourself a "teabagger" it is just as clear...
If in my area a group existed that was a collection of racists, warmongering, fearmongering, xenophobic, religious extremists I wouldn't associate with them NOR identify myself by their name regardless of how many minor issues I might agree with them on.
IF it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...
micahaphone wrote:There ARE normal people who are members of the Tea Party;
Lulz...
IF you wear a whote robe and a hood it is pretty clear what your beliefs are. IF you declare yourself a "teabagger" it is just as clear...
If in my area a group existed that was a collection of racists, warmongering, fearmongering, xenophobic, religious extremists I wouldn't associate with them NOR identify myself by their name regardless of how many minor issues I might agree with them on.
IF it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...
I'm all for hyperbole as a sentence enhancer and all but that might be going a bit too far.
The average tea party member I've seen is one of those moronic nutjobs still going on about how Obama supposedly isn't a citizen, how Obama wants to make everyone's health care costs quadruple, and how Obama wants to send soldiers out naked into Afghanistan wielding paint guns against the Taliban (They also don't actually understand what the Taliban really is...)
Most of the Teaparty people I have met are not racist or evil people, but generally ones that don't have a high level of political efficacy (oh how I love that term). A good number of them at the rally I saw were though.
In fairness, at the moment there is nothing directly linking the suspect to the tea party movement, and by it's nature as a fairly vague catch all movement, it's difficult to be sure anyway. He seems to have been a pretty disturbed guy.
He killed a federal judge, as well as all those other people, so does that mean he'll be in for the death penalty? I had gotten the impression Arizona isn't soft on this sort of thing.
Da Boss wrote:In fairness, at the moment there is nothing directly linking the suspect to the tea party movement, and by it's nature as a fairly vague catch all movement, it's difficult to be sure anyway. He seems to have been a pretty disturbed guy.
He killed a federal judge, as well as all those other people, so does that mean he'll be in for the death penalty? I had gotten the impression Arizona isn't soft on this sort of thing.
Federal death penalty. The alleged shooter has been linked to the so-called American Renaissance movement. There is venn diagram like overlap with this fringe and the tea party.
The loudest members of any group tend to get heard.
I found myself agreeing with Peter's original posts in this thread and it turned out to be someone who was "angry at the system" as predicted. This whole ordeal is very sad, though it's important to learn everything we can from what happens rather than pointlessly throwing blame at people.
Side note, I keep hearing MSI's Mark David Chapman the more I read here.
Melissia wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Just wanted to thank everyone on this thread that said, and I am paraphrasing here... "Dur-Hur! Republicans are dumb and evil! LOL Teabaggers!"
That is the kind of compassionate and intelligent conversation that I come to Dakka to read!
On the grounds that a democrat was shot, we "obviously know" Sara Pailn and GW Bush are behind it!
I live in one of the most conservative states in the union, I deserve to be able to mock the people that I have to listen to every day online, because yes, I hear people blame Obama for all of their problems these days. Lose your job? It's Obama's fault. A thief took something from your home? Obama's fault. Your car engine failed? Obama's fault. Your doctor prescribed you expensive medication? Obama's fault. "Messicans takin' arr jobs"? Obama's fault.
Just like with people blaming Bush when he was president, oddly enough.
I wish this was hyperbole, but I've heard nearly all of these statements actually made by members of my family. Even the car engine failed one (made jokingly at least). Some people really are this bad.
Please remember that you can criticize a group or a political position without smearing or personally insulting every member of that group.
Can we try to bring the tone up a little in here?
News report on TV just said the same thing about Giffords: critical, following some commands. Listed 6 dead, 14 injured in this incident.
Regardless of your political beliefs, this is a senseless tragedy perpetrated by a crazy person. Even if he was influenced by the rhetoric of any particular political group or TV personality (Palin, Beck), that does not make them responsible for his senseless actions. I do hope that politicians affiliated with or supported by the Tea Party wil also speak out against this terrible act, and make clear to the more extremist of their followers that they truly do not supoort violence.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Others have tried to take insults and "own them" to take the power away from it. But again, shouting out "Teabagger!" (an insult derived from a sexual act) them moment anything not "left" of the american spectrum shows up only brings the conversation down.
If you're capable of taking ownership of an insult, then it isn't an insult at all. Insults depend upon emotional resonance in order to be what they are, without that resonance they're merely descriptive; falsely or not.
micahaphone wrote:
They are a political party with a very conservative outlook.
The Tea Party isn't a political party. Political parties have platforms, and some semblance of organization. The Tea Party is basically a subset of the Republican and Libertarian parties.
Mannahnin wrote:
I do hope that politicians affiliated with or supported by the Tea Party wil also speak out against this terrible act, and make clear to the more extremist of their followers that they truly do not supoort violence.
The response of politicians has been fairly uniform; basically a riff on "this is a tragedy".
The supporters, of both the left and the right, on the other hand, have been almost tragically ridiculous. The left has largely been guilty of misplacing blame for the attack on the right, and the right has largely been guilty of reading speculation as accusation; which is all the more tragic in my mind, because there are just so many liberal commentators that aren't speculating, but accusing.
The whole situation is just one more example of how polarized the nation is. Very few people are taking the time to actually read, or listen, and are simply being swept along by a few select words.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
micahaphone wrote:I do believe that Palin has already issued a statement/apology, which is good.
Yeah, she's in a tough spot because Giffords called her out on the violent images that cross-hairs elicit.
micahaphone wrote:I do believe that Palin has already issued a statement/apology, which is good.
Yah, but as of Saturday, that poster was still on her facebook page.
This is a tragedy. I hope the shooter is killed slowly and painfully. Why would you want this congresswomen dead? It's mind boggling. I weep for that little girls parents. I read in the paper this morning that the injured count was up to 19. Also, has anyone else heard of threats now being published about other senators and congressmen/women. The Seattle Times had an article on Patty Murray receiving a few threats herself.
I'm reading that democrats have used similar tactics before, with bullseyes and so on.
I hope Rep. Giffords recovers. It seems impossible that she could be shot in the head and not suffer ill effects, but I still hope that that is the case!
Man, she's a friggin' tank. Surviving a shot to the head, she must be a terminator, reprogrammed by Joe Biden in the far future, sent back to set us on a path to a brighter future.
Mannahnin wrote: I do hope that politicians affiliated with or supported by the Tea Party wil also speak out against this terrible act, and make clear to the more extremist of their followers that they truly do not supoort violence.
How long can the avergae human hold his breathe?
.
Lets hope they will indeed tone back the rhetoric and rein in their rather vocal stable of militant loonies rather then squeeze this for whatever political capital they can gather...
CT GAMER wrote:If this was a liberal Dem psycho that had committed this act Fox News and and all the usual Rep attack dogs would have already been calling for impeachment of Obama claiming that he had somehow incited the violence and declaring it a terrorist act, etc., etc....
I really don't think this is the case.
Anyone with any sense and decency is just calling this event a tragedy and isn't trying to score political points with it.
micahaphone wrote:Man, she's a friggin' tank. Surviving a shot to the head, she must be a terminator, reprogrammed by Joe Biden in the far future, sent back to set us on a path to a brighter future.
MR: I think checking the comment sections of most of the articles floating around would sadly burst your benevolent bubble. There's some disgustingly acidic stuff getting posted about this.
A cop buddy of mine took two in the head and survived. The first scraped off his skull and the other lodged behind his ear and sat there waiting patiently for the surgeon to remove it.
Da Boss wrote:MR: I think checking the comment sections of most of the articles floating around would sadly burst your benevolent bubble. There's some disgustingly acidic stuff getting posted about this.
There's some pretty hideous things in this thread.
I don't think the comments posted by news site users are generally from the nation's best and brightest though.
Monster Rain wrote:What? Dogma, I really have a hard time believing th-BLAME THE VICTIM!
I never found him to be terribly intelligent, but he was articulate.
I may have been overly focused on the "lost all sense" bit.
dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Seriously though, I don't think you'll see too many mainstream political figures blaming each other for this.
Yeah, its a no win situation.
Though I guarantee that there were some very tense Republican politicians before the suspect was named.
Oh absolutely. I would just hope that no matter what the political affiliation of a murdered public figure is that the focus of the discussion wouldn't be assigning blame to groups that you happen to disagree with.
Sure. Although people who have used violent and gun-oriented rhetoric in regards to political disagreements should be taking a hard look at themselves right now.
Whether it's Palin's "reload" slogan and crosshairs, or the idiots in TX who were talking about secession or armed resistance to laws they disagreed with. There has been a lot of really extreme rhetoric in the last two and a half years about fascism, death panels, resistance by any means necessary, etc. And that stuff has all been coming from one side.
I'd be pretty happy if both sides just cooled out with the whole "gun/violence-oriented political rhetoric" thing.
It seems harmless, and I'd probably not have had much of a problem with it until recently, but when something like this happens it makes the people using that sort of language look like a bunch of idiots. I guess pandering does have a downside.
Update Police looking into American Renaissance. An official familiar with the Arizona shooting investigation said Sunday that local authorities are looking at a possible connection between Loughner and an online group known for white supremacist, anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Stormrider wrote:One caveat, none of the Western European nations that have Socialized Medicine count premature births as live births, and don't consider a new born child a living being until 6 months of age. We report everyting.
This is nonsense, and has been told to you by liars. Stop listening to people who are lying to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:There's a portion of the country that is for some socialist program. There's a portion that is adamantly against it. The two view points are extreme opposites and can not be resolved with words. There will be blood, it is only a matter of when and how much.
The issues being debated are fairly benign, and the positions between the two sides is not great, and compromise is not only possible it is reasonably simple and actually going on over a number of bills. It is only in the rhetoric and political theatre that there exists any great difference between the two factions.
The issues of the day aren't slavery or the draft, it's healthcare, and the final bill passed was a fairly minor set of reforms. Yet people are a freaking out to the point where a guy shot a congresswoman, and there's people here claiming that kind of thing is inevitable, and that there's going to be more of the same.
You all need to settle down, and start demanding some sanity in your political dialogue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Just wanted to thank everyone on this thread that said, and I am paraphrasing here... "Dur-Hur! Republicans are dumb and evil! LOL Teabaggers!"
That is the kind of compassionate and intelligent conversation that I come to Dakka to read!
On the grounds that a democrat was shot, we "obviously know" Sara Pailn and GW Bush are behind it!
No, no-one claimed Bush and Palin were behind it, stop being silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:There will always be factions that do not want to talk. It's sad, but you have to be realistic about it. America is not going to make a major change in any direction without growing pains. Right now we're in limbo. Once one side gains a significant upperhand words will be replaced with weapons.
No, that's lunacy. The factions are arbitrary, and the differences marginal. No-one is going to break out the guns over whether Tim over the road thinks taxes should be 3 or 4% more than they are, while you think they could be a few points lower than they are now.
The clash of ideologies is entirely theatrical, to build identity politics and drive voting on election day. Unfortunately it affects some people enough they go and do something really stupid like shoot some poor lady and kill a bunch of people standing near to her at the time. It's a pointless, stupid waste, and not reflective of the realities of US politics at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:What started it was Lincon unlawfully invading a sovereign nation.
How does Fort Sumter being attacked by the South relate to Lincoln invading a sovereign nation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The supporters, of both the left and the right, on the other hand, have been almost tragically ridiculous. The left has largely been guilty of misplacing blame for the attack on the right, and the right has largely been guilty of reading speculation as accusation; which is all the more tragic in my mind, because there are just so many liberal commentators that aren't speculating, but accusing.
I think the biggest tragedy is the number of people commenting that this represents some kind of inevitable product of the US political debate. As if violence was the only way to resolve a debate over tax levels and healthcare.
Aye I'm not seeing how political debate in the US is different to political debate anywhere else. It's not like the conservatives and the labour party get along mega well in the UK.
The only difference is US citizens have easy access to automatic weapons.
Stormrider wrote:One caveat, none of the Western European nations that have Socialized Medicine count premature births as live births, and don't consider a new born child a living being until 6 months of age. We report everyting.
This is a warning to all posters on this thread. In light of the subject matter, Dakka Rule #1 is going to be strictly enforced. This thread is being reviewed and warnings and suspensions as approporiate are being handed out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post: At point of writing, three posters have now received ten+ day suspensions and one poster warned. I am staying out of this thread and might advise other mods to do so, so that we can moderate this.
It would appear that this shooter is grade A nuts and was not immediately politically motivated.
I'd ask this to be considered however, why was it that the immediate reaction was that someone had finally reacted to the tone and insinuated language that elements of the right, particularly those within the Tea Party, have been putting forward.
People like Sharron Angle were put forward by that element as viable political candidates and then use language like this:
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
This, along with rumours and suggestions from those elements that President Obama is a nazi or a communist or some bizarre hybrid of the two (whilst inferring his religion is muslim at the same time, ignoring his regular church attendance and his own father's conversion to Christianity from Islam).
Surely the Republicans and the politically rightwing need to purge themselves and clearly be shown to distance themselves from these extremist elements and the bizarre stories and fiction taking place in the more bias media at the moment. This snowballing of hysteria must be halted and some form of rational political dignity returned to the opposition party?
That this shooting was immediately assumed (on both sides, from people I spoke with) to be someone who'd followed the suggested and alluded 'uprising' rhetoric found in some tea party and right wing media must be a telling indicator to more moderate right wing elements?
My first post on this thread and probably the last:
The greatest problem with this thread's subject matter is that it was:
A. Highly political and politicized from the start due to the victims involved.
B. A fresh event that has had little time for others to formulate better opinions than kneejerk reactions at the beginning.
C. Political, which is the bane of Dakka-ites here as it means subject matter that can get very touchy real quick.
D. Post on the internet, where opinion and feelings don't often get along.
That being said, I find that the whole situation is very tragic.
As to the rammifications of this event, hard to say. It didn't strike deeply into our American psyche, as we still had sports events make national headlines(football was a big one), the Republicans still plodded through their session of the House, and over a dozen people in a Mexican resort town were brutally murdered.
I fear for my nation if such a nationally important event as this is passed on quickly. The fact that a politician was gunned down and nearly killed by simply going to a street corner to listen to any constituents (regardless of the security concerns) that passed by tells me America may have a brewing problem here.
@MGS: I'm with you, mate. Here's the thing about the crazy people out there: some of them just talk crazy, sure, but there are other crazies listening. (See, e.g., 2010 congressional election results.) When George Tiller was murdered while at church, how many people rethought the "culture war" against "baby killers"? But I haven't seen any backing down in the rhetoric -- which suggests to me that, deep down, the people who spout it are pleased with the results.
This blight on public life is spreading to every level of our culture -- even here on Dakka, a forum about toy soldiers, people have been advocating and condoning this violence. (If it wasn't already clear, by the way, that is completely inappropriate and will result in suspensions.) I'm not saynig that freedom of speech is not worth its risks -- but it is also a right for which people need to take responsibility. Anyone who uses violent rhetoric should fess up to what they're truly up to: advocating real violence against real people.
While MGS raises many valid points, I will simply say that I think the problem could be most swiftly tackled by using two words.
Gun control.
In the UK we recently had a politician attacked during a meeting with the public. He got stabbed.
No big deal.
In the USA people can rock up at a store and buy a glock. He bought the weapon in the last couple weeks didnt he? At a sportsmans warehouse?
The USA has ridiculous gun controls, thanks to trigger happy idiots living in the 1700s.
And im no hippy, gak, i like guns, I even like shooting them at people that deserve it. But that people can easily obtain weapons like that, just doesnt make any sense at all.
Hunting is fine, I wouldnt even think that automatic long barrelled weapons are that sizeable an issue as they are not easy to conceal, but a glock is an easily concealable, quick to reload firearm that has only one purpose, and that is to kill people. You dont go shooting deer with a semi automatic hand gun.
And then people whine "well criminals can still get guns" but your average weirdo cannot, and these are the people who do gak like this, what interest has a arms dealing coke pusher got in shooting a politician?
Seriously, no other first world democracy has such ridiculous gun laws, and it needs sorting out. Obama said these idiots cling to their bibles and their guns, and the man is dead on.
Far for me to derail this thread into a flame war on gun ownership but I wondered what our American friends felt what effect the proliferation and ease of obtaining a weapon had on this shooting (if any)?
I would humbly suggest we have a similar proportion of crazy per head of population here in the UK, and our political discourse is no less fiery - the only difference seems to be the crazies throw eggs or paint rather than open up with pistols.
Do you think that such a event (tragic though it is) could have an impact on the pro/anti gun ownership stance?
Edit: Matty just asked a similar thing! Curse my fat fingers!
@mattyrm: It's not 1984, either -- at least not in the States. The solution to society's problems isn't always to demand less and less from the populace in terms of responsibility and judgment.
Manchu wrote:@mattyrm: It's not 1984, either -- at least not in the States. The solution to society's problems isn't always to demand less and less from the populace in terms of responsibility and judgment.
Gah...I hate breaking 1 post only promises for threads.
While it may sound silly to say that guns are not the problem, America does have a poisonous atmosphere of political bitterness, desperate people who have nothing left to lose, and rhetoric spewing instigators who say change must occur (obviously not expousing revolution, but connect the dots there).
Guns become an easy way to express that frustration that people have.
People have been killing other people since forever. They can use sticks, rocks, bombs, poison, whatever. If someone wants to kill somebody they will find a way.
This isn't a firearms issue, this is an issue surrounding a political culture that has become so brazen in it's use of dangerous rhetoric regardless of any impact that it might have on it's followers (boarding on thinly disguised hate-speech and veiled calls for violent action in some cases).
Too bad a nine year old girl has to pay the ultimate price for this disgusting claim of "free speech".
What I've found interesting is that, based on my reading across various Tea Party websites, there has been a marked refusal to back down on the overall vitriol of the rhetoric being employed. The stated reason varies to a degree, but its almost always some variation of "censorship is always bad". I find this problematic for two reasons.
The first, and most obvious, is that it seems to make the common mistake of asserting that freedom of speech protects one's ability to speak as he wishes in all possible venues. Obviously this is untrue, as the freedom of speech applies only to the ability of the state to restrict the speech of its people.
The second is that such a response implies that self-censorship is bad, which in turn seems to indicate that the rhetoric is not metaphorical, but a direct expression of the sentiment that some of these groups seem to be tapping into.
Manchu wrote:@mattyrm: It's not 1984, either -- at least not in the States. The solution to society's problems isn't always to demand less and less from the populace in terms of responsibility and judgment.
True enough mate, but im not saying we should change America into an Orwellian dystopia, I am merely saying that perhaps more gun control would be a good idea?
No other nation has such a gun crazy mentality. I am not saying it will stop ALL gun related mayhem, Im simply saying it will help.
What else can it possibly be?! There is no clear difference in language or culture or leisure activity or behaviour between your average British citizen and your average American citizen. Seriously, ive spent a good two years of my life in the states, we are almost the exact same in every single way, sure there are tiny little differences (you lot talk funny ) but there are no fundamental differences other than it is easier to get guns in the states.
And to MGS, i see your point entirely, but Derek killed 12 people with a sucky bolt action rifle and a shotgun. I am pretty certain that if it wasnt for the fat auld coppers policing the area he would have gotten half that. Two of them actually saw him but made no move to apprehend him because he was armed. If I was in that situation i would have buckled up and kamikazed my car into the bastard at 60mph.
But, me acting like supercop is beside the point, the major point I would make is that he had a bolt action single shot rifle and a shotgun and as a result he killed 12 people. If he was an American gun nut he may well have been armed with an AR-15 and a MAC-10 that can fire 1100 rounds a minute.
I seriously am of the view that America needs to get with the programme. It is 2011 and i really cannot see a good argument for the law not being more in line with what we have in every other first world democracy. In my view you simply cannot make a good case for every single Tom Dick and Harry being able to pack heat like in the USA. What is wrong with Western Europe? What is so wrong with Norway and Sweden and Demark and France and the UK that the USA will not adopt the same gun law model? Nothing other than clinging to an ancient outdated tradition that kills people. There are no more frigging red coats, what the hell is the big deal with the second amendment?
Obama is a pragmatic man, so he would need to meet them in the middle ground, so how about you keep your assault rifles, the machine guns and long barreled weapons, and just ban semi-automatic handguns that can easily be carried over to your local senators house without a cop seeing?
@dogma: That leads to a good illustration of how useful ambiguity can be. If criticized, the demagogues can retort: "Well, I surely don't support this kind of violence but is the people's right to rise up against an unjust government." The quotation MGS posted is a great example. But he's also right to point out how counterproductive it can be (in that case, pointedly making a connection to 2nd amendment rights).
Automatically Appended Next Post: @mattyrm: From an American standpoint (or at least one of many American standpoints) we have quite a lot of gun laws as it is. They vary by state, of course. I still think this story doesn't really have to do with gun control so much as irresponsible speech.
inquisitor_bob wrote:Don't forget, Mexico has very strict gun control laws. We still see gun violence in Mexico weekly.
When I went to Mexico there were selling AKs in a stand next to oranges. For 20 bucks more the guy offered to change the spring and make it fully automatic. Dunno how it is now, but yeah... that was bad.
When it comes right down to it, this thread is not about political stances, the right to bear arms vs arms control, or any such notion. It's about people coming together to wish well for those that survived, and remember those who passed in a senseless tragedy.
Manchu wrote:@dogma: That leads to a good illustration of how useful ambiguity can be. If criticized, the demagogues can retort: "Well, I surely don't support this kind of violence but is the people's right to rise up against an unjust government." The quotation MGS posted is a great example. But he's also right to point out how counterproductive it can be (in that case, pointedly making a connection to 2nd amendment rights).
Automatically Appended Next Post: @mattyrm: From an American standpoint (or at least one of many American standpoints) we have quite a lot of gun laws as it is. They vary by state, of course. I still think this story doesn't really have to do with gun control so much as irresponsible speech.
Part of the reason this occured was that in AZ we can get a gun without registering it, and very lax background checks. Just as long as it was made in AZ, we can also carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Said law-abiding citizen couldn't prevent the incident.
A guy pulls a gun out of nowhere at a supermarket, shoots a woman in the head and starts indiscriminately shooting into a crowd.
Yes, if one of the bystanders had a gun they might have stopped him partway through emptying his magazine, but it would have in no way saved the Congresswoman. Even in terms of stopping him partway through, the crowd itself presents a major obstacle to an armed bystander being able to effectively respond and do so without hitting anyone else.
Which is what makes me shake my head at the reports that certain Congressmen are talking about carrying their own guns in response to this incident. If they're the primary target, having a gun themselves is hardly going to make any difference.
Mannahnin wrote:Said law-abiding citizen couldn't prevent the incident.
A guy pulls a gun out of nowhere at a supermarket, shoots a woman in the head and starts indiscriminately shooting into a crowd.
Yes, if one of the bystanders had a gun they might have stopped him partway through emptying his magazine, but it would have in no way saved the Congresswoman. Even in terms of stopping him partway through, the crowd itself presents a major obstacle to an armed bystander being able to effectively respond and do so without hitting anyone else.
Which is what makes me shake my head at the reports that certain Congressmen are talking about carrying their own guns in response to this incident. If they're the primary target, having a gun themselves is hardly going to make any difference.
I don't subscribe to that scenario. Of course he could have done the same thing with a, you know, truck.
Beats destroying the rights of all Americans which is now suddenly being pushed.
I agree that cars are lethal too, and I'm generally supportive of gun ownership.
I just think it's absurd to think that a gun is a magical shield against bullets. You cannot stop a random crazy person from shooting you, with anything short of a Presidential security detail, and even those are a long way short of infallible. I don't know what exactly you're disagreeing with. You literally cannot stop the incident from happening with a gun. You MIGHT be able to cut it short and save some of the people from being shot, albeit at the risk of firing yourself in the midst of a crowd of panicked people.
The only person seriously spouting off about gun control right now is Matty, and he's a self-confessed loudmouth who drunk posts most of the time.
Mannahnin wrote:I agree that cars are lethal too, and I'm generally supportive of gun ownership.
I just think it's absurd to think that a gun is a magical shield against bullets. You cannot stop a random crazy person from shooting you, with anything short of a Presidential security detail, and even those are a long way short of infallible.
The only person seriously spouting off about gun control right now is Matty, and he's a self-confessed loudmouth who drunk posts most of the time.
1. I think he would be proud of that moniker, and frankly I am jealous. 2. There's been some of that on this thread. There's A LOT of it on left leaning pages (NY Times).
3. It would have potentially seriously limited the number of casualties. Hard to stop nutjob from going after a suspecting person-thats a given. Harder against someone watching for them, or reacting when he goes after target #2- and #3. Due to personal position, I have to believe that is the case.
Having said that, I'm more than amenable for that argument to be moved off this thread.
Manchu wrote:@mattyrm: It's not 1984, either -- at least not in the States. The solution to society's problems isn't always to demand less and less from the populace in terms of responsibility and judgment.
See, this is sort of indicative of the problem - crazy hyperbole seems to have terminally infected the political discourse in the USA, to the point where even a perfectly rational, decent, level-headed human being like Manchu (who remains someone I have a great deal of respect for) leaps from 'perhaps gun laws should be tightened considerably' to 'yeah, well it's not 1984'.
It's not 1984 here, either. Private citizens can still own firearms, it's just a great deal more difficult to do so. Less people seem to be getting shot. I'm not getting into the rights or wrongs of whether the law should be loosened or tightened, I just think it should be possible to have a discussion about it without resorting to the sort of rhetoric that smacks of fear-mongering. The government aren't out to mind-control or brain-wash anyone, they're just trying to run the country as best they can.
Calm down, (some) Americans
Now for (some) Europeans: Get off your fething high-horses. Europe is plenty violent, especially the UK. Violence towards politicians happens here, too. Just look at the MP who was stabbed a few months ago by one of his Muslim constituents. I noted a Dutch poster earlier posting smug remarks along the lines of 'only in America'. Yeah, nice going genius. Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn?
Is it any wonder some Americans think of us as smug, arrogant euro-trash? Something crappy like this happens, and instead of showing solidarity, we have people circling like vultures to rub American's noses in it. For shame, I say.
We are calm. We just don't like our fundamental rights gettig attacked opportunistically by those wishing to oppress us. I used to think "you wouldn't impinge the First Amendment like that" then I reallized the same people usually are ok with that if you phrase it correctly.
Frazzled wrote:We are calm. We just don't like our fundamental rights gettig attacked opportunistically by those wishing to oppress us. I used to think "you wouldn't impinge the First Amendment like that" then I reallized the same people usually are ok with that if you phrase it correctly.
Frazzled, I'm sure you could kill imaginary burglars with a shotgun just as well as with a handgun.
@Albatross: A policy can itself be rational but tie into a lot of other irrational ones. Gun control in the US is one such issue. The level of restriction that some Americans advocate (I can't claim to know whether it's equivalent to current British restrictions) is premised on an argument that seemingly intentionally confuses symptoms with causes -- to my mind, in an effort to sew fear. I can't speak to what goes on in the UK, but that's my read on the anti-gun rhetoric here Stateside.
There is also the point that Canada has similarly open gun laws and ownership to the US, but doesn't have nearly our level of gun violence. This seems to disprove Matty's thesis that it's the easy access to guns that's the problem.
Law abiding citzens did disarm this nutzo, and though we cannot predict what would have happened, an armed citizen was within mere feet of making a difference had this shooter kept about his rampage.
In an interview I read that Zamudio gave he said that the police arrived minutes later.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Bodacious2182 wrote:Gun violence is a question of culture not availability.
Thanks for backing me up on that!
Bodacious2182 wrote:The UK is a primarily homogeneous culture, is it not?
Not so much. They're also very much a melting pot and a magnet for immigration, possibly as much or more than we are at this point, as they're a lot closer and more accessible from Africa, the Middle East, Europe and much of Asia.
You aren't seriously comparing quoting the movie The Untouchables in reference to a hard-fought election campaign to people threatening armed resistance or "second amendment remedies" to laws they dislike, are you? That's a dishonest argument.
Bodacious2182 wrote:IMO: The talk about violent rhetoric is absurd and is only going to foster more hatred because the ultimate goal is to restrict speech.
Baloney. No one's goal is to restrict speech. You're falling prey to fearmongering. You're buying an excuse made by people who don't want to take responsibility for their own words. The line about "Fostering more hatred" is just them trying to point the finger at other people instead of cleaning their own house. When I was growing up, we thought part of being a Conservative/Libertarian was taking responsibility for your own actions and words.
Some politicians have been using a lot of violent rhetoric in the last couple of years, and some nutjobs are clearly listening, like Tim McVeigh did. Loughner is probably a schizophrenic, but what we can see so far of his motives does connect to the crazier militia/Constitutional fundamentalist extremists out there. Did you watch the "My Final Thoughts" Loughner youtube video? In ~ the last 40 seconds of it, say from around 3:08, he starts talking about how "you don't have to accept the federalist laws", referring to "the current treasonous laws" and talking about revolution and the Constitution. Does any of that sound like rhetoric coming out of any current political viewpoint?
Bodacious2182 wrote:Mannahnin: Please read about Joseph Zamudio
Law abiding citzens did disarm this nutzo, and though we cannot predict what would have happened, an armed citizen was within mere feet of making a difference had this shooter kept about his rampage.
I am well aware of what bystanders accomplished in this incident. If you read my last couple of posts, you'll see that I support gun ownership and that I agree that an armed person could potentially have cut short the rampage. That being said, even if Zamudio had been in the middle of the crowd it wouldn't have prevented Giffords from being shot. I support gun ownership in part because he MIGHT have saved a few people, and I'd rather he had the chance to do so than not.
Mannahnin wrote:Some politicians have been using a lot of violent rhetoric in the last couple of years, and some nutjobs are clearly listening, like Tim McVeigh did. Loughner is probably a schizophrenic, but what we can see so far of his motives does connect to the crazier militia/Constitutional fundamentalist extremists out there. Did you watch the "My Final Thoughts" Loughner youtube video? In ~ the last 40 seconds of it, say from around 3:08, he starts talking about how "you don't have to accept the federalist laws", referring to "the current treasonous laws" and talking about revolution and the Constitution. Does any of that sound like rhetoric coming out of any current political viewpoint?
Mainstream Conservatives tend to back away from condoning violence as it would ruin their image in our politically correct media.
Now, say if we were in a culture where someone on a pulpit condoned violence and it gave them increased popularity, what kind of culture would that be?
It says alot about America (and other civilized cultures) that someone using a gun to injure a person is an abberation rather than the norm. Of course, insert your own thoughts as to how that price was paid for America to be a relatively peaceful nation.
dogma wrote:What I've found interesting is that, based on my reading across various Tea Party websites, there has been a marked refusal to back down on the overall vitriol of the rhetoric being employed. The stated reason varies to a degree, but its almost always some variation of "censorship is always bad". I find this problematic for two reasons.
The first, and most obvious, is that it seems to make the common mistake of asserting that freedom of speech protects one's ability to speak as he wishes in all possible venues. Obviously this is untrue, as the freedom of speech applies only to the ability of the state to restrict the speech of its people.
The second is that such a response implies that self-censorship is bad, which in turn seems to indicate that the rhetoric is not metaphorical, but a direct expression of the sentiment that some of these groups seem to be tapping into.
Pretty much. Arguing about how censorship is bad makes no sense when people aren't proposing that government should censor you, just that you should think about considering your own language. But then, the biggest problem with the Tea Party is that few, if any, of their political arguments actually make any level of sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:When I went to Mexico there were selling AKs in a stand next to oranges. For 20 bucks more the guy offered to change the spring and make it fully automatic. Dunno how it is now, but yeah... that was bad.
Colt has made itself a tidy profit selling semi-automatic Commandoes into South America, knowing full well that with a minor modification they can be made fully auto, to either be used in the drug wars or smuggled back into the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Instead of restricting laws to the citizenry, what if a law abiding citizen were there to stop him?
Law abiding citizens did stop him.
There are no states with more relaxed gun control laws than Arizona. You don't need a license to concealed carry. If there was a place on the planet where a citizen might have successfully pulled out a gun and shot the attacker it is Tucson, Arizona. And yet... it didn't happen.
I don't think increased gun control is the answer. But I am absolutely certain that relaxed gun control in the hope that some random citizen might shoot the crazy really, really isn't the answer.
More to the point, people knew this guy was crazy. Most of the recent tragedies were committed by people who had long histories of mental instability. Within hours of the shooting researchers had located a lot of information on just how crazy this guys internet posting were. I think the best and most likely way of preventing these disasters is in improved mental health services, and much better red flag systems.
But that is nowhere near as sexy as gun control, so it'll be ignored. Again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Is it any wonder some Americans think of us as smug, arrogant euro-trash? Something crappy like this happens, and instead of showing solidarity, we have people circling like vultures to rub American's noses in it. For shame, I say.
Well said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bodacious2182 wrote:Just some points:
Gun violence is a question of culture not availability.
The UK is a primarily homogeneous culture, is it not?
No, it isn't. There are very high levels of immigration to the UK, as there are to many other developed countries.
America is a melting pot of races and cultures.
So is Australia. We don't shoot or otherwise kill each other in anything like the rate per capita you guys do. So it really, really isn't due to having different cultures living next to each other, so stop that right now.
Japan has a primarily homogeneous culture, relatively no firearms, but the highest suicide rates in the world.
Nope, the highest suicide rate would be Belarus. Meanwhile Russia has a fairly homogenous population, certainly within the major cities, and ridiculous levels of murder. Because having a neighbour with a different skin colour or or different cultural background doesn't make you any more likely to kill him. Certainly not compared to other major factors, like crime levels, poverty levels (and particularly the likelihood of the poverty trap), income equality, drug use, the level of effective policing, and all kinds of factors.
So please stop with the 'we've got lots of cultures so there's going to be more violent'. It's really, really wrong.
IMO: The talk about violent rhetoric is absurd and is only going to foster more hatred because the ultimate goal is to restrict speech.
No, the absolute goal is to bring the level of political debate down from the level of ridiculous hyperbole it is at right now, particularly the references to violent revolution. There is no proposal for any level of government control on speach, there's . Stop please stop the hyperbole and start being sensible.
See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?
But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.
Bromsy wrote:See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?
No, but we can do more to identify signs of mental breakdown before tragedy. And people who have been and out of institutions can be have access to better ongoing treatment.
But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.
olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.
WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.
Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)
olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.
WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.
Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)
Typical left wing talking head response....
What are you talking about?
What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?
Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.
Bromsy wrote:See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?
No, but we can do more to identify signs of mental breakdown before tragedy. And people who have been and out of institutions can be have access to better ongoing treatment.
But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.
What logic would that be?
Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially
Automatically Appended Next Post: .... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.
Connor McKane wrote:WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.
Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)
Typical left wing talking head response....
The argument that he was a left winger is just ridiculous. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. What left winger lists We The Living among their favourite books?
You're being played for a fool, here. If nothing else, it should really hurt your pride that someone told you such transparent lies and you've headed off to Dakka to repeat them and made yourself look silly. At which point I'd really recommend you think long and hard about how you go about reading and thinking about political events, unless you want to look as silly next time.
olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.
WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.
Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)
Typical left wing talking head response....
What are you talking about?
What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?
Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.
Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?
All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"
Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Connor McKane wrote:WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.
Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)
Typical left wing talking head response....
The argument that he was a left winger is just ridiculous. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. What left winger lists We The Living among their favourite books?
You're being played for a fool, here. If nothing else, it should really hurt your pride that someone told you such transparent lies and you've headed off to Dakka to repeat them and made yourself look silly. At which point I'd really recommend you think long and hard about how you go about reading and thinking about political events, unless you want to look as silly next time.
You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.
Bromsy wrote:Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially
Automatically Appended Next Post: .... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.
Good thought, but putting 'I feel' at the start of a sentence can reduce it's power, make it seem as though someone is simply expressing themselves, instead of dictating to others. What we need are more 'I feel' statements but without the 'I feel' at the beginning.
So less 'I feel that Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats' and more 'Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats'...
Oh and look, Connor McKane has come in and done just that. Good work, now we're bound to get a productive thread.
Okay, now my serious hand is raised. Anyone from either of the major political parties throwing around accusations whilst claiming they are better than "the other side" can go suck on a lemon, cause that is a bunch of crap. Human beings are terrible creatures, and pretending like this is a struggle between the normal people on either side of the political gulf instead of our collective struggle to outgrow our animal instincts is just playing into the hands of career politicians. The only reason I don't say "everyone" is because there has to be at least a few decent, reasonable people out there, right?......... right?
Connor McKane wrote:Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?
Books do not work that way.
All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"
No, the crazy was talking about the gold standard. You need to read more closely.
Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.
Yeah, everyone read the above and think for a second. This guy actually believes good and evil can be determined by political affiliation. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous place that identity politics will lead to.
You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.
Umm, I haven't actually watched CNN or MSNBC since the event happened. Nor do I watch them very often anyway, because they're not very good. Nor am I a liberal, at least not anything you'd recognise as a liberal.
But it's interesting you'd just go off on that rant, rather than consider the fairly plain information I gave you - liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal. But you just accused me of being brainwashed, because that's easier than thinking about the fact that you came here and embarressed yourself by giving a very obviously silly position.
Think about that, because it should embarress you quite a bit. Surely enough that you'd want to reconsider how you approach your politics.
Bromsy wrote:Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially
Automatically Appended Next Post: .... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.
Good thought, but putting 'I feel' at the start of a sentence can reduce it's power, make it seem as though someone is simply expressing themselves, instead of dictating to others. What we need are more 'I feel' statements but without the 'I feel' at the beginning.
So less 'I feel that Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats' and more 'Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats'...
Oh and look, Connor McKane has come in and done just that. Good work, now we're bound to get a productive thread.
Oh I am sorry, I must have missed the part were I said that Obama & Democrats were to blame.... silly republicans, always NOT saying things, but lucky for us we have you Democrats to tell us the things we didn't say but really said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Connor McKane wrote:Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?
Books do not work that way.
Really? Seriously? Then next time you are in church, take a copy of "The Satanic Verses" and hold it infront of you. "Books do not work that way." What a maroon!!! LOL
All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"
No, the crazy was talking about the gold standard. You need to read more closely.
Oh no, you missed my witty play on words. Will you please re-read what I said concerning your statment of the Gold standard...lol... it's funny cause you see what I did there? No?
Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.
Yeah, everyone read the above and think for a second. This guy actually believes good and evil can be determined by political affiliation. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous place that identity politics will lead to.
Yes, because I said Democrats are Evil... wait, no I didn't . Please learn to read, or at least work on comprehension. I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true.
You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.
Umm, I haven't actually watched CNN or MSNBC since the event happened. Nor do I watch them very often anyway, because they're not very good. Nor am I a liberal, at least not anything you'd recognise as a liberal.
First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses (and we both know that you what you are doing is grandstanding, putting on a show for the people you so desperatley need to like you) You won't say you have a stake in anything because if you ACTUALLY took a stance, you might be wrong.
I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.
But it's interesting you'd just go off on that rant, rather than consider the fairly plain information I gave you - liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal. But you just accused me of being brainwashed, because that's easier than thinking about the fact that you came here and embarressed yourself by giving a very obviously silly position.
Think about that, because it should embarress you quite a bit. Surely enough that you'd want to reconsider how you approach your politics.
I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election.
I lol'd - I truly did, as a matter of fact I can barley see the screen through the tears of laughter in my eyes...
Bromsy wrote:Okay, now my serious hand is raised. Anyone from either of the major political parties throwing around accusations whilst claiming they are better than "the other side" can go suck on a lemon, cause that is a bunch of crap. Human beings are terrible creatures, and pretending like this is a struggle between the normal people on either side of the political gulf instead of our collective struggle to outgrow our animal instincts is just playing into the hands of career politicians. The only reason I don't say "everyone" is because there has to be at least a few decent, reasonable people out there, right?......... right?
There are loads of decent people all over the place. And there are decent people in politics. A lot of them, even. Despite this, politics remains an ugly game.
I agree that neither side is perfect, they can both improve in all kinds of ways. But here is the thing, the crazy fringe of the left wing remains the crazy fringe. The crazy talk about being overtaken by corporations who will own us remains on the fringe. On the other hand, in the last decade the crazy fringe of the right wing that talks about government take over and FEMA detention centres has moved into the centre, led by Glenn Beck. This does not condemn the entirety of the right wing, but it is something that is going wrong with them right now, and the situation would improve if the crazy voices were returned to the fringes.
Connor McKane wrote:Oh I am sorry, I must have missed the part were I said that Obama & Democrats were to blame.... silly republicans, always NOT saying things, but lucky for us we have you Democrats to tell us the things we didn't say but really said.
You said the shooter was a left winger, you called the first person to disagree with you a Democrat, you then called liberalism a mental disorder. Are you going to split hairs and claim that you don't think of Democrats and the left wing as interchangeable?
I lol'd
I'm not joking. You've embarressed yourself badly in this thread, with an initial argument that was obviously wrong, and followed it up with broad attacks on your political opposition, which most of us (none of us?) even belong to. It's been a dire effort, and you should feel shame. Do you have any self pride, respect for your own honesty, that might tell you that what you're doing is lame?
Mannahnin wrote:What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?
Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.
Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?
Only idiots do such branding. People read that book (or parts of it) all the time if they're studying WWII, or Nazi Germany, or Political Theory.
Connor McKane wrote:All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"
What exactly do you think you're achieving with this rant, other than making yourself look like a silly troll?
The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.
If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.
This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.
He's a mixed bag of nuts.
It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.
Mannahnin wrote:You're both making yourselves look a bit silly by referencing individual entries on that enormous list of his favorite books.
The kind of list which a kid with pretentions of being philosophical writes out, often having never actually read any of the books in question.
You'd want to read my posts more carefully if you think I was listing individual entries to try and describe the guy's politics. I never did anything of the sort, and I'm pretty annoyed you'd think I did.
I think the guy listed a grab bag of the most famous political tracts in an effort to appear learned, seemingly indifferent or unaware that the books in the list are contradictory.
As such, claiming one book of the list, like Mein Kampf, and declaring he must be a leftwing (which is a whole other kind of stupid, of course) is ridiculous, when the guy also lists a book like We The Living. Similarly, claiming the guy is a libertarian makes no sense, when he lists a book like The Communist Manifesto.
Connor McKane wrote:Really? Seriously? Then next time you are in church, take a copy of "The Satanic Verses" and hold it infront of you. "Books do not work that way." What a maroon!!! LOL
You're attempting to counter my statement that reading one book doesn't define your entire political and moral character, especially when you've read other opposing and equally contraversial books... with the idea that a certain book might cause offence in church. That makes no sense.
Oh no, you missed my witty play on words. Will you please re-read what I said concerning your statment of the Gold standard...lol... it's funny cause you see what I did there? No?
I don't think you understand what a play on words is.
Yes, because I said Democrats are Evil... wait, no I didn't . Please learn to read, or at least work on comprehension. I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true
No, it's nonsense. Democrats aren't all an anything. They're a whole bunch of different people with a wide range of believes and personal stories, same a Republicans. What you're arguing is just silliiness.
First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses (and we both know that you what you are doing is grandstanding, putting on a show for the people you so desperatley need to like you) You won't say you have a stake in anything because if you ACTUALLY took a stance, you might be wrong.
What masses? Do you think that anyone is reading this other than you and me?
I have stances. I have lots of stances. But they're just based on the facts of individual issues, and not out of a need to belong to one political faction or another.
I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.
You stand for trumpeting for one political party and booing the other. Which isn't actually a stance, as much as a desperate need to belong to something. Which is understandable, but in terms of politics and improving the state of the nation, it's value is somewhere between harmless and actively harmful.
I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election
No, seriously, you've spouted nonsense and made sweeping claims with little or nothing to support them. It was an embaressing display. You should feel shame.
It doesn't matter how you voted, what matters is the reasoning you've used to reach your political opinions, which, as demonstrated in this thread, have been dreaadful, entirely lacking in critical thought. As an adult in the 21st century you only have yourself to blame for such nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.
If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.
Pretty much.
It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.
Thing is, there really are right wingers calling Democrats enemies of the state, and it is a bad, bad thing. Glenn Beck really is talking about how Obama is going to take away all their freedoms. This in absolute lunacy, and it is in the mainstream of Republican debate. Things would be much better if the GOP forced those loons back out to the fringes where they belong.
None of which has anything to do with the shooting of the congresswoman and the unfortunate bystanders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:You picked one out, and used it as evidence. Thus making largely the same error Connor did, although that was your only error that I really noticed.
Your more recent post has got it. He listed a grab bag.
Yeah, but I only pointed it out to show he wasn't a leftwinger. I never tried to claim that he was a rightwinger.
Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.
You can easily be liberal and crazy or conservative and crazy.
Phryxis wrote:This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.
Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.
I was raised Libertarian, and while it's very compatible with classical conservatism, it has very little common ground with social conservatism. Which is one of the big contradictions in the Tea Party, that you have both of these crammed in under that very broad label, among others, when they're really nothing alike.
The video Loughner posted on Youtube, which I quoted earlier, references some political concepts which fall on one end of the spectrum. I don't think this necessarily means he really is what we would think of as Conservative; if he is, it's the militia crazy types, but nobody claimed that Tim McVeigh was a liberal.
That being said, one of his friends says Loughner's grudge against Gifford originally sprang from a minor incident at another Congress in Your Corner event back in 2007, a crazy resentment about her not giving him a satisfying answer to the question "'What is government if words have no meaning?", which seems to demonstrate that he was mostly a crazy schizophrenic going back at least that far.
"Loughner would occasionally mention Giffords, according to Tierney: "It wasn't a day-in, day-out thing, but maybe once in a while, if Giffords did something that was ridiculous or passed some stupid law or did something stupid, he related that to people."
...which seems to imply that he was also politically opposed to her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Your more recent post has got it. He listed a grab bag.
Yeah, but I only pointed it out to show he wasn't a leftwinger. I never tried to claim that he was a rightwinger.
I know you weren't using it as positive evidence. I just don't think you can really use that list as evidence either way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another good news article, about the bystanders who subdued Loughner:
Mannahnin wrote:Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.
True. I'd disagree largely because it means Christianity would be generally conservative, which I really don't like.
I know you weren't using it as positive evidence. I just don't think you can really use that list as evidence either way.
And I'm saying I didn't attempt to use it as evidence either way. So, I wasn't foolish, yeah?
sebster wrote:... liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal.
We all make mistakes. I didn't say you were foolish. I said you looked a bit silly, which is still probably wrong on my part, but I was trying to defuse things a little. More just that you were mistaken.
sebster wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.
True. I'd disagree largely because it means Christianity would be generally conservative, which I really don't like.
Christianity has (to my mind) a lot more in common with Liberal ideals than with Conservative ones.
Mannahnin wrote:We all make mistakes. I didn't say you were foolish. I said you looked a bit silly, which is still probably wrong on my part, but I was trying to defuse things a little. More just that you were mistaken.
I said it was clear he wasn't a liberal. Which is nothing at all like claiming he was a conservative, which you said I did. As such, in this instance I was not mistaken.
Christianity has (to my mind) a lot more in common with Liberal ideals than with Conservative ones.
Yeah, the ability of the rightwing in the US to lay claim to the Christian vote is a very odd thing, to my mind.
More than anything else, it's been quite unhealthy for Christianity, as the Republicans have given them little on issues like abortion and prayer in school, while many Christian groups have lost much of the charity and social justice from their central teachings, and replaced it with the prosperity doctrine and the like.
Yeah, I feel rather bad for the nice Christians I know, to have the lovely parts of their religion, like charity and caring for the poor and downtrodden totally ignored for the most part, in favor of wedge issues like abortion.
sebster wrote:... liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal.
I must be reading this quote wrong. It appears to me, to be you drawing a conclusion about something this person isn't, based on a book on his list. I don't think that list can reasonably be used as evidence of his NOT being something, any more than it can be used as evidence of his BEING something. But I must be reading it wrong, as I'm used to you being right a lot, and you're very insistent on this point. So I must be overtired and reading it wrong.
sebster wrote:Which is nothing at all like claiming he was a conservative, which you said I did.
Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, I feel rather bad for the nice Christians I know, to have the lovely parts of their religion, like charity and caring for the poor and downtrodden totally ignored for the most part, in favor of wedge issues like abortion.
Yeah, very much so.
I must be reading this quote wrong. It appears to me, to be you drawing a conclusion about something this person isn't, based on a book on his list. I don't think that list can reasonably be used as evidence of his NOT being something, any more than it can be used as evidence of his BEING something. But I must be reading it wrong, as I'm used to you being right a lot, and you're very insistent on this point. So I must be overtired and reading it wrong.
Oh, I just had a total lightbulb moment! I see how you were reading my initial statement, compared to how I intended it to be read. I meant that there was no proof he was much of anything, but didn't spell that out and just said he wasn't liberal. Poor phrasing on my part.
You aren't seriously comparing quoting the movie The Untouchables in reference to a hard-fought election campaign to people threatening armed resistance or "second amendment remedies" to laws they dislike, are you? That's a dishonest argument.
No he actually said that. Maybe you should take up these threatening inciteful comments with the head of the Democratic party?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.
If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.
This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.
He's a mixed bag of nuts.
It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.
Connor McKane wrote:I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election.
I lol'd - I truly did, as a matter of fact I can barley see the screen through the tears of laughter in my eyes...
Connor, I'm about as conservative as they come and let me say, you represent everything wrong with politics in this country.
Connor McKane wrote:I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true
No, that's not what you said. You said that Democrats only know double standards, double standards are not based on lying.
Please make at least an ephemeral attempt to recall your own words.
That, or stop trolling.
Connor McKane wrote:
First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses...
The masses don't know what logic is, and I suspect that to be inclusive of you.
For example, you've just committed an existential fallacy.
Connor McKane wrote:
I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.
I think for the sake of sanity this thread needs a good closure cause I've seen more moderator warnings on a non-locked thread than any in recent memory.
Even veteran posters are getting dragged into a war of words, semantics, and defensive arguements that is not resolving any of the debates going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:All righty two more people have been given suspensions or warned. Again. Politeness is being enforced on this thread.
That looks less threatening without red color tags around the announcement.
mattyrm wrote:Hey a mod called me a self confessed loudmouth who frequently posts drunk, and I didnt get upset.
Well... maybe because I am and I do. But thats not the point.
It wasnt a rebuttal of what i think is a demonstrably good point, nations with better gun controls wind up with less people getting shot!
Why would you get upset, sounds like a complement to me!
Again, the easy rebuttal is Mexico. Strong gun controls = 30,000 people murdered last year.
US crime rates have been going down at the same time gun law restrictions are being reduced...
mattyrm wrote:Hey a mod called me a self confessed loudmouth who frequently posts drunk, and I didnt get upset.
Well... maybe because I am and I do. But thats not the point.
It wasnt a rebuttal of what i think is a demonstrably good point, nations with better gun controls wind up with less people getting shot!
Why would you get upset, sounds like a complement to me!
Again, the easy rebuttal is Mexico. Strong gun controls = 30,000 people murdered last year.
US crime rates have been going down at the same time gun law restrictions are being reduced...
To be fair Frazzled, Mexico is not an island of stability. Keep in mind that Mexico's government also decided to declare war on drugs, which has caused those numbers to rise dramatically as well as the proportion of bodies with heads to bodies without heads ratio.
Good points WarOne (and your avatar freaks me out)
Additioinally, yes I think it might be prudent to shut down. We have the usual ancillary topics of gun control, lefty/righty EEEVIL! and of course Weiner Dogs Are Bestest Dogs! posts so it will be a good time to shut down.
In summation:
*Our prayers to the victims and their families in this time.
wow 
For being "the greatest country in the world", there are some things that are sadly behind the times, like health care. None of these Tea-baggers seem to care that our infant mortality rates are close to those in Africa, among the worst in the world. Sadly ironic that for as many of them are creationists, they seem to think that the concept of "the weak will perish, the strong survive" works...
