US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot (other persons killed or injured)

EastTexas

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy

met·a·phor noun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare


I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.


In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.
Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Source?

Search Engines aren't that difficult to operate.

"Loughner, 22, who is in law enforcement custody, lives near the scene of the shooting, "

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/09/132780313/sheriff-accused-shooter-unhinged-made-threats

"and lived with his parents there in a quiet, working-class neighbourhood of ranch homes. "

http://www.news.com.au/world/brave-new-world-of-a-deranged-killer-lee-loughner/story-e6frfkyi-1225984679109

Why the quotes?

Perhaps EastTexas doesn't support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare? Do the semantics really matter?

You see, this is not what happened.

He went up to her and shot her in the head. First. She was the target. End of.

Then, due to the easily seen fact that he is disturbed, his assassination attempt was then extended to those in the vicinity. He had no intention of killing other people other than Gabbie Gifford, but his unsound mind meant this was the outcome in the end.

A theory with no empirical evidence.

No no no.

He specifically went up to Giffords and shot her at point blank range. First. That is targeted and methodical.

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

Which is it? He's either targeted and methodical or he's a disturbed lunatic. I'm not sure you appreciate that Rationale does not appear to function correctly in those that have been driven to Homicide or Suicide. And that works both ways, making any absolutes at this point an impossibility.

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

Unless you have sources of this, it's Conjecture. I'll await the Investigation to make those conclusions and publish them.

Planning something else? Are you serious??

He went up to her and shot her at point blank range. In The Head. First.

The Sheriff's Office do not believe he was acting alone. It's entirely plausible.

“We are not convinced he acted alone. There is some reason to believe he came to this location with another individual.”

They have concluded she is the primary target but hardly seem convinced she was the only target. No matter how many times we hear she was shot at point blank.

kaiser sauze

EastTexas wrote: »

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy
met·a·phornoun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare


I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.


In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.
Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

We don't need you to insult our intelligence by posting up what a metaphor means. The debate is, at least, partially focused on those who are unable to interpret the imagery & rhetoric for what it is.

No one here, not even me, is saying that TeaParty/Republican groups were calling for, or are delighting in, action like this.

To the part highlighted in red, you need to watch the video here.
Almost a year ago, she was calling out people like those that I have been describing. It is a big problem in The US and you need to face up to that.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

A theory with no empirical evidence.

A theory, absolutely, but one that is hard to refute with the known evidence.

Overheal wrote: »

Which is it? He's either targeted and methodical or he's a disturbed lunatic.

He targeted Gifford, after that all bets were off.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure you appreciate that Rationale does not appear to function correctly in those that have been driven to Homicide or Suicide. And that works both ways, making any absolutes at this point an impossibility.

Yes, that is why we are debating theories, but with substantive background evidence, none of which is obscure.

Overheal wrote: »

Unless you have sources of this, it's Conjecture. I'll await the Investigation to make those conclusions and publish them.

Yes, the investigation will clear all these theories up, but that depends on whether he ever talks.

Overheal wrote: »

The Sheriff's Office do not believe he was acting alone. It's entirely plausible.

“We are not convinced he acted alone. There is some reason to believe he came to this location with another individual.”

They have concluded she is the primary target but hardly seem convinced she was the only target. No matter how many times we hear she was shot at point blank.

The person being looked for is not currently being sought as an accomplice, he is a person of interest.

I find it incredulous that people are unable to take the not so huge leap from a politician gets shot at point blank range in a targeted manner as being the "primary target".

Overheal

EastTexas wrote: »

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy
met·a·phornoun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare


I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.

"Put away for a rainy day" has nothing to do with violence. "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel" besides having never heard this expression you're trying to throw a Red Herring at the issue. Was "Don't Retreat, Reload" ever used in the Political Sphere before Ms. Palin implemented it? Was it ever addressed at an audience of angry, outspoken pro-gun constituents? And was it ever coupled with a Crosshair map of Representatives to be removed from office?

In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Palin used Mind Control or deliberate persuasion to get Fringe Lunatics angry enough to go out and murder these people. What they do believe is that Sarah Palin recklessly used the Metaphor in a way which can too easily be taken out of context.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.

I don't hate Ms. Palin as a person, I hate her as a Politician, where she is completely unfit to hold office. And she did, fortunately, break under onslaught, resigned, and is now taking the opportunity to rake in millions from sympathetic wallets. Good for her. But she has not stayed out of Politics. She's not retreating after all, she's just reloading.

Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Palin isn't very hateful herself, no. Just a bit of an oaf. And the media did come out and resist her, thankfully, because again she is not fit for public office. I hope they continue to dissuade her from doing so.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

There have always been the Lunatic Fringe and if you recall, when GWB was in power many called for his Torture, Hanging, Execution, Assassination, etc. for the crimes he had committed. It was all out there on the internet if you were tuned into it. But there was never anything in the Mainstream to signal to the deranged that it was now the time to take such action. Characters like Jon Stewart Actually have a downplaying effect on acts of violence. It's easier to lampoon the guy knowing he would be out of office before long. To just sit back and mock him.

But the right is not so happy to sit around. They'll fire off jokes at the Democrats but they aren't happy with doing just that. They use the mainstream (not just the wild internet) to proclaim the government is a Regime, that the country is being destroyed all around us. Bla bla bla. I wasn't around to watch TV in the US during the Bush years, did the Left act like the world was coming to an end? The hate and fear mongering machine on the Right is clearly dangerous. Push people too far and they will panic, and they wont wait for a ballot box.

tricky D

GreenMantis wrote: »

I can't say if that is a photoshop or not...it is being reported here in the US as well though.

Defo not a PhotoShop. A quick search using date ranges in Google backs this up.

Overheal

Whats not a photoshop?

The person being looked for is not currently being sought as an accomplice, he is a person of interest.

That merely seems like semantics.

I find it incredulous that people are unable to take the not so huge leap from a politician gets shot at point blank range in a targeted manner as being the "primary target".

I had already agreed she was. You seem to be arguing she was the Only target. That is premature.

EastTexas

Manic Moran wrote: »

Any normal person is generally aware that going around shooting people, even in a country with good access to firearms, is somewhat illegal and rather frowned upon. Those that do so generally don't need a lot of incitement.

NTM

Well put and I would actually go further than that.
That those around fire arms and used to handling them regularly are even more aware of the potential danger they represent if mishandled.
My father taught me from the age of ten but never permitted me handle a fire arm sans supervision until I was 16 and not after extensive vetting and testing of my responsibility with it.
It’s like your dad teaching you how to drive a car.

Cars can kill too.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

Whats not a photoshop?

Not a Photoshop: The rally held by her opponent for 2010 where M-16(gun) was mentioned in the ad.

That merely seems like semantics.

True, but there is a difference in investigative terms.

I had already agreed she was. You seem to be arguing she was the Only target. That is premature.

I read your post wrong at that point. Apologies.

I believe that she was the only target when he went to her CotC, but whether what happened after that was planned or unplanned is not known yet. I am putting forward my considered opinion that it was the latter.

steelcityblues

Word of note to kaisersauze and a few others:

I remember when I was over in America in late 2002 - the story dominating the news was that of the infamous DC sniper - later to be identified as John Allen Muhammad, who was on his shooting spree.

Several leading commentators/politicians/reporters all lined up to speculate that he must have been a right-wing militia type, at boiling point with the US government. When it later emerged he was a radical islamist, once associated with the Nation, the same 'experts' were left from serious egg on their faces.

In short, stop endlessley speculating in this thread about an unfortunate incident just to suit your political narrative.

karma_

steelcityblues wrote: »

Word of note to kaisersauze and a few others:

I remember when I was over in America in late 2002 - the story dominating the news was that of the infamous DC sniper - later to be identified as John Allen Muhammad, who was on his shooting spree.

Several leading commentators/politicians/reporters all lined up to speculate that he must have been a right-wing militia type, at boiling point with the US government. When it later emerged he was a radical islamist, once associated with the Nation, the same 'experts' were left from serious egg on their faces.

In short, stop endlessley speculating in this thread about an unfortunate incident just to suit your political narrative.

I was living in the US at the time of the DC sniper (In Virginia) and I recall no one in the media stating anything about him being a right-wing nut. I believe you are mistaken in this assertion.

EastTexas

@ Overheal
I get your point but don’t share your opinion.
Remembering very well the bogus outrage of her using a perfectly common metaphor.
You can’t just arbitrarily attach more weight to a saying just because of who said it and read dark intentions into that.
If that where so, we’d have to start the thought police which is not likely in a country with such unfettered freedom of free speech.
Heck we don’t even hold the KKK to that standard.

I also don’t get why people keep talking about her and fear her as a politician.
She is neither a politician anymore, nor will she ever hold office again.
That’s bordering on unfounded paranoia ( not addressed to you)
But I digress.

The point is you can’t fight hate (even if it’s only imaginary) with more hate.
Moreover the majority of hate emits from those hating Palin.
At this point bordering on pathological proportion.

But the overarching issue is that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
Even the alleged shooter is referred to as alleged.
But for some reason again only when it comes to Palin, those rules no longer apply and many feel its perfectly Ok to blame ( convict) her pointblank as the cause/ root of the shooting.

That’s just blind hypocrisy perpetrated by the very people who constantly claim to be so much smarter than her.
See what I’m getting at.
Anyway, this is not a Palin thread, so I’ll hold my peace.

EastTexas

steelcityblues wrote: »

Word of note to kaisersauze and a few others:

I remember when I was over in America in late 2002 - the story dominating the news was that of the infamous DC sniper - later to be identified as John Allen Muhammad, who was on his shooting spree.

Several leading commentators/politicians/reporters all lined up to speculate that he must have been a right-wing militia type, at boiling point with the US government. When it later emerged he was a radical islamist, once associated with the Nation, the same 'experts' were left from serious egg on their faces.

In short, stop endlessley speculating in this thread about an unfortunate incident just to suit your political narrative.

I also remember that and the occasional references to Timothy McVeigh before facts eventually quelled speculation.

steelcityblues

This web entry does a thorough job of explaining how the mainstream media majorally screwed up on the reporting of Muhammad at the time.

Selected quotes: "Instead, the networks either avoided offering a description of either man or labeled John Allen Mohammad a “Gulf War veteran” and only implied that his sidekick, John Lee Malvo, was not a U.S. citizen by calling him “a Jamaican,” a “Jamaica native” or referred to how he’s “from Jamaica.”

"None of the broadcast network shows, nor CNN from what I saw, ever explored a religious motive behind the shootings (CBS’s Vince Gonzales specifically noted that “authorities say religion was not a motive” for Muhammad), or suggested an INS foul-up allowed it to occur by failing to deport Malvo."

"When a guest on CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams on Thursday night had the temerity to raise how Muhammad belonged to the “bigoted” Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan who “has called white people devils and has criticized the United States” and suggested that “this kind of rhetoric can label regular Americans as legitimate targets for violence when you have someone who is a festering ball of anger," Williams wanted to know: "Let me ask you how much you factor in Gulf War experience in this kind of thing?"

here in full:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021025.asp

Nodin

steelcityblues wrote: »

This web entry does a thorough job of explaining how the mainstream media majorally screwed up on,,,,,,,,,,,,

,....or, more properly, does a thorough job of slagging everyone off point by point for not doing it how he would have done it.

steelcityblues

Nodin wrote: »

,....or, more properly, does a thorough job of slagging everyone off point by point for not doing it how he would have done it.

Difference is the writer of that study is honest about his politics - while the news organisations and presenters for the most part were delibarately misleading on the story.

Nodin

steelcityblues wrote: »

Difference is the writer of that study is honest about his politics - while the news organisations and presenters for the most part were delibarately misleading on the story.

Nope. And in fact the misrepresentation of that seems to be a key part of some peoples idea of politics.

We seem to be heading off-topic.

kaiser sauze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0

Joyce Kaufman, talk radio host from Florida based station and former Chief of Staff to Allen West(!).

kaiser sauze

Another foreign paper calling it like it is:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/anger-hatred-bigotry-20110109-19jy0.html

Although the gunman's motives were unclear, video postings allegedly made by Mr Loughner on YouTube indicated an incoherent mind. He speaks of dreaming and a ''new currency'', while expressing anti-government sentiments.

kaiser sauze

The person of interest is now being reported as Jared's taxi driver and has been cleared.

Link

Police had released a photograph of a second man they wanted to question, but Pima County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Ogan said the man had been cleared of any involvement - he was a cab driver who drove the gunman to the grocery store.

Mr Ogan said the man had gone into the store because the gunman apparently had not paid his fare, the Associated Press news agency reported.

kaiser sauze

Despicable.

"The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this," he wrote. Clinton used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to "blame conservative talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh" and "The tactic worked then, backing conservatives off and possibly helping to ensure a second Clinton term."

"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words," he wrote.

TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains.

^This link requires registration.

Wait for "liberal lunatic" meme to become the words on Fox and talk radio.

kaiser sauze

Oh, they're (Fox) doing it from an obtuse angle, talking about Weather Underground!

mgmt

After the shooting, investigators searched a safe connected to the shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, and found a letter apparently sent to him by Ms. Giffords's office thanking him for previously attending a similar "Congress on your corner" event in 2007.

Much remains unknown about what motivated Mr. Loughner, who is in custody. But the initial evidence, including the constituent letter, has led law enforcement officials to think that the suspect had been thinking about the congresswoman for years, according to people familiar with the case.

Investigators also found paper on which the suspect apparently wrote the word "assassination" and "I planned ahead." The meaning or significance of that writing isn't clear.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704482704576072020422761968.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

9-11 call

http://twaud.io/qZW1

seaner

The fact that Ms Palin and her associates decided to use a graphic with crosshairs is disgusting and to be fair they and she should be held accountable to the actions that happened of late. Regardless of his mental state, dont you think they in some way he would be influenced by mainstream politics. They are using horrible, nasty tactics to get across their message and then when someone acts out they say, oh no, we're not accountable for someone who's mentally unstable.
I say, you put up a graphic like that, you'll influence those, mentally stable or not.

Its ridiculous how far people and politics will go to in the US. It doesn't help that anyone and their mother can legally own a weapon. What the hell are we coming to? Its not like this in Ireland but by God, we look to the US for alot and I only hope we can draw a line on their stance on owning weapons.


Palin is a god damn idiot who should be straight jacketed. Seriously, how people manage to think she's a message and want to follow, emulate her? Its almost laughable. How?

I'm not big into US polictics but how can a healthcare system that claims to cater for all be so wrong? It works in the UK. It works in australia. Why such a big deal in the US? Please someone tell me.

kaiser sauze

seaner wrote: »

The fact that Ms Palin and her associates decided to use a graphic with crosshairs is disgusting and to be fair they and she should be held accountable to the actions that happened of late. Regardless of his mental state, dont you think they in some way he would be influenced by mainstream politics. They are using horrible, nasty tactics to get across their message and then when someone acts out they say, oh no, we're not accountable for someone who's mentally unstable.
I say, you put up a graphic like that, you'll influence those, mentally stable or not.

Its ridiculous how far people and politics will go to in the US. It doesn't help that anyone and their mother can legally own a weapon. What the hell are we coming to? Its not like this in Ireland but by God, we look to the US for alot and I only hope we can draw a line on their stance on owning weapons.


Palin is a god damn idiot who should be straight jacketed. Seriously, how people manage to think she's a message and want to follow, emulate her? Its almost laughable. How?

I'm not big into US polictics but how can a healthcare system that claims to cater for all be so wrong? It works in the UK. It works in australia. Why such a big deal in the US? Please someone tell me.

About Palin: agreed.

About health reform, that is something I could not sum up easily for you. There is a deep rooted mistrust of government in The US and there is a media led perception that it is universally inefficient and incapable of delivering the service. This despite the fact that medicare has a 4% admin cost and private insurance has 30%.

The pro-private side just parrot the meme that they "have the best healthcare in the world"-which is false-and offer no solutions to the 40million uninsured who are leeching from those who are paying. In short, they are trying their damndest to protect the massive profits they make on a yearly basis and The Republicans are only too happy to listen to their paymasters.

GuanYin

Confirmed that Giffords was the target. No doubt about that now the FBI have confirmed it. A letter was found in a safe in Loughner's home with "My assasination", "I planned ahead" and "Giffords" written on it.

Interesting that he lived "close" to the Safeway but got a taxi there.

kaiser sauze

GuanYin wrote: »

Confirmed that Giffords was the target. No doubt about that now the FBI have confirmed it. A letter was found in a safe in Loughner's home with "My assasination", "I planned ahead" and "Giffords" written on it.

Interesting that he lived "close" to the Safeway but got a taxi there.

Yes, I remarked on that also.

He does not look like the type of guy who couldn't manage a walk, nor does he look like someone who only ate BigMacs.

mgmt

GuanYin wrote: »

Confirmed that Giffords was the target. No doubt about that now the FBI have confirmed it. A letter was found in a safe in Loughner's home with "My assasination", "I planned ahead" and "Giffords" written on it.

Interesting that he lived "close" to the Safeway but got a taxi there.

Probably didn't want to walk about with guns, magazines on him.

BTW Rep Gifford is subsribed to Jared Loughners youtube page. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

Stheno

mgmt wrote: »

Probably didn't want to walk about with guns, magazines on him.

BTW Rep Gifford is subsribed to Jared Loughners youtube page. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2

Probably from the time he met her in 2007 when she sent him a letter of thanks for attending a different CotC?

Good to see that she appears to be making the best progress possible and that the other injured victims have had their status downgraded from critical/or discharged.

mgmt

Stheno wrote: »

Probably from the time he met her in 2007 when she sent him a letter of thanks for attending a different CotC?

Good to see that she appears to be making the best progress possible and that the other injured victims have had their status downgraded from critical/or discharged.

No his site was only activated in October 2010. More likely to be some rubbernecking staffer who accidentally hit the subscribe button.

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

Word of note to kaisersauze and a few others:

I remember when I was over in America in late 2002 - the story dominating the news was that of the infamous DC sniper - later to be identified as John Allen Muhammad, who was on his shooting spree.

Several leading commentators/politicians/reporters all lined up to speculate that he must have been a right-wing militia type, at boiling point with the US government. When it later emerged he was a radical islamist, once associated with the Nation, the same 'experts' were left from serious egg on their faces.

In short, stop endlessley speculating in this thread about an unfortunate incident just to suit your political narrative.

Really? Any source for this?

What you posted next when someone else asked you for proof was anything but evidence of your actual claim.

I remember the general sense being that their was a mad man on the lose, a serial killer.

Stheno

mgmt wrote: »

No his site was only activated in October 2010. More likely to be some rubbernecking staffer who accidentally hit the subscribe button.

Ah didn't know that thanks

Imagine having the job of keeping up to date with the online activities of supporters/CotC attendees!

Exile 1798

WASHINGTON -- Some of the most pointed comments in the wake of Saturday's tragic shooting in Arizona regarding the dangers of vitriolic political discourse have come from Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who said his state has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." As a consequence of speaking out, Dupnik is now coming under attack, with a talk radio host even calling for his resignation.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," said Dupnik at a press conference Saturday. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

In an interview with CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Dupnik's comments were inappropriate and nothing more than "speculation."

"First, I didn't really think that that had any part in a law enforcement briefing last night. It was speculation. I don't think we should rush to speculate. I thought that the report that we just saw from Tucson seems to have it about right: We really don't know what motivated this young person except to know he was very mentally unstable as was pointed out in the piece. It's probably giving him too much credit to ascribe a coherent political philosophy to him. We just have to acknowledge that there are mentally unstable people in this country. Who knows what motivates them to do what they do? Then they commit terrible crimes like this. I would just note Gabrielle Giffords, a fine representative from Tucson, I think would be the first to say don't rush to judgment here."

That's true.

It's also wrong to ascribe a coherent political philosophy to your average Rush listener, Beck watcher, Palin lover. A very large segment of the "Conservative" base can't be defined by Conservatism, but rather by their demented hatreds, their confused thinking and yes for a significant minority of them, their mental illness.

In a press conference Sunday, Dupnik stood by his remarks about dangerous political rhetoric. When asked about his comments from the day before, he replied, "I think that when the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has impact on people especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with."

Dupnik also had harsh words on his state's gun laws, which allow individuals to carry concealed weapons without a permit. (Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation into law in April.)

"Well, I think we're the tombstone of the United States of America," he said, adding, "I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that's almost where we are."

Wonder what the response from the Tea Party hate Coalition will be? More hate, off course.

The Atlantic reports that Tea Party Nation, led by Judson Phillips, is joining in the criticism: "TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail 'The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement,' described the shooter as 'a leftist lunatic' and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a 'leftist sheriff' who 'was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack.' Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/clarence-dupnik-arizona-sheriff_n_806440.html

Manic Moran

For sure, it would be more sensitive if she came out and admitted that the poster was insensitive and she publicly stated that acting literally on her words is unacceptable.

OR

She could simply tone the fúcking crap down.

Utter BS.

You are so consumed with your hatred of the opposition that you are not realising the daft lengths you're attempting to go to to link anything which could possibly be turned to look bad. The exact same affliction you're accusing the opposition of having. (Which they have, in fairness). And precisely the sort of hatred that the Sherrif mentioned.

Of course there are crosshairs, what better symbol can be used to get the point across? Are you seriously going to tell me that no Democrat candidate ever used the phrase 'We have our sights set on' or 'we are targetting'? There lots of symbology and phrases in common usage in the English language which are based upon firearms. If a candidate for Senate shoots a rifle in a TV advert at a piece of legislation proposed by Obama, are you going to suggest that it is a metaphor for advocating his assasination? What if the candidate were a Tea Partier?

It is not a photoshop.

I don't even know why it's an issue. I'm quite happy to accept it's not a photoshop, they're called 'Machinegun Socials' and they're not uncommon. This is a country where some car dealers give out semi-auto AK-47s with every car, of course politicians are going to host events which relate to things that their prospective electors are going to be interested in, and that includes shooting events. Due to the restrictions of the law, full-auto or select-fire weapons are rare and expensive, so there is quite an appeal to such events. Such things are quite popular with tourists as well, as it happens.

NTM

Einhard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter BS.

You are so consumed with your hatred of the opposition that you are not realising the daft lengths you're attempting to go to to link anything which could possibly be turned to look bad. The exact same affliction you're accusing the opposition of having. (Which they have, in fairness). And precisely the sort of hatred that the Sherrif mentioned.

Of course there are crosshairs, what better symbol can be used to get the point across? Are you seriously going to tell me that no Democrat candidate ever used the phrase 'We have our sights set on' or 'we are targetting'? There lots of symbology and phrases in common usage in the English language which are based upon firearms. If a candidate for Senate shoots a rifle in a TV advert at a piece of legislation proposed by Obama, are you going to suggest that it is a metaphor for advocating his assasination? What if the candidate were a Republican?



I don't even know why it's an issue. I'm quite happy to accept it's not a photoshop, they're called 'Machinegun Socials' and they're not uncommon. This is a country where some car dealers give out semi-auto AK-47s with every car, of course politicians are going to host events which relate to things that their prospective electors are going to be interested in, and that includes shooting events. Due to the restrictions of the law, full-auto or select-fire weapons are rare and expensive, so there is quite an appeal to such events. Such things are quite popular with tourists as well, as it happens.

NTM

Manic, I'm not going to blame Palin for this shooting. The guy was obviously deranged. But you have to be living under a rock not to notice that the level of political discourse in America has reached new levels of divisiveness and vitriol, and much of it is spread by extreme rightwing groups on the fringe of the Republican party. The GOP used to be a big tent movement, but increasingly moderates are being squeezed out. Twenty years ago, I would most likely have identified as a Regan Republican, but now I look at the GOP and I shudder.

There was an excellent article by Andrew Sullivan in today's Sunday Times, where he described how the Republican governor of Indiana, a man with impeccable Conservative credentials, has been shunned by fellow Republicans for the heresy of suggesting some tax increases. One prominent Conservative opinion maker wrote that the only explanation for such a sugggestion from a Republican must be crystal meth addiction! It's just another example of how tightly focused and intolerant the Republican ideology has become.

What's worrying though is not that Republicans ostracise their own members who advocate once acceptable views now considered beyond the pale, but that such people as hold contrary views are treated as the enemy. Thus, at a McCain rally in the election, supporters were heard to chant for Obama's death. Thus there's been a surge in militia activity in the past two years. Thus Gifford's offices were attacked last year, and several democratic congresspeople received threats, and had their offices and homes vandalised. IIRC, bullets were sent to some of those who voted for healthcare reform.

The political scene in America has become poisonous, and whilst Democrats are not saints by any means, the violent vitriol and intolerance seems to be mostly espoused by Republicans. Before Christmas, several prominent GOP members of Congress stated quite baldly that their legislative priority was not economic growth or success in Afghanistan, but rather denying Obama a second term, and thus all their efforts would be focused on obstructing initiatives and hindering, rather than being part of governance. That was both a shocking and a telling admission, and one that is borne out by the fact that there have been more filibusters since Obama came to office than at any other time in American history. And, IMO, it's another sign of Republican intransigence and intolerance. It's noteworthy that the Democrats never set their stall out in such a way under Bush.

That's quite a shocking indictment, I think, of Republican thinking at the moment. They seem consumed by a hatred of those who disagree with them. Not all republicans by any means, not even a majority. But even the moderates are increasingly drifting to the right in order to protect their flanks from the Tea Party, and thus the party becomes less tolerant as it panders to the vocal and extreme minority. As I think is clear from my posts in Politics and elsewhere, I'm not the Irish equivalent of a West coast liberal by any means, but I have a major concern over the direction the GOP is taking, and what that means for American politics, and indeed America in general. And I think it says a lot that, regardless of the motivations of the gunman, few people were altogether surprised at this assassination attempt.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter BS.

You think that the campaigns, the rhetoric, the speeches, the rallies, the documented violence are all OK and perfectly acceptable?

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are so consumed with your hatred of the opposition that you are not realising the daft lengths you're attempting to go to to link anything which could possibly be turned to look bad.

I don't have to go to any lengths, that's what the issue is; it is unfortunate you are afraid to see this for what it is.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The exact same affliction you're accusing the opposition of having. (Which they have, in fairness).

You have examples of me threatening people in the same manner as The Tea Party/Republican led groups have been?

Manic Moran wrote: »

And precisely the sort of hatred that the Sherrif mentioned.

I resent being compared in any way to the hatemongers of those on the right wing. I think you're just trying to rile me up to saying something that you can report.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course there are crosshairs, what better symbol can be used to get the point across? Are you seriously going to tell me that no Democrat candidate ever used the phrase 'We have our sights set on' or 'we are targetting'?

I'm not going to try, nor have I ever tried, to say that Democrats have not used bad imagery or the phrases you mentioned.

I would like to see examples all the same?

Manic Moran wrote: »

If a candidate for Senate shoots a rifle in a TV advert at a piece of legislation proposed by Obama, are you going to suggest that it is a metaphor for advocating his assasination?

It is not an explicit, no. However, I am delighted that you pointed one out that we can discuss.

Are you trying to say to me that there are not mentally unsound people who would view an ad such as the one you describe and actually act out, literally, what the ad alludes to? This is what we are discussing!

Manic Moran wrote: »

What if the candidate were a Tea Partier?

If you are asking here would it be OK for a Democrat to use the same ad and shoot at Tea Party legislation?

Absolutely not! I am not advocating that The Democrats either stoop to the level of the Tea Party/Republicans nor saying that it is acceptable for them when I say it is unacceptable for TP/R.

Yeah, I'm blinded by hatred. :rolleyes:

mgmt

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/jared-loughners-behavior-recor.html

Manic Moran

But you have to be living under a rock not to notice that the level of political discourse in America has reached new levels of divisiveness and vitriol, and much of it is spread by extreme rightwing groups on the fringe of the Republican party.

You are quite correct. But you would similarly have to be living under a rock not to see that it's coming from both sides. I spend as much time on DemocraticUnderground as I do FreeRepublic (Though honestly, not really much time on either), and other than the perspectives, there's little difference between the levels of sheer hatred exhibited by a vocal amount of the population.

You think that the campaigns, the rhetoric, the speeches, the rallies, the documented violence are all OK and perfectly acceptable?

No. I think that attempting to make extremely long reaches to 'prove' your point of the extremism of the opposition is unacceptable as well, though.

I resent being compared in any way to the hatemongers of those on the right wing. I think you're just trying to rile me up to saying something that you can report

And I resent the implication that you think I am unable to argue my point and must rely on moderator interaction to aid me. (And moderators won't argue my point in such an event anyway). I have never on my time here been anything but civil, and such an act would be entirely out of character for me. Hey, maybe your attempt to discredit my argument style is in fact simply your way of diverting the discussion from the argument.

Are you trying to say to me that there are not mentally unsound people who would view an ad such as the one you describe and actually act out, literally, what the ad alludes to? This is what we are discussing!

There are mentally unsound people who will go and do ridiculous acts without any incentive whatsoever. You cannot go around tiptoeing because of people who aren't following the rules to begin with.

If you are asking here would it be OK for a Democrat to use the same ad and shoot at Tea Party legislation?

For the record, the advert in question had a Democrat (Joe Machin) doing the shooting.

Absolutely not! I am not advocating that The Democrats either stoop to the level of the Tea Party/Republicans nor saying that it is acceptable for them when I say it is unacceptable for TP/R.

Which is why we seem to have this level of disagreement. You seem unable to accept that metaphors and events based upon firearms are normal, routine, and acceptable in the US. They are not meant to be taken as subliminal instructions to go shoot people.

Is there vitriol coming from the right? Absolutely. Is the 'crosshairs advert' or the machinegun social an example of such? Absolutely not, and it's utterly ridiculous to claim they are or are related.

NTM

Stheno

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there vitriol coming from the right? Absolutely. Is the 'crosshairs advert' or the machinegun social an example of such? Absolutely not, and it's utterly ridiculous to claim they are or are related.

NTM

Well said, I wonder at the level of anger that politics appear to inspire in people in the US, which is then applied as justification for the actions of one individual as appears to be the case in this latest shooting.

If only the Americans could protest as the French can perhaps? US Politics have always seemed to me to be very one way you are either democrat or republican and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Recently it appears (more so on the republican side) that a hard core has emerged which has threatened that.

What's completely lost in this debate which started out as a post on the shootings is that innocent people and children have lost their lives, and almost a dozen are injured in a way that will never allow them to forget the event , regardless of the politicial impetus/belief that caused it, if indeed that is what caused it.

To me that's the most important thing here, yes it's one thing to follow politics and learn all that it's about, but the lack of concern or updates on the people is disturbing.

One wonders if the same happened here if the debate would turn into who did it, and why as opposed to how did it happen, and sadly I suspect it would.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are quite correct. But you would similarly have to be living under a rock not to see that it's coming from both sides. I spend as much time on DemocraticUnderground as I do FreeRepublic (Though honestly, not really much time on either), and other than the perspectives, there's little difference between the levels of sheer hatred exhibited by a vocal amount of the population.

Acting obtuse I see.

We all know autonomous people say outrageous things on the internet. There was one on here the other day calling himself white1awake. That's hardly here nor there.

The issue is the Right Wing media axis which includes hundreds of talk radio hosts and an entire TV network pumping out a constant stream of bile and viciousness. The second part of this problem is the Republican politicians who make ugly and inflammatory statements that serve to mainstream and legitimise such demagoguery.

There is no Democratic aligned equivalent to Fox and no Liberal Limbaugh. To pretend there is is a blatant and rather pathetic false equivalence. It's not a recent development either, the Clinton era brought out the same ugliness. It's no coincidence that acts of violence and threats of violence surge under Democratic President's and recede under a Republican. The nuts come in and go out according to this tide of bile.

Overheal

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Acting obtuse I see.

We all know autonomous people say outrageous things on the internet. There was one on here the other day calling himself white1awake. That's hardly here nor there.

The issue is the Right Wing media axis which includes hundreds of talk radio hosts and an entire TV network pumping out a constant stream of bile and viciousness. The second part of this problem is the Republican politicians who make ugly and inflammatory statements that serve to mainstream and legitimise such demagoguery.

There is no Democratic aligned equivalent to Fox and no Liberal Limbaugh. To pretend there is is a blatant and rather pathetic false equivalence. It's not a recent development either, the Clinton era brought out the same ugliness. It's no coincidence that acts of violence and threats of violence surge under Democratic President's and recede under a Republican. The nuts come in and go out according to this tide of bile.

One of the points I believe that was made however is that on the Internet, none of that matters: all sides are culpable. How much time do youth spend watching TV these days? In the 90s the statistics would have been staggering. Nowadays theres much more of a shift away from television and into Online pursuits. Frankly, Radio and Television are not where young, and rash and violent people, get most of their data from. Im ready to believe that the shooter came across some Palinesque rhetoric online, in a bad light, and ran away with the idea. As you said we've seen some strange people pop up in this forum. Remember that one guy who had his own blog and tried briefly to prove that Obama was a Commumuslim or something to that effect? You only have to look at some of the extremist blogs out there, they attract extreme people. The Westboro Baptist Church for example, even they have an audience, even if it is a small one.

the Right Wing Media Axis is not the problem, though it is a problem.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course there are crosshairs, what better symbol can be used to get the point across? Are you seriously going to tell me that no Democrat candidate ever used the phrase 'We have our sights set on' or 'we are targetting'? There lots of symbology and phrases in common usage in the English language which are based upon firearms. If a candidate for Senate shoots a rifle in a TV advert at a piece of legislation proposed by Obama, are you going to suggest that it is a metaphor for advocating his assasination? What if the candidate were a Tea Partier?

I agree with this. And off-course I don't think Palin had any murderous intentions.

However, "don't retreat, RELOAD!" is an odd phrase, not at all common, especially in the context it was used. A poor choice of words that bares out her stupidity. In politics stupidity can be dangerous.

BluePlanet

If Palin's website was perfectly normal and acceptable then why would she take it down?

I read from the guardian i think, that the shooter used a 30 round extended clip, a type that was banned by the Clinton admin, but the ban was let lapse by the Bush admin.
The shooter was tackled to the ground after he emptied his clip and was attempting to reload.
If that ban was inplace today, it's possible more people could be alive and well today.

Bruthal

BluePlanet wrote: »

If Palin's website was perfectly normal and acceptable then why would she take it down?

She took it down because it was not appropriate in the shocking and completely unforseen circumstances which arose.
When the twin towers fell, films and movies depicting anything to do with disasters or the towers themselves were put on hold, were these films unacceptable? No, but it would of been seen as inappropriate in those same unforseen circumstances.

I read from the guardian i think, that the shooter used a 30 round extended clip, a type that was banned by the Clinton admin, but the ban was let lapse by the Bush admin.
The shooter was tackled to the ground after he emptied his clip and was attempting to reload.
If that ban was inplace today, it's possible more people could be alive and well today.

Plenty of people were killed in other massacre`s without extended clips. If they banned guns altogether how many would be now alive? Its all if`s and but`s.

BluePlanet

robbie7730 wrote: »

She took it down because it was not appropriate in the shocking and completely unforseen circumstances which arose.

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:

robbie7730 wrote: »

Plenty of people were killed in other massacre`s without extended clips. If they banned guns altogether how many would be now alive? Its all if`s and but`s.

Probably a lot.
It isn't all if's and and but's.
It's a direct consequence of USA's laws, customs and attitudes.
They want easy access to lethal weapons, they get lethal results.

It's just a pity an innocent 9 yrd old has to be caught up in it. It's tragic that Giffords was for gun control, yet she gets shot by a nutjob who buys a gun at a local shop and loads it up with a extended clip that was banned a few years ago.

This is an American made problem. What do you think their solution will be? More security around elected officials probably.
Think they've learned any lessons about firearms and their availablity?

Bruthal

BluePlanet wrote: »

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:

I doubt palin thought that would happen to giffords. Lots more people will be shot in the future, but who and when and where is unforseen by most of us.

EastTexas

robbie7730 wrote: »

I doubt palin thought that would happen to giffords. Lots more people will be shot in the future, but who and when and where is unforseen by most of us.

IMHO too many are too eager to jump the gun with self-indulgent speculations of blame well before a clearer picture of motive emerges.

Bruthal

EastTexas wrote: »

Cars and smoking kills more people than private and legally owned firearms in the US.
Yet they are not banned, neither should they be.

I never actually said guns should be banned. But the design/intention if cigarettes and cars are not to actually kill.

In most states you also don’t have to wear a motor cycle helmet over the age of 17.
Would more people be alive if everybody where made to wear one? ..probably yes.

Not wearing a helmet will only endanger themselves

But in a free country, you have the right to be irresponsible at your own expense.
Key phrase “ own expense”
The very definition of personal responsibility.
Bureaucrats don’t get to baby-sit grown ups like domesticated sheep.

Like i said about the helmet quote above, the problem is being irresponsible with a gun is usually at other peoples expense.

Actually considering the shear amount of firearms in the US, our stats on firearm incidents many not even be so bad.
Would be interesting to see some stats on that.

It is surprising it does not happen more alright.

In the state of Texas, if someone breaks into my house with me inside and I don’t know who that is, I have the right to shoot that person on site.
Pretty simple concept/ law …Don’t break into my house.
Can’t comprehend that …at your own risk.
On a personal note, if that where to happen to me, I would not shoot to kill, prolly go for the kneecaps ….unless the perpetrator is armed, then all bets are off.

Your dead right there, i would do the exact same.

Id say if we had the same level of gun ownership here half of our drivers would be shot within a week with road rage:)

Exile 1798

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually considering the shear amount of firearms in the US, our stats on firearm incidents many not even be so bad.
Would be interesting to see some stats on that.

After Australia disarmed its population not too long ago, I recall to have seeing a statistic that armed robbery went up by over 40% and homicide with a firearm by several single percentage digits, ( cant’ recall the exact amount at the moment).

Yes, that was a dishonest and misleading NRA advertising campaign from a few years back. Seemed to convince a lot of their target audience of "Conservative" Americans, but like recent ads about the horrors of Canadian Healthcare and the NHS, it was widely lampooned in the country of concern.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Also worth noting that like the NHS and Canadian HC, the gun control measures brought into force were and remain overwhelmingly popular with the Australian public.

EastTexas wrote: »

An armed society is a polite society.
Those with ill on their minds are far less likely to break into a house to rob or hurt if there is only a remote possibility of the inhabitants being armed.

Most American's are indeed incredibly polite, and it is said the be the result of gun culture. But why does this not result in a polite politics? How is it acceptable for demagoguery to be so prevalent in an "armed society"?

EastTexas

BluePlanet wrote: »

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:


Probably a lot.
It isn't all if's and and but's.
It's a direct consequence of USA's laws, customs and attitudes.
They want easy access to lethal weapons, they get lethal results.

It's just a pity an innocent 9 yrd old has to be caught up in it. It's tragic that Giffords was for gun control, yet she gets shot by a nutjob who buys a gun at a local shop and loads it up with a extended clip that was banned a few years ago.

This is an American made problem. What do you think their solution will be? More security around elected officials probably.
Think they've learned any lessons about firearms and their availablity?

Woah flicka, you need to check the record of Mrs. Giffords.
She was never for Gun Control.
She is a long time staunch supporter of Gun Rights, the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner herself.
She is a Blue Dog Democrat (Republican leaning), a true Moderate.
Which is another reason why the political motive insinuation of party affiliation from the left makes little sense.