Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Congresswoman shot

Congresswoman shot (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Lint Police
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Whatever happened to being a quiet example?
Man do you need to take your own advice.

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Lint Police View Post
Man do you need to take your own advice.
It wasn't advice, stop looking for a fight.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 01:58 AM
 
The problem is not talk radio. Talk radio is probably the most important venue to discuss problems of the left wing coruption to light.

The real problem is Hollywood. The mentally delusional nuts are influenced by watching movies like The Matrix, etc.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
The problem is not talk radio. Talk radio is probably the most important venue to discuss problems of the left wing coruption to light.

The real problem is Hollywood. The mentally delusional nuts are influenced by watching movies like The Matrix, etc.
Your first thought I'll just dismiss as a Buckaroo-ism

Your second thought... Really? This is just an updated version of the people your grandparents age blaming the world's problems on rock and roll. How are hollywood movies (which I'm sure you will attribute to being left wing) any different than any other so-called media threat we have faced?

Also, the Matrix? Are you kidding?
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 02:39 AM
 
Oops, you're right, I goofed. It's bad when you change a sentence several times but your mind is on the another sentence.

Talk radio is probably the most important venue to discuss the corruption of the left wing liberal government.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:12 AM
 
What made it a Buckaroo-ism was not your grammar or a typo, but your usual thoughtful LIBURALS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA diatribes.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 05:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Are you talking about Doofy?

Can't goth wannabe, voodoo practicing, dope smoking independents be part of the tea party?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So the solution is to ratchet things up in complaining about one side until they have no choice but to do something?
That is exactly what all the current blame shifting has done. The other side now has to defend itself against unfair accusations. At this point, the "guilty party" in this case (the left) should have backed off since the facts show that they are dead wrong. Instead, they've doubled down.

Whatever happened to being a quiet example?
I'm not falsely accusing anyone for political gain. I'm already setting the example I seek to have put into place. Get back to me when your moral equivalency angle has some sort of logical basis.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 09:22 AM
 
As long as liberals look at the world through their "Stereotype Filters" they will still be living in a world of make believe, and still treat others as stereotypes, and characterize events along the same flawed methods. Obama did this when he blamed the 'bad ol cops' for mistreating that innocent radical professor, to the current liberal talking heads who knee-jerked the blame as inspired by right wing talk, even before much was known about the shooter.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your first thought I'll just dismiss as a Buckaroo-ism

Your second thought... Really? This is just an updated version of the people your grandparents age blaming the world's problems on rock and roll. How are hollywood movies (which I'm sure you will attribute to being left wing) any different than any other so-called media threat we have faced?

Also, the Matrix? Are you kidding?
Perhaps you are missing the left leaning editorial slant in movies being produced in the last 40 years? All you seem to see is stereotypes. Did you watch many soap operas?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Perhaps you are missing the left leaning editorial slant in movies being produced in the last 40 years? All you seem to see is stereotypes. Did you watch many soap operas?
Damn leftist Hollywood drivel:


"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
NobleMatt
formerly crazyreaper
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: York, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 12:15 PM
 
Hey really late to the party, not read what everyone else has put, but as a multinational forum i can imagine you have had people come on here and say the US needs to get strict on gun ownership like the UK.

I kind of agree but both countries have mentally unstable people (which i guess is what we're classing this guy as) and in both countries if these people really want to hurt/kill people then they will, its just a lot more common in the US due to your population and it needs to involve a gun to make national news. The only difference is that in the US its easier to get hold of a gun than it is in the UK. In the UK is you really want a gun you can get one, theres guys in London who can get you a gun in 25min with the correct contacts. I dont know if u guys have much Knife crime in the US but the media would make us believe we have lots and tbh i've witnessed it first hand.

I was setting out in this post to say that changing the US laws on gun ownership wont change anything, but im struggling to back that up, i would be interested in hearing peoples pro's for gun ownership. However changing the law now will do nothing as their is already too many guns in circulation.

I guess i didnt make any points really there but it may spark a new direction in the convocation
The Spammer Formally Known As Crazyreaper
Mac Book Pro 15", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 4GB DDR3 / iPhone 4 16GB
     
NobleMatt
formerly crazyreaper
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: York, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 12:15 PM
 
Double Post... oops
( Last edited by NobleMatt; Jan 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Double Post... oops)
The Spammer Formally Known As Crazyreaper
Mac Book Pro 15", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 4GB DDR3 / iPhone 4 16GB
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
Its not the guns but allowing idiots and nutcases to own them. Personal responsibility. Gun laws aren't obeyed by the criminals or nutcases. How about heavy restrictions on criminals and nutjobs?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its not the guns but allowing idiots and nutcases to own them. Personal responsibility. Gun laws aren't obeyed by the criminals or nutcases. How about heavy restrictions on criminals and nutjobs?
The usual argument against tighter gun control is that "if guns are criminalized, only the criminals will have guns," the assumption being that those who are committed to breaking the law anyway will be able to find guns on the black market relatively easily. I'm not sure that your garden-variety nutjob fits that dynamic. Certainly someone who simply has a mental illness, and no past criminal history/affiliation, is no more likely than you or I to have the know-how or connections to obtain a weapon illegally.

But your point is valid. There are a variety of problems with current efforts to limit the mentally ill's access to guns, outlined here:
Many Mentally Ill Aren't Blocked From Buying Guns - WSJ.com

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Certainly someone who simply has a mental illness, and no past criminal history/affiliation, is no more likely than you or I to have the know-how or connections to obtain a weapon illegally.

But your point is valid. There are a variety of problems with current efforts to limit the mentally ill's access to guns, outlined here:
Many Mentally Ill Aren't Blocked From Buying Guns - WSJ.com
That's not true at all. Anyone that has spent time in a mental facility, particularly in a forensic setting, more than likely has spent some quality time with criminals as well. The two fields have more than a bit of overlap. I can't tell you how often I see schizophrenic suburbanites get chummy with some dual diagnosis crackhead. Someone can easily make connections to help them acquire a firearm under those circumstances. They certainly manage to find drugs that way.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What made it a Buckaroo-ism was not your grammar or a typo, but your usual thoughtful LIBURALS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA diatribes.
Kind of like assuming that the shooter was in the tea party, without a shred of evidence to support it, because you are so wrapped up in the liberal v. conservative garbage?
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 02:50 PM
 
Ooo burn.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
That's not true at all. Anyone that has spent time in a mental facility, particularly in a forensic setting, more than likely has spent some quality time with criminals as well. The two fields have more than a bit of overlap. I can't tell you how often I see schizophrenic suburbanites get chummy with some dual diagnosis crackhead. Someone can easily make connections to help them acquire a firearm under those circumstances. They certainly manage to find drugs that way.
But again, Loughner was someone who had never been institutionalized. AFAIK, he wasn't even diagnosed with a mental illness, so the issue in this specific case is sort of moot. By "garden variety nutjob," I'm mostly thinking of people who have been diagnosed but not institutionalized or otherwise had their medical history entered into the judicial record (which is the vast majority, even for something like schitzophrenia).

The challenge in this area is that a diagnosed mental illness by itself isn't enough to bar a gun purchase, because of doctor-patient confidentiality. The red line is if a court has found the individual to be mentally unfit and/or has them involuntarily committed. I think the privacy concerns here probably outweigh the public safety concerns, in general.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Jan 12, 2011 at 03:16 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
Kind of like assuming that the shooter was in the tea party, without a shred of evidence to support it, because you are so wrapped up in the liberal v. conservative garbage?

*Sigh* what is your argument for my assumption not being logical?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
*Sigh*
Who are you, Salty?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:36 PM
 
Did Salty sigh a lot? All I remember was a lot of that "that being said".
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:47 PM
 
The shooter was advised to get mental health help before he'd be allowed back at his community college, so they new something wasn't right. How about the idiot Sheriff who knew about this guy but didn't do anything? now he's not allowing anyone to see the past records on him? WTF??
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
Kind of like assuming that the shooter was in the tea party, without a shred of evidence to support it, because you are so wrapped up in the liberal v. conservative garbage?
Do you have to belong to a particular group to sympathize with their ideology?
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:01 PM
 
Addressing the crosshairs, Palin's shooting wolves from a helicopter, hunting etc, what else would you believe crosshairs would mean.
Their excuse doesn't fly.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:04 PM
 
As posted previously, Arizona has the most lax gun laws.
Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? No
Registration of handguns? No
Licensing of owners of handguns? No
Permit to carry handguns? Yes
Gun Laws in Arizona - What Are the Gun Laws in Arizona?
You need a permit to carry a concealed handgun, not a holster or in view of anyone.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The shooter was advised to get mental health help before he'd be allowed back at his community college, so they new something wasn't right. How about the idiot Sheriff who knew about this guy but didn't do anything? now he's not allowing anyone to see the past records on him? WTF??
No one told law enforcement, so how would the idiot sheriff know?
It takes a court order.
     
Lint Police
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Addressing the crosshairs, Palin's shooting wolves from a helicopter, hunting etc, what else would you believe crosshairs would mean.
Their excuse doesn't fly.
my car door wouldn't shut this morning. #blamepalin

palin = alaska = cold = snow = ice = stuck car door

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:08 PM
 
I think the most important thing to take away from this is that:

crosshairs = penis
targets = vagina

Targets can't rape crosshairs, therefore they're not as bad.

I should get a youtube channel.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:13 PM
 
Right, what was her peoples response?
Give it up okay.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
*Sigh* what is your argument for my assumption not being logical?
Well, my first thought was that it was some looney with a gun, as rational people don't show up somewhere and indiscriminately start killing people. Was my assumption somehow not logical, because I don't believe everything boils down to us v. them politics? Your assumption wasn't logical because people kill other people for about a million different reasons, yet you can't see beyond the usual political bullshit. Even when the victims happen to be children and Bush appointees. Did you ever consider that it could be some far-left liberal who was pissed off that a Democratic Congresswoman was fraternizing with a Bush judge? Just as logical as your initial theory, I would think. Just as stupid, but that's what happens when you assume. I think there is even a saying about that.

Let me ask you this, if Bush had been shot while in office, and my first comment, before anything was even known, was "Oh noes, the libruls is killing our presidents", would you accept that without question? I mean, it would be logical conclusion based on eight years of liberals foaming at the mouth about Bush being everything from a genius super villain to a mentally deficient chimp? Remember all the vitriol that came out of the left during those years? I wouldn't have claimed that, because I'm not prone to knee jerk reactions or baseless assumptions, nor do I let political parties color my thinking on every topic.

So yeah I stand by my initial thought that it was some nutter, because it usually is some nutter, while you thought the only logical conclusion was political. Which one makes more sense? Not to mention, how many politically motivated assignations can you recall where the shooter went and opened up on the crowd? If it was a person with a political agenda, they more than likely would have shot the Representative and not the kid and everyone else who happened to be standing around. Just sayin'
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:16 PM
 
A target is an inanimate object you use for practice. The word target has many different meanings, but if you want to make a visual icon, and have it be immediately recognized as a "target" of any type, you use a target. It doesn't have the same weight as a gun scope. We use targets all the time in all sorts of marketing materials and no one ever mistakes them for a call to violence.

Palin's gunsight graphic most likely had absolutely nothing to do with this at all... but that doesn't mean it wasn't in bad taste.

Increasing hostile political rhetoric most likely had absolutely nothing to do with this senseless tragedy, but again, that doesn't mean it's not bad.
( Last edited by ort888; Jan 12, 2011 at 04:36 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Do you have to belong to a particular group to sympathize with their ideology?
Does sympathizing with a particular ideology mean you are going to start shooting people on the other side of the isle? Did he really sympathize with the ideology of the tea party? From what I have read, he was all over the map, ideologically, which is pretty typical for psychotics. They tend to be pretty disordered in their thought processes.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 04:56 PM
 
Palin herself called the markers "bullseyes".
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
No one told law enforcement, so how would the idiot sheriff know?
It takes a court order.
The police records from the timeS they had to deal with the nutcase.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Addressing the crosshairs, Palin's shooting wolves from a helicopter, hunting etc, what else would you believe crosshairs would mean.
Their excuse doesn't fly.
Your stereotyping is just pathetic. Assumption stated as fact.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 05:41 PM
 
45/47
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
Well, my first thought was that it was some looney with a gun, as rational people don't show up somewhere and indiscriminately start killing people.
Fair enough, but why was a politician specifically targeted?

Was my assumption somehow not logical, because I don't believe everything boils down to us v. them politics? Your assumption wasn't logical because people kill other people for about a million different reasons, yet you can't see beyond the usual political bullshit.
I would say that both of our assumptions were logical, mine because of what her Dad said, and also because it seemed a little more than a coincidence to me that a politician happened to be targeted. I assumed it was politically motivated, as did many others evidently. If it were politically motivated, it would be logical to target somebody whose views you disagreed with, right?

Even when the victims happen to be children and Bush appointees. Did you ever consider that it could be some far-left liberal who was pissed off that a Democratic Congresswoman was fraternizing with a Bush judge? Just as logical as your initial theory, I would think. Just as stupid, but that's what happens when you assume. I think there is even a saying about that.
If I were to be granted a do-over with this thread, I wouldn't have shared my assumption, I was pretty distraught when I created the thread and if I wasn't I may had left this out to help suppress the usual noise that comments like that generate. It wasn't very smart of me, but all I've since been saying in my defense is that there was a logical reason for the assumption that didn't have anything to do with some sort of prejudice against tea partiers.

Let me ask you this, if Bush had been shot while in office, and my first comment, before anything was even known, was "Oh noes, the libruls is killing our presidents", would you accept that without question?
I would think that it was a reasonable initial assumption.

I mean, it would be logical conclusion based on eight years of liberals foaming at the mouth about Bush being everything from a genius super villain to a mentally deficient chimp? Remember all the vitriol that came out of the left during those years? I wouldn't have claimed that, because I'm not prone to knee jerk reactions or baseless assumptions, nor do I let political parties color my thinking on every topic.
It sounds like my above answer is a bit surprising to you?

Not to mention, how many politically motivated assignations can you recall where the shooter went and opened up on the crowd? If it was a person with a political agenda, they more than likely would have shot the Representative and not the kid and everyone else who happened to be standing around. Just sayin'
Doesn't this assume that political assassins are of the right mind to not go on rampages like this?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chris Rock
You don't need no gun control. You know what we need? We need some bullet control. ... All bullets should cost 5,000 dollars. It should cost 5,000 dollars, you know why? Because if it cost 5,000 dollars there would be no innocent bystanders.

Every time someone gets shot, you think, "Damn, he must've done somethin'! That f*ckin' nigga must've gotten 50,000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass!

People would think twice before they kill somebody if bullets cost 5,000 dollars.

"Man, I would blow your f*ckin' head off ... if I could afford it."

"I'm gonna get me another job, I'm gonna start saving some money, then you a dead man!"
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
NobleMatt
formerly crazyreaper
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: York, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its not the guns but allowing idiots and nutcases to own them. Personal responsibility. Gun laws aren't obeyed by the criminals or nutcases. How about heavy restrictions on criminals and nutjobs?
yer but theres a thing called acting, just cause you may be a slightly unbalanced person doesn't mean you cant pretend to be one. Look how many bad drivers there are on the roads, at some time to pass their test that pretended to be a good driver cause they know how to tick all the boxes
The Spammer Formally Known As Crazyreaper
Mac Book Pro 15", 2.66 Ghz C2D, 4GB DDR3 / iPhone 4 16GB
     
Lint Police
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 08:17 PM
 
"Branding" a tragedy. Pathetic.



Apparently they forgot the backlash from the Wellstone Memorial when they tried this.

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 09:27 PM
 
( Last edited by Chongo; Jan 12, 2011 at 10:25 PM. )
45/47
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fair enough, but why was a politician specifically targeted?
Judging from the "Die Bitch!" he wrote on the letter of response he received from Giffords and stored in a safe in his home from 2007, he was a mentally-ill person who sought her to satisfy a particularly twisted need to pester and destroy a public figure.

I would say that both of our assumptions were logical, mine because of what her Dad said, and also because it seemed a little more than a coincidence to me that a politician happened to be targeted. I assumed it was politically motivated, as did many others evidently. If it were politically motivated, it would be logical to target somebody whose views you disagreed with, right?
Given the facts surrounding this issue, he actually had very little interest in politics, but sought that particular arena to display a well-noted psychological problem and harass an attractive public figure. You might know this happens to a lot of public figures, particularly women.

The "many" others who actually tried to make the connection you've made here were among a clearly biased minority who know full-well that the most reprehensible thing the Tea Party and "vitriolic rhetoric" is guilty of is inciting voters in November. After all, they would have to have a very short memory to see things this myopically.

If I were to be granted a do-over with this thread, I wouldn't have shared my assumption, I was pretty distraught when I created the thread and if I wasn't I may had left this out to help suppress the usual noise that comments like that generate. It wasn't very smart of me, but all I've since been saying in my defense is that there was a logical reason for the assumption that didn't have anything to do with some sort of prejudice against tea partiers.
But there were some immediate facts brought to light surrounding this perpetrator that placed him in stark contrast to the rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party or at least called into immediate question a legitimate reference to the Tea Party. That is, if you know absolutely anything about this demographic. As far as you knew at the time, this guy had as much in common with eco-terrorists.

I think it's possible that perhaps her father had a similar bias as your perceived bias and a sheriff with a party affiliation that would likewise lend itself to bias. This was made evident in the others here who made similar observations. Were you among the majority of those who approached this incident with caution; slow to make such a connection or were you among the opportunists with a clear bias who immediately began making the connection?

In watching you walk this back a little I can tell you're not necessarily proud of your company in this thread. There's always hope.

I would think that it was a reasonable initial assumption.
IMO, it wasn't reasonable at all. If your credibility here means nothing to you that's fine, but you posted less than 5 hours after the incident and were among the absolute fringe minority to make such a connection so quickly.
ebuddy
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 10:27 PM
 
It's always disturbing to me that so many people can believe that we should be morally or even legally obligated to conduct ourselves for that sake of that potential actions of crazy people. That's insanity.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
It's always disturbing to me that so many people can believe that we should be morally or even legally obligated to conduct ourselves for that sake of that potential actions of crazy people. That's insanity.
I agree. However, if we are to expect *other* societies to be morally or legally responsible for the actions of *their* crazy people, we might want to think twice about what our actions say about our expectations.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I agree. However, if we are to expect *other* societies to be morally or legally responsible for the actions of *their* crazy people, we might want to think twice about what our actions say about our expectations.
You are implying a parallel between a lone crazy person attacking people and the financial support and collusion between nations and organized, violent international terror groups?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fair enough, but why was a politician specifically targeted?
She wasn't 'specifically' targeted- the guy killed 6 other virtually random (from his POV) people, including a 9 year old girl, and injured 17 others. If he had 'specifically' targeted just the congresswoman and the judge, they might be the only ones he shot.

It's clear he was a nut out to shoot Giffords (whom it's been pointed out he had a grudge against since 2007) and anyone else that happened to be nearby.

Shame on those (worst of all the media) that tried to politicize this from the very start.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I agree. However, if we are to expect *other* societies to be morally or legally responsible for the actions of *their* crazy people, we might want to think twice about what our actions say about our expectations.
What actions?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2011, 11:41 PM
 
You hear a leader from a group you don't like say something that can be interpreted in many ways, you see some crazy person take an action similar to one interpretation of what that leader said, and you conclude that the two are connected, ignoring all other possible interpretations, and that all people similar are likely to take the same action.

You hear a leader from a group you *do* like say something that can be interpreted in many ways, you see some crazy person take an action similar to one interpretation of what that leader said, and you conclude that the two aren't possibly connected and whine when other people draw the exact same conclusions that you would have had the group been one you didn't like.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2011, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You hear a leader from a group you don't like ...

You hear a leader from a group you *do* like ...
A third-party liking or disliking a leader has nothing to do with anything.

This was exactly the problem from the start of this incident: some people dislike their political opponents so they sought to blame them for someone else's (completely unrelated) actions.

Make-believe guilt by imaginary association.

That's a whole different issue from actually inciting violence- IE: telling people to go out and commit acts of violence. (That means FOR REAL, not because some whiney people don't like some graphic on the internet).

That's also a whole different issue from sponsoring violence directly- IE: governments, groups and individuals that fund, harbor and protect terrorists organizations.

There can be (and is) ACTUAL guilt by REAL association.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,