Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 10161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 433

Thread: Congresswoman Shot in Head in Arizona

  1. #286
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Except overwhelmingly, they are the ones threatening violence, who use violence as a cornerstone of their movement.

    This false equivalence is disgusting. Just look at their rhetoric - Tea Baggers are hostile, threatening, take absolute glee in lying to support their agenda. They sew hatred as an essential part of their premise.

    Nothing like them exists in the (nonexistent) left in this country, or any other political movement.

    You cannot state that the Tea Baggers are equal to all other politicos. That simply isn't true.

    Well I agree with you. My perspective of the Tea Baggers is downright creepy. They remind me of a milder version of the WBBC. But I remember when Bush was in office many people being very vile about things. It was also very vicious and creepy, constant pleading for assassinations.

    I'm trying to balance it here because I see so many people on the other side saying that liberals are the ones causing violence. There was a lot of violence when it came to protests about the war in Iraq.

    I just think it's time to stop being so partisan and like Gifford said, be rational and be able to talk to people like human beings. I don't even think most people realize how vicious they are in talking to other people. Even in silly things like a message board. The hatred and venom? Why?

    But in my personal opinion I tend to agree with you and I'm more intimidated by the Tea Party groups than many others. The way Palin was trying to turn people towards violence against Obama. I think she was so deluded during the presidential race that she thought if Obama was assassinated she and McCain would win by default. Just creepy.

  2. #287
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    11,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    It's still too early to say that Loughner was influenced, or not influenced, by the Tea Party. What we do know is that Tea Partiers proudly wore signs to rallies saying that they were "unarmed (this time)". Very ironic that Loughner showed up to a political gathering "armed this time". Not a confirmation of being influenced by the Tea Party, but the relationship is strangely familiar.

    And that Tea Partier Sharon Angle said that there might be 2nd-amendment "remedies", and Kaufman's reference to "if votes don't work, bullets will".

    And Giffords' office being vandalized over her vote on Obama healthcare, which was counter to what the Tea Partiers wanted.

    And Giffords being one of the representatives whose districts was targeted with Tea Partier Palin's bullseye.

    All a very strange and ironic confluence of events....
    And we also know...

    The shooter had an encounter with the Congresswoman in 2007 which left him angry. (Well before Palin or the teabaggers were on the national scene)

    He kept a letter from her office in his safe with notes that said "I planned ahead" and "my assassination."

    The guy's a mental case (I won't bother listing all of the evidence but he thought the CIA was monitoring his myspace).

    You can't ignore these hard cold facts that lay out his motive pretty clearly.

    I get the argument that violent rhetoric might create an atmosphere where violence is considered acceptable. But there is plenty of evidence that this nutter was coming unhinged regardless.

    Based on what I've read of his writing and words, I have a hard time believing the guy understood what was happening in reality. Nor did he care.

  3. #288
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,427

    Default

    Vt. senator cites shootings in fundraising letter

    MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — An independent U.S. senator from Vermont drew criticism Tuesday from Republicans for citing this past weekend's shootings in Arizona in a fundraising letter for his 2012 re-election campaign.

    The e-mail that Sen. Bernie Sanders sent Tuesday begins by mentioning the shooting spree in Tucson that killed six people and left Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others wounded. The letter also mentions issues such as health care, Social Security and taxes.

    In his discussion of the shooting, Sanders mentions the vandalism that occurred last year at Giffords' district office after the House passed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and threats made against other Arizona Democrats, including Rep. Raul Grijalva and former Rep. Harry Mitchell, who was defeated in the November mid-term elections.

    "Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?" Sanders said in his letter.

    He added that "the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me" in his bid for a second term.

    He thanked supporters for contributions already sent and added, "There is no question but that your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated."

    The letter drew attacks both from national and state Republican party leaders.

    Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, said Sanders was trying to "raise campaign money off the murder of six Americans."

    Sanders said in his letter that the nation's political climate had been damaged by a "right-wing media echo chamber" that is "transmitting a reactionary world view to the tens of millions of millions of Americans who watch or listen to them every day."

    In a separate statement, state Republican Chairman Steve Larrabee said: "By using this tragedy to demonize those he disagrees with, the Senator is doing exactly what he pretends to deplore."

    Sanders' office issued a statement saying the letter covered a number of issues facing the country.

    "Most of the space in this newsletter dealt with the senator's views on the economic implications of what will be happening in the new Congress," it said. "Given the enormity of the tragedy in Arizona, however, it would have been absurd not to comment on what happened there."

    Sanders was not the only one looking to raise money in the wake of the shootings.

    On Monday, the Tea Party Express sent an e-mail to its members asking for contributions.

    "One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement — assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular," the group said. "Friends, this is outrageous."

    The e-mail included a link supporters could click to make contributions online.

    The Associated Press: Vt. senator cites shootings in fundraising letter


    I like Sanders, but it's just as distasteful for him to use it in a fundraising letter as it is for anybody else.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  4. #289
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    It's still too early to say that Loughner was influenced, or not influenced, by the Tea Party.
    It's not too early to say. He was not influenced by the Tea Party. There is no link and no one has found any evidence, even though authorities have searched his home, gone through his writings, even though the press has digged through his background, his teachers and friends have come forward, etc. Loughner was a registered Independent and didn't even vote. The timeline doesn't work: his first confrontation with Giffords was a year before the Tea Party even existed. Burden of proof is on the accuser, and there is no evidence that Loughner even uttered the words "Tea Party" or "Sarah Palin," much less followed them.

    You can repeat the same things about violent signs at Tea Party rallies or that Palin used crosshairs on a map, but that doesn't change the facts. There is equal evidence to support that Loughner was influenced by violent anti-war protestors and the DNC crosshairs map as that he was influenced by Palin and the Tea Party, i.e. none. Loughner's stalking of Giffords pre-dates the Tea Party rallies you're citing, so at least it would make sense to say he was influenced by things that already happened.

    So? What is your point? When anyone threatens to cut a US male from his guns, there are reprisals.
    The point is that some of the same people who are rushing to accusing Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans, et al. of using violent rhetoric are doing the same thing. First it was said that no politicians except Democrats are threatened and when that was pointed out as not true, the threats against Republicans are excused and justified. So how can those people be taken seriously? Clearly they're not against threats or even outright violence, as long as it's directed at the opposition. If it was a Republican who had been shot, they would have been pleased.

    The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed the other day: "To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ('proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do'), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on 'rhetoric' and a 'climate of hate' to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains. To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the 'rhetoric' of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the 'rhetoric' and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  5. #290
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gristledonna View Post

    I'm trying to balance it here because I see so many people on the other side saying that liberals are the ones causing violence. There was a lot of violence when it came to protests about the war in Iraq.
    I observed a few of those protests and saw none of the violence you speak of.

    The only person I ever talked to directly who mentioned killing Bush was a very bitter Iraqi. Somehow, he might be entitled to that opinion, donchathink?

    OTOH, the most forgiving and awesomely aware person I met in discussions about the invasion was Iraqi. Go figure.

    I've watched protests against the WTO where people were yelling and chanting. Scuffles with police were pro forma, but nobody was using crosshair or reload or destructive rhetoric.

    I never saw a "Kill Bush" tee shirt, even in Europe where it wouldn't mean much. Most people seemed to know that would solve nothing.

    The NRA had it's last convention close to where I live now. Do I have to tell you the kinds of tee shirts, hats and bumperstickers displayed there or can you guess? Oh yes, the biggest booth close to the entrance, with the largest US flags was all about Palin.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    If it was a Republican who had been shot, they would have been pleased.
    Bullshit. Another case of false equivalence also known as a Straw Man - show me an exact mirror of this situation or you are simply full of shit. Where has a Dem ever rejoiced at the death of a Repub the way Paul Wellstone's death was celebrated?

    Again, a random bullet is not an assassination attempt. Your credibility is circling the drain.
    Last edited by Tati; January 12th, 2011 at 12:11 PM.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  6. #291
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post
    And we also know...

    The shooter had an encounter with the Congresswoman in 2007 which left him angry. (Well before Palin or the teabaggers were on the national scene)
    Yes, he wasn't armed (that time) - before Tea Party. But he came armed (this time) - after Tea Party. It actually looks even worse for the Tea Party because they appear to legitimize showing up at rallies with guns, as well as doing something with guns when you don't get what you want out of your representative. Now, the average Tea Partier would know not to follow through on it (I would like to think), but a guy with a tenuous hold on reality (like Jared) would be less likely to get that distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post
    And we also know...

    He kept a letter from her office in his safe with notes that said "I planned ahead" and "my assassination."

    The guy's a mental case (I won't bother listing all of the evidence but he thought the CIA was monitoring his myspace).

    You can't ignore these hard cold facts that lay out his motive pretty clearly.

    I get the argument that violent rhetoric might create an atmosphere where violence is considered acceptable. But there is plenty of evidence that this nutter was coming unhinged regardless.

    Based on what I've read of his writing and words, I have a hard time believing the guy understood what was happening in reality. Nor did he care.
    I don't think what we've seen lays out his motive very clearly. As far as the rhetoric not contributing to his actions, he chose to shoot at Giffords, not randomly go on a spree, or even to shoot up the school that had kicked him out. He had some cognition clearly over what was going on and the ability to plan and carry it out.

  7. #292
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,582

    Default

    At this point I suspect that recent political rhetoric had very little (maybe nothing) to do with the shooting, though I imagine it is next to impossible to tease out all the factors that might have contributed. So I'm not going to rule it out.

    A few years ago during the Bush administration I was raving about hoping that someone would take him out. My daughter, who was only 15-16 at the time, told me to stop talking like a 'crazy liberal.' She is a Dem and was working for a state senator at the time, and explained that talking that way did not help the cause and that her boss and staff made an effort to distance themselves from people who did. So, this was about 4-5 years ago, and I realized I needed to dial it down a bit. (Which I have managed to do, most of the time.)

    What I am wondering is..did people like SP and some of those (on either side) who tend toward more violent rhetoric really not feel a twinge of remorse or even just a twinge of self-doubt? Did it really not cross their minds 'maybe I shouldn't have said that'? Really? Because I don't understand people like that.

    ETA: I'm guessing Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic. A few months ago I worked on a project about schizophrenia and read an interesting article about how the content of schizophrenic's paranoid delusions varies by culture, but is consistent in certain ways (eg, an American with schiz might think the CIA is inserting thoughts into his head, while a Russian might attribute the same thing to the KGB or whatever their security agency is now). One of the characteristics of schiz is that affected people process outside stimuli differently from normal people, including what they hear and see. It might just be a matter of chance that Loughner fixated on Giffords, or it might not, but the fixation is prob a function of schizophrenia, if that's what he has.

  8. #293
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    11,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post


    I don't think what we've seen lays out his motive very clearly. As far as the rhetoric not contributing to his actions, he chose to shoot at Giffords, not randomly go on a spree, or even to shoot up the school that had kicked him out. He had some cognition clearly over what was going on and the ability to plan and carry it out.
    Yes. Because he had a personal encounter with her that pissed him off. He obviously fixated on it and her. This is pretty hard to ignore in terms of motive.

  9. #294
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    As far as the rhetoric not contributing to his actions, he chose to shoot at Giffords, not randomly go on a spree, or even to shoot up the school that had kicked him out. He had some cognition clearly over what was going on and the ability to plan and carry it out.
    Having the cognition to plan his actions out doesn't mean that his arrival at the decision to kill this woman was brought on by rhetoric. He's been focused/fixated on her for quite a while.

    You cannot apply the normal rules of cognitive thought to someone like this man, who seems to be schizophrenic from most indications.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #295
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    It's not too early to say. He was not influenced by the Tea Party. There is no link and no one has found any evidence, even though authorities have searched his home, gone through his writings, even though the press has digged through his background, his teachers and friends have come forward, etc.
    Yes, it's too early to say. The shooting happened less than a week ago. They have barely begun to dig through all of the stuff this guy said, or posted, or did.

    As far as his previous contact or obsession with her - I believe that it was 2007 when he had. If he was obsessed with her, there don't appear to be any writings or contact with her until the last couple of months.

  11. #296
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    13,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    It's not too early to say. He was not influenced by the Tea Party. There is no link and no one has found any evidence, even though authorities have searched his home, gone through his writings, even though the press has digged through his background, his teachers and friends have come forward, etc. Loughner was a registered Independent and didn't even vote. The timeline doesn't work: his first confrontation with Giffords was a year before the Tea Party even existed. Burden of proof is on the accuser, and there is no evidence that Loughner even uttered the words "Tea Party" or "Sarah Palin," much less followed them.

    You can repeat the same things about violent signs at Tea Party rallies or that Palin used crosshairs on a map, but that doesn't change the facts. There is equal evidence to support that Loughner was influenced by violent anti-war protestors and the DNC crosshairs map as that he was influenced by Palin and the Tea Party, i.e. none. Loughner's stalking of Giffords pre-dates the Tea Party rallies you're citing, so at least it would make sense to say he was influenced by things that already happened.



    The point is that some of the same people who are rushing to accusing Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans, et al. of using violent rhetoric are doing the same thing. First it was said that no politicians except Democrats are threatened and when that was pointed out as not true, the threats against Republicans are excused and justified. So how can those people be taken seriously? Clearly they're not against threats or even outright violence, as long as it's directed at the opposition. If it was a Republican who had been shot, they would have been pleased.

    The Wall Street Journal had a good op-ed the other day: "To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ('proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do'), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on 'rhetoric' and a 'climate of hate' to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains. To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the 'rhetoric' of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the 'rhetoric' and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"
    I understand you're worked up about this, but revisionist history makes your points fail. The DNC map was not cross-hairs or scoping sites, it was a non-customary bullseye. The devil is in the details. And no one said that only democrats have been threatened, what was pointed out was that the specific example used was proven to be NOT a threat and not to have a single thing in the universe to do with Eric Cantor. Again, skewing facts belittles the point you're trying to make. Why can't you see that it doesn't matter if this tragedy had no direct connection to Palin. She's a proven liar who panders to the lowest common intelligence. Her speeches encourage violent action and expression and shows a fundamental lack of education and understanding of the constitution (the very thing she lays her hat on).
    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

  12. #297
    Elite Member Laurent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Out There
    Posts
    38,161

    Default Sarah Palin speaks out regarding Arizona shooting

    Palin: Critics create 'blood libel' after Tucson shooting

    Former Alaska governor expresses 'sadness,' says it is 'reprehensible' to blame rhetoric for the tragedy

    msnbc.com news services
    updated 2 hours 9 minutes ago 2011-01-12T17:30:59

    Sarah Palin posted a nearly eight-minute video on her Facebook page early Wednesday, accusing journalists and pundits of inciting hatred and violence in the wake of a deadly Arizona shooting that gravely wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

    Last spring, Palin targeted Giffords' district as one of 20 that should be taken back. Palin has been criticized for marking each district with the cross hairs of a gun sight.

    In the video posted Wednesday, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate said vigorous debates are a cherished tradition. But she said after the election, both sides find common ground, even though they disagree.

    "But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," she said.

    The term "blood libel" is the false allegation that Jews kill non-Jews, especially Christian children, to acquire blood for the Passover or other Jewish rituals, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. It has been used in other contexts, and Palin's meaning was not clear. Her aides did not immediately respond to an e-mail early Wednesday.

    What is 'blood libel'?

    Jared Loughner, 22, is accused of trying to assassinate Giffords, wounding 12 others and killing six people.

    "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal," Palin said. "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those 'calm days' when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?"

    'Acts of monstrous criminality'

    Palin quoted former President Ronald Reagan as saying that "we must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker."

    "It's time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions," Palin continued, still quoting Reagan.

    "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," she added. "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of the state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectably exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."

    Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had told the TODAY show Monday that political rhetoric may have contributed to Loughner's actions. "I think the tone of rhetoric that's occurred in this country over the past couple of years affects troubled personalities," he said.

    Palin countered that and similar assertions, noting the "peaceful transition of power" when President Barack Obama took office and following the 2008 and 2010 elections, and pointing out that "vigorous and spirited public debates" are part of the process before candidates "shake hands and we get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in DC and elsewhere."

    2011 msnbc.com
    Palin: Critics create 'blood libel' after Tucson shooting - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

  13. #298
    Gold Member philbert_wormly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812

    Default

    Sarah Palin did the polar opposite of what I was kind of hoping she would do.

  14. #299
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    There goes Palin again, referencing "blood libel" while distancing herself from the attempted assassination of a politician who happens to be jewish.

    I blame her speechwriter, though, because Palin would never be expected to know about historical stuff like "blood libel".

  15. #300
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,582

    Default

    She's just stupid. She was a moron before the incident, and she's still a moron. What a tiresome twat she is.

    She doesn't help anything. Her hate speech is repugnant, but even more revolting is the fact that she has never come up with a single specific, viable proposal for fixing anything in this country. All she's capable of is stirring the pot, and the cretins in the GOP have created a monster in her by making her their pot-stirrer-in-chief.

    My wish for her is that she becomes a correspondent for the Christian news network and I never have to see her hate-twisted face again.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 27th, 2010, 05:35 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 19th, 2009, 11:54 AM
  3. Brother of actor Mark Ruffalo shot in the head
    By Moongirl in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 02:23 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 09:46 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 27th, 2008, 03:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •