Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by the anti, Jan 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Miranda Member

    It seems we all agree it was murder; the debate seems to focus on whether politics played any part. I'll add that since tragedy involves the fateful/willful fall of a good but flawed person, accidents are by definition never tragedies. Murders may be tragedies. Pretty academic, though. The point is, the guy killed people and who is responsible?
  2. ziptang Member

    How many would be surprised to learn that there are Tea Partiers in your midst? And that they have zero in common with, or sympathy for the shooter?
  3. ziptang Member

    Not gonna argue with you, Miranda, you were nice and helpful to me upon my arrival.

    How many have viewed the YouTube vids this guy posted? They are not sane, lucid works. Much of them is what is called 'word salad'.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. LRonAnon Member

    May I suggest that you avoid any political rally's for while.

    They shooter is displaying classic signs of schizophrenia, not that I would diagnose someone based on the current available information. What you are accepting as "English Literacy" could very well mean something completely different to someone who is focused on it as part of a delusional break.

    That is just plain silly. Especially coming from this website. -- The world is chock full of crazy, and you want to blame someone opposed to you politically for this shooting. Just silence the other side. Good luck with that!

    Lynch Sarah Palin in Hollywood.

    Disclosure: I think Sarah could be President but I really don't think we need a woman President right now. Maybe later after we get back on track and settled down.
  5. Miranda Member

    I don't mean to take you to task either, ziptang. I was just horrified by this, and have been predicting something like it for quite a while. I agree that the guy is sick. That's just not the only relevant factor, in my opinion. I don't mean to suggest that Sarah Palin should be tried for murder. Just, people need to stop with the guns and target imagery. It isn't helping.

    I'll try to be nice and helpful again now. : p
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Miranda Member

    I'm not even going there. Let's just say we disagree on every level.

    I'll be glad when anonymous posting comes back and I can hide again.
    • Like Like x 4
  7. ffall29 Member

    I did watch a little of one, and I agree that this kid appears to have been badly deranged. (I didn't see Loughner's reputed MySpace site, but I have heard conflicting reports about that site's legitimacy.) That doesn't change the fact, though, that opponents of both the U.S. Representative and of the federal judge who was killed have indulged in visual and verbal rhetoric that skirts condoning violence for effect, and that this individual's expressed derangement may reflect that rhetoric. Salad is made of something, whether the growers and purveyors of those ingredients want to acknowledge that or not.
  8. While condoning or suggesting violence against elected politicians is something that elements of a certain flamboyant political party are indisputably guilty of, this doesn't mean that they had anything to do with what appears to just be a crazy person acting crazy.

    Even if you disagree with the teaparty, you can't hold them responsible for something the actions of an ostensibly schizophrenic individual.

    Where is that anonymous button...
    • Like Like x 1
  9. LRonAnon Member

    Agreed. Now, if could you make me a qwick sandwich, thanks dear.
  10. Miranda Member

    Not responsible as murderers. But responsible for deliberately inflaming and goading people with violent rhetoric. I've never heard so many gun, target, etc. rhetoric as I have since Obama was elected. Not to mention the racist stuff. It makes me sick.

    Okay I now ban myself from this thread. It's making me surly.

    Anonymity, please.....
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Miranda Member

    I'll take care of giving the orders, sweetheart.

    *parting shot*

    (not a gun image)
  12. ziptang Member

    I think the key here is 'derangement', or 'delusion'. You can discount this, but my wife works with these people, works in wards in direct contact with them. She is a professional, not a candystriper. Has for more than a decade. They hear things, imagine things, they can have a very different reality than ours. Just because they use a word doesn't mean they have the same meaning for it that we do. Since Gifford is strongly pro-2nd amendment, and strongly anti-illegal immigration, considering the nutbags rants, it makes no sense to target her.

    IMO, yes, my godam opinion, the shooter is a complete whackjob with very little grasp on reality.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ffall29 Member

    I worked in psych for several years, though I worked far longer (around 15 years) with the developmentally disabled. I still tell stories about being a tech on a county psychiatric crisis stabilization unit in Florida that couldn't be locked because the building had no sprinkler system, which meant we had to chase and capture the court-ordered people that ran out the back door before they made it through the residential neighborhood to the freeway. Every one of those people I saw on the unit, from the seemingly rational woman who was convinced that her ex-husband's Mafia connections had a hit out on her, to the Haitian man screaming that Baby Doc and Reagan were conspiring to torture him, to the guy convinced that he was simultaneously Jesus and damned, was responding to something in his or her environment. They weren't just grooving on their own private mental TV channels without any connection to reality; they were responding to reality filtered through scrambled brain chemistry (or maybe not, in the case of the first woman).

    Neither the Mafia nor Baby Doc Chevalier nor Jesus was legally "responsible" for those people's distorted thoughts or how they acted because of them. Still, I think it is equally mistaken to claim that those who have goaded along and profited from the violent political rhetoric of the recent past bear no moral and ethical responsibility for where that rhetoric may lead even if they are not (and, in almost every case, I think should not be) legally culpable.
    • Like Like x 4
  14. This is an entirely separate issue from the topic of this thread, and not really relevant to this incident.
  15. 69SP69 Member

    I agree with Keith Olbermann, there has been alot of inflamatory crap coming from both "wings", & it needs to stop!!!
  16. DeathHamster Member

    Until anything solid crops up, judging by his videos, I think this is probably the reason for him going off the rails:
  17. Zak McKracken Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Rockyj Member

    All I can say is this so senseless...

  19. incog712 Member

    Disagree as well, although not without recognizing that when threads turn political, it never ends well.

    Clearly this guy is batshit insane but still, this was an attempted political assasination. It's not as if batshit crazy hasn't factored into these kinds of shootings before. "Locked and loaded" politicians spouting rhetoric about "2nd ammendment remedies, reinforced by third rate media whores clammoring for ratings creates just the sort of climate needed to set these asshats off.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. ffall29 Member

    The New York Times is reporting that "at a Saturday evening news conference, [Tuscon law enforcement] investigators said they were looking for an accomplice, believed to be in his 50s, who may have assisted in the attack."
  21. Zak McKracken Member

    we need a faggotry subforum.

    Not for high quality dome content, but for SRS BSNS!111121 threads like this one
    that cannot be discussed civilly because we are all collectively unable or unwilling to pull our heads out of our own asses.

    I think "YSOSRS" was used as a dumping ground for them at times;
    and while I never really liked that place, I think I can see it has a separate purpose and use from the pink lands of yore.
  22. Magnonymous Member

    Tinydancer's modedit: This comment is extremely flawed in logic. Perhaps that is due to the 4 hours in 3 days, mentioned later in the post. It draws upon unsubstantiated statements in the press during the first 24 hours following the incident as if they are fact (eg. that he is a military recruit) and takes as "given" conclusions about his political persuasion. Treat this comment with caution.

    Ok, my own conspiracy theory, debate it as you like. I'm happy to be wrong as long as I make people think and study from all angles.

    Here's my thoughts:

    The youtube vid shows that the guy wasn't exactly coherent in his thinking. I'm not sure I'm ready to simply put it down to psychosis or his own mental disorders though. The youtube vid reads like he is reciting a mantra that has been read to him, like he's repeating someone elses words. Since, as was commented earlier, he agreed with Gifford more than disagreed, I think we can rule out him being used as an assassin by someone opposing her. I also think that, given they agree more than disagree, had he been left to his own devices he would not have targeted her.

    Given that Loughner was also a military recruit, I find it doubtful that his actions were the result of an unchecked issue of psychosis in one form or another. I am not American, but as I understand military personnel in most of the western world have access to psychiatric help and are monitored for development of psychiatric issues. I think that were he to have had any symptoms of unwanted psychosis this would have been checked and thus his actions would have been prevented before he had any thoughts to be in the vicinity of Gifford on that day.

    So I come back to his recital of what, to me, seemed to be a mantra. A military recruit reciting mantra in a manner that does not seem to be mentally coherent, but has not been checked by psychiatric monitors that I believe would have been in place (feel free to correct me). Where did the mantra come from? I would suspect that someone was using him, I will suggest brain washing (I understand it may seem extreme) and that whatever the intended purpose for Loughner, his mental capacities were not able to survive his "training" and thus he turned on those responsible for him.

    I am not saying Gifford was responsible for this, but I do suspect and would suggest that someone in Gifford's political party or in their support network had a hand in the control of Loughner's environment for the purposes of his use as a political weapon, an assassin, against their opposition. I would also suggest that it be taken into consideration that the adverse affects of such environmental control could have caused Loughner to strike at his handlers through the attack on the political party representing them, instead of the political party opposing the handlers.

    In short, he cracked and bit the hand that was indirectly feeding him.

    P.S. It's hard to think straight on 4 hours sleep in 3 days, but I tried. Hope it made sense...

    Miranda's comment: This post is an example of what we call tinfoil speculation. Of course, each person is entitled to their opinions, but when making assertions about events that actually occurred, please provide evidence rather than speculation.
  23. Magnonymous Member

    And, on the subject of tragedy...just to be a faggot:

    World English Dictionary
    tragedy (ˈtrædʒɪdɪ)

    — n , pl -dies
    1. (esp in classical and Renaissance drama) a play in which the protagonist, usually a man of importance and outstanding personal qualities, falls to disaster through the combination of a personal failing and circumstances with which he cannot deal
    2. (in later drama, such as that of Ibsen) a play in which the protagonist is overcome by a combination of social and psychological circumstances
    3. any dramatic or literary composition dealing with serious or sombre themes and ending with disaster
    4. (in medieval literature) a literary work in which a great person falls from prosperity to disaster, often through no fault of his own
    5. the branch of drama dealing with such themes
    6. the unfortunate aspect of something
    7. a shocking or sad event; disaster

    Citation no. 7. a shocking or sad event; disaster.

    Hence, this event IS a tragedy. The definition of tragedy does not have preclusions for purposeful or accidental events. The event being "shocking or sad" is the defining factor, whether it was purposeful or accidental is irrelevant.
  24. Miranda Member

    Yes, that's the common use of the word. I was talking about literature. It irritates me that the concept of tragedy has been diluted to mean "something sad."
    • Like Like x 3
  25. ziptang Member

    I have no problem saying that the event is terrible or horrific. The problem I have with using 'tragedy' is that I think it dilutes the seriousness of the event, softens it. Almost like calling it an accident. I don't like that, it somehow seems inappropriate. I'm old, I remember a BeeGee's song "Tragedy", it was about a lost love, oh dear me, end of the fucking world. That's what "tragedy" evokes for me. I much prefer calling today's shooting exactly what it was, a multiple murder/assassination by a godam loon.

    I guess it's just semantics.
  26. Miranda Member

    New York Times article: Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics

    The article mentions that Tea Party members and Republicans (including Palin) were quick to express condolences and horror.
  27. Rockyj Member

    I agree the term "tragedy" tends to minimize the murder of innocent people.

    And even President Obama used this term.
  28. andonanon Member

    He was not a military recruit. He tried to enlist but was rejected.
  29. Magnonymous Member

    Okay, I guess my faggotism is subsiding...I have to agree with Zip and Rocky about the word "tragedy" softening it and helping people look the other way.

    They call it a multiple murder/assassination in the headlines instead of tragedy it'll grab people by the balls a lot more.

    Of course they were. Regardess of who is responsible or what they actually think it would destroy their public image to do anything else.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Magnonymous Member

    My bad. I read on one article somewhere he'd been a military recruit, that one didn't say anything about him being rejected. Though I'm not ruling out my theory entirely, you've poked a hole in it there. But I'm suspiscious about the fact that apparently there are one or two others suspected of assisting him.

    If he was a head case, wouldn't he be acting alone?
  31. the anti Member

  32. Zak McKracken Member

    Sometimes its more fun to play with others.
  33. Miranda Member

    There have also been other members of the military who have committed this kind of crime--I'm thinking of an army psychiatrist who killed some people a couple of years ago. The military can't protect you from mental illness or from crime. Nor is it likely that the Democrats would go after one of their own.
  34. andonanon Member

    The whole reason I come to this site is because I believe the Church of Scientology is a conspiracy of "head cases" or at least of a conspiracy of people using "head cases" for their own ends.
  35. Magnonymous Member

    Could be interesting that the weapon used is a 9mm Glock, but as they haven't specified which model of 9mm Glock it was it makes it impossible to draw any conclusions. It is still worth noting that the 9mm Glock is used by many military and law enforcement agencies around the world, including the FBI, CIA, US police and US military. Unfortunately due to the many types of 9mm Glock and the Glock's wide popularity as a hand gun, without further detail this doesn't tell us anything.

    Anyone got any more info on that?

    -Edit- Found an answer to this one now. Not the precise type of weapon, but it was obtained from Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson. Result: Inconclusive.
  36. Magnonymous Member

    OK, I should have said "If he was just a random head case gone AWOL"...I'm not ruling out that he's a head case being used by, or working with, other head cases.
  37. andonanon Member

    Ok understood. As mentioned above, there is an investigation ongoing regarding co-conspirators.
  38. Rockyj Member

  39. the anti Member

    my link has more info on her
  40. Magnonymous Member

    I am posting WAY too much on this one, but another thought just hit my sleep deprived brain...

    Second amendment right to bear arms, one of the sources cited said something about purpose being to prevent tyrannical governments --> Gifford advocates right to bear arms --> gets shot by someone excercising that right --> knee jerk reaction and arms rights removed (not likely yet, but they've been pushing) --> americans no longer own guns (unless they're criminals) --> people refusing to give up weapons get locked up/shot --> second amendment right to bear arms as a check on tyrannical government circumvented.

    Also, a good question for anything like this...where's the money at?

    If gun laws are brought in to prevent citizens owning guns, mass buy before laws are passed. Criminalisation of people with guns will be required to hand them in or be criminalised. Who will be contracted for the safe disposal of all these weapons? With current terror laws any resistance of a violation of the second amendment will mean you are incarcerated. Civil unrest would be likely, which would be likely to cause harsher "anti-terror" legislation to keep "keep the peace" and "protect the good citizens of America."

    A lot of people would make a lot of money anf the noose around the neck of freedom would grow a lot tighter.

    Miranda's comment: As with the previous post: Please keep in mind that WWP discourages purely speculative arguments. Be sure to provide evidence to back up your assertions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins