Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot

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

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

    The person you are replying to is also a professional and knows what he is talking about.

    Folks, understandably, this event is terribly upsetting to people of all political persuasions. It will provoke, or stoke, important national (and international) conversations about political rhetoric and the causal links (if any) and responsibility (if any) borne by irresponsible political leaders and political commentators who have used inflammatory or violent language to make their case.

    But as this occurs, I request that we ALL resist the shorthand of "the left" and "the right" when making our case. Those terms are FAR too broad and, therefore, prone to error. Even if you use qualifiers, such as "some on the left/right", while this is much improved, the category is still so very broad (encompassing 30% - 50% of the US population) that it is unhelpful, at best.

    The murders, and attempted murders, that occurred today will be abhorrent to people on all sides of politics. 99% of the US (and international) population will be joined at the hip in that regard. WE AGREE ABOUT THAT.

    So, if you have an argument to make that irresponsible commentary or images may have provided fodder for the gunman or persons like him, let it be about the statements of named individuals, not "the right", "some on the left", "Republicans" or "Tea Partiers" or "Democrats". Because plenty of people on "the right", who are Republicans and/or Tea Partiers do not condone violence and do not approve of the language and imagery adopted by some on their own side of politics.

    Conversely, a critical comment about Sarah Palin is not a critical comment about the Republican Party in toto, or about political convictions of people who align with the Republican Party or the Tea Party or...

    Because of heightened emotions at a time like this, it becomes even more important than usual that we try to use precise language and listen carefully for signs that we are in agreement - and build on that.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Boris Korczak Member

    What is really interesting in the crazy Youtube rant of Jared Lee Loughner is the sentence that reminds me of the questions CO$ asks - What is your crime?
    Jared Lee Loughner asks:
    Ask the local police; “What’s your illegal activity on duty?”.
    Sounds like Hubbard school or am I wrong.
    Stay safe.

  3. Rockyj Member

    The Insurrectionism Timeline:
  4. papers Member

    I would go so far as to say those terms have become effectively meaningless since the 1970s.

    Also: paranoid schizophrenia doesn't have any particular political alliance.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Magnonymous Member

    Thanks Tiny for comments on my posts, I've had some sleep now so I am able to formulate my thoughts more coherently. I'd just like to clarify a couple of things and then I'll STFU for a while. ;)

    You're correct that I am speculating and I had stated that I was speculating when I made the posts. I also stated that I am happy to be proven wrong, that I was trying to examine the scenario from all sides and that I was giving my thoughts (not facts) on the event from information available to me at the time. I also encouraged people, as you did, to excercise caution and think about things for themselves when they read my posts. So we're in agreement there. :)

    However I do not think my logic is flawed and feel there is reason to hold the possibility as suspect until such a time as it can be ruled out. This does not mean I think that the hypothesis I have outlined are fact, they are merely suggestions which I think worthy of investigation. As I am not a professional in the field, such an investigation is likely to take a while for me. I will be investigating but I do have a day job, so I wanted to throw my thoughts out there in the mean time. I am sorry my thoughts have not been appreciated on this occasion.

    I accept "be careful, don't take these posts as truth" as I had already stated I am not speaking from a certainty of truth, but from a theory that I think could be reasonable given some of the circumstances surrounding the incident. It may be that as further evidence comes to light my thoughts are increasingly proven to be invalid, which is just as welcome as an outcome as proof that they may be valid would be. Either outcome would bring more information into the debate, which I see as a good thing. You seem to be accusing me of talking out my arse though, which I am not.

    I apologise for any offense I have caused pertaining to the rules of posting on WWP. This was not intentional on my part, I had sought to encourage intelligent debate on the incident. I also apologise if anyone feels my comments have been misleading or misinformative. Again, this was not intentional.

    I'll cease my speculations from here on in and hope that those who read my posts consider my words as something to think on, but not to take as a given. I would encourage people to do their own research as I will be doing mine. If I have prevented people from being narrow minded in their beliefs regarding possibilities of responsibility for the attack, I have achieved my goal.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Rockyj Member

    Re: His favorite books:

    Sarah Palin makes herself out to be a victim:

    What a joke!
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Rockyj Member

    Scientologist Greta posts memo on her web site: Oxymoron coming from Faux News!

  8. Ann O'Nymous Member

    IMHO, the big question is: why do the media focus on the congresswoman and not the judge ?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. exOT8Michael Member

    The Sarah Palin noose pic was of a ****HALLOWEEN**** (horror/scary fun) decor (for lulz and controversy) put up by an acquaintance of mine in West Hollywood (CMM) and he is not the hater type whatsoever. He does smoke weed, but is not up for any kind of hate campaign crap. Pic out of context is not helpful or informative.
  10. Miranda Member

    To be fair, some of the right-wing imagery may be innocent "amusement" as well. I think the problem is that regardless of intent, this kind of imagery can incite certain people, and understandably unnerves public figures--how are they to know when someone is kidding?

    Not talking specifically about your friend, Michael, but more generally about the effects of violent imagery in politics.
  11. BusinessBecky Member

  12. eddieVroom Member

    /r/ early Dilbert "pierced brain" comix strip.

    too soon?...
  13. ziptang Member

    If the shooter had shown up in one of his vids wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, would y'all be so accepting of the beating Anon would take over it?
  14. eddieVroom Member

    I just posted this to the local paper's thread on this matter:

    It has been my observation that humans do pretty well when faced with an obvious choice of Good and Evil. Where it starts to get slippery is when we choose the lesser of Evils. Or, further, when we start telling ourselves we should commit minor Evil in Service of the Greater Good. This is a line we ALL tapdance on with glee, myself included.

    Perhaps Jon Stewart said it best: These are Hard Times, not End Times.

    And let's not pretend that only applies to people who gravitate toward "The Right". I, fo one, see Doomsday as well. It's a Doomsday in the "Inmates running the Asylum" flavor, but Doomsday nonetheless.

    And we seem motivated toward our lesser selves the more we feel Urgency. And we seem to be feeling Urgency.

    If *anything* is to be agreed upon, it seems to me that that's it.
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Zak McKracken Member

    Mike: (this is a thought experiment, not a tinfoil expedition)
    if it somehow ended up that some loony [exteriorized] Ms Palin, and did so in such a fashion that
    eerily resembled the Halloween ornament your friend put up,
    based on what you know of that friend - how would it make him feel / how would he respond?
    Would he be -
    * disappointed/frightened/regretful/apologetic
    * angry/defensive/annoyed/outraged (at Palin & her comrades)
    * dismissive/contemptuous/LOL/open mockery at the thought anyone would blame him

    That's my question, and what I believe is the salient point here.
    Would your friend/acquaintance own up to his (possibly very marginal) role in the whole mess?
    Would he take responsibility for their actions that might have had unintended consequences?

    Whether you know or not, whether your friend knows or doesn't how he would respond himself,
    this is the difference between trolls of valor, and trolls who ought to be sent to bed without supper.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Miranda Member

    Ziptang: Depends on whether other people wearing GF masks had been promoting provocative gun-and-target imagery, among other things. If so, then I hope the answer would be no. WWP isn't immune to groupthink but a decent number of people do try to combat it. Besides, you're part of this now so it shouldn't be "y'all." : )
  17. Zak McKracken Member

    Edit: for benefit of y'all

    Y'all don't always know in advance, how people will interpret your words.
    But before you speak, you can ask: "are these your words?"
    And after, y'all can decide how long they remain yours and when y'all will let them go.

    Optional, of course.
    Y'all can also just pretend that nothing you say means anything and just keep on babbling :)
    • Like Like x 2
  18. incog712 Member

    TBH, it doesn't seem like Palin can be blamed directly for what gets posted onto that blog. It appears to be nothing more than a fan fiction site for knuckle dragging wingnuts.
  19. eddieVroom Member

  20. Herro Member

    I think we are all missing the most important question here: how is Scientology responsible for this? I'm sure they are.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. ziptang Member

    "Y'all" being my distinguished colleagues across the isle.

    I've been to one protest. One. And I got the Fair Game letter and free DVD from some bottom-feeding lawyer. Obviously, I did a crap job of hiding my identity. But I don't believe for a second that Anon is what COS says it is. I know better. The more we hear about the creep, the crazier we find out he is, and the sillier those shouting "Tea Bagger!!!" look.
  22. Didn't you see? Scientology pawn Sharon Angle is responsible.
  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Born on 9/11/01? OK, now my tinfoil is starting to throb.

    It's too soon (IMO) to run down that road in this case, but... yeah, Hegelian dialectics as governance is a long-practiced M.O., precisely because it works. People in general do not want to believe that their own government is corrupt, because then they either have to do something about it or face the possibility that they are, themselves, cowards. Facing that choice is scary, so willful denial amongst the populace tends to protect conspirators in gummint.

    Again, though, too soon to go there, here. Could be just a nutjob.

    I just like the fact that you punctuated "y'all" correctly.
  24. I'm not going to imply or infer that there is any more support for the 2nd amendment on one side of the political fence or the other, but I would like some clarification. There once was a tyrannical king of England. He taxed your tea and other such sundries. He gave you no representation in exchange for this tax, so you kicked his ass. You then set up a three tiered system of government with checks and balances a plenty.

    Here's my question. Since you have kicked the ass of the old King George and you have set up a system of government where three levels control each other, where does this fear of tyranny come from? Why do some believe that it is their right to make war with a duly elected government of the people?

    Doesn't the 2nd amendment, where it refers to anti-government militia, or where it is interpreted as being such, create treason? Who defines what is tyranny and what is treason?

    Cannot nutcases, after declaring the government tyrannical, legally shoot up any government official he chooses?

    Who has the right to declare the government tyrannical, to make it legal to use a militia to attack and overthrow the government? If no one has that right, then no militia is needed and therefore gun ownership not required?

    Having watched your midterm elections from outside your country, I have to say that TV commercials on all sides declare their opponents to be scum of the earth criminals. If you want to change the political climate in your country, that's where I'd start. Candidate should discuss themselves, or their party, only in political ads.
  25. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Yeah, we're a mess.

  26. eddieVroom Member

    Being something of a Postmodernist, we may indeed be seeing a point of Fail.
  27. I believe that the militia part of the 2nd amendment actually refers to allowing citizens to have guns in order to defend against a military threat.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. eddieVroom Member

    I think we're safely on the right side of this one...

  29. Smurf Member

    This house is blocks from where I live. When this guy hung Sarah Palin in effigy, it was during the Presidential campaign, and it received alot of media attention, so much so, that the Los Angeles Sheriffs and Mayor's Office asked him to take it down because it was infuriating alot of people. I heard he had also received death threats. He was also visited by the Secret Service. These are explosive, dangerous times with gun-related incidents and worldwide terrorism taking place and it isn't going to end anytime soon, especially in the United States where civil rights, including the right to bear (and sell) arms are guaranteed in the Constitution. There are alot of crazy, unstable people in the world.. permit them access to a loaded gun... watch out.

    All the political finger-pointing going on right now just proves that some people haven't learned a thing from this tragic incident.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. new guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  31. Is the "Like" button the new ^^^THIS!!! Regardless, this perfectly reflects my opinion on this topic. I hope Congresswoman Giffords makes as full a recovery as possible, and that the families, loved ones, and surviving victims find comfort and healing in the years to come.
  32. Agreed, and if you think it's ugly looking from the outside in, you should really try living here. Only then could you appreciate it in all its 24 hour news cycle glory.
  33. Clever Name Member

    ITT thread-eating


  34. eddieVroom Member

    i LOL'd
  35. BusinessBecky Member

  36. Kilia Member

    It's obvious that you are not a citizen of Alaska or you wouldn't have said that.
  37. the anti Member

    yeah, she couldn't even finish her first term as governor and people think she is ready to be president. thats a laugh
  38. JohnnyRUClear Member

    At least she HAD a ter--oh, who am I kidding? Like I care. :p
  39. Kilia Member

  40. LRonAnon Member

    I'm awful tempted to press that "MAP IT" button. I'd like to know where "TUSCON" is.

    Gosh, I guess maybe if we outlaw symbols and put more restrictions on free speech we can avoid future shooting by young people who abruptly discover that undifferentiated-type schizophrenia can be a real killer.

    Good plan folks.
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