House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

you can just call me a douchebag.

it's okay...

Sorry, but in this case you are being a "douchebag."

Rockhead wrote:

then why Palin's about face and lie?

Rockhead wrote:

her people now say that they are surveyors symbols

1) Palin did not assert they were surveyors' symbols

2) "Her people" did not assert they were surveyors' symbols...assuming you are using the term "her people" in a sensical way; meaning her staff - paid or volunteer.

I assume by her "about face" you mean the removal of the crosshairs graph from her website.

So you think that constitutes a concession that the graph caused the shootings?

I've already described the graph as being in poor taste, and gun/war related rhetoric as idiotic.

I hope Palin regrets the use of the crosshairs, but not because they led to the shootings, but because they were stupid and unnecessary.

It would have been in extreme bad taste if she had not removed the graph from her website and you and your friends would be howling so if she had not.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-sarah-palin-/1?csp=34

Rebecca Mansour, an aide to ex-Alaska governor Sarah Palin, ...

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But they do, and this is the result.

(Emphasis mine.)

We just don't know that yet, and what we do know tends to indicate that this is not true. There doesn't seem to be a clear cause and effect with this guy.

I think we can do several things at once:

1.) Decry overheated, violent rhetoric.
2.) Decry this specific act, without necessarily linking it to #1.
3.) Take the opportunity to actually calm down the discourse instead of just using this to ratchet things up.

If the left blames the right, the right will (understandably) just be mad about being blamed, and things just escalate.

I'm not saying that this specific discussion board is that important, but just as a general concept, everyone has to be more careful about the blame game I think, especially within the (ironic) context of "things have gotten out of hand."

1 Reply

I don't think I made myself clear. I limited my remarks about violent political speech to elected officials, not Tea Party spokesmen or radio hosts, but United States Members of Congress.

When John Boehner, now Speaker of the House, decried on the House floor that the passage of the Health Care Bill is " Armageddon" that is a call to war for fundamentalists. You know, the kind of people who faithfully attend their churches, read their scripture and, when egged on, shoot doctors.

I doubt my friends here can find violence tinged quotes from elected Democrats, but have at it.

The point is all of violent hints and winks and grins have to stop.
All of them.

Joe(unarmed and unafraid)Nation

3 Replies

Sandra Day O'Connor attempted to define when political speech becomes an actual verbal threat that would not be protected speech. Does anyone feel that the hate speech against health insurance legislation meets O"Connor's definition?

Quote:

True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Virginia v. Black, Docket# 01-1107 (2003)

1 Reply

@sozobe,

You misunderstand - the 'result' isn't that people go around and shoot other people, the result is that the media and everyone looks to you as the person to blame. Because that's what people do.

When you constantly shouting 'fire!' and a fire breaks out, you shouldn't be surprised when people wonder what's going on with you and your rhetoric.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

The point is all of violent hints and winks and grins have to stop.
All of them.

exactly.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Is it protected speech to argue, as Mr Beck seemed to me to do the other night, that the US is being run off a cliff? What sort of effect is such an argument calculated to have on patriots let alone those in search of a "cause" and who are not equipt to understand the flaws in such an argument.

Shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre is not the end of the line. It is merely a simple illustration of a principle.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

I don't think I made myself clear. I limited my remarks about violent political speech to elected officials, not Tea Party spokesmen or radio hosts, but United States Members of Congress.

When John Boehner, now Speaker of the House, decried on the House floor that the passage of the Health Care Bill is " Armageddon" that is a call to war for fundamentalists. You know, the kind of people who faithfully attend their churches, read their scripture and, when egged on, shoot doctors.

I doubt my friends here can find violence tinged quotes from elected Democrats, but have at it.

The point is all of violent hints and winks and grins have to stop.
All of them.

Joe(unarmed and unafraid)Nation

absolutely

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

you can just call me a douchebag.

it's okay...

somebody bring me a brandy... and bring my friend rockhead a vinegar and water...

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Just so I'm clear... (and leaving aside the debate about the present tragedy)
Do you believe there to be generally equal amounts of incendiary and provocative speech coming from both right and left?

No, I am not one who believes a perfect balance exists in nature and am not interested in seeking it, like you imply.

I just think it hasn't been shown to have anything at all to do with this tragedy and think that jumping to that conclusion is itself the divisive partisanship that it criticizes.

What little we know really seems to point to a madman, one who could just have easily used the Catcher in the Rye as the inspiration. I wouldn't be lynching Salinger either.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

1) Palin did not assert they were surveyors' symbols

No, she didn't. She called them "bull's eyes" in a tweet in November.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

When John Boehner, now Speaker of the House, decried on the House floor that the passage of the Health Care Bill is " Armageddon" that is a call to war for fundamentalists. You know, the kind of people who faithfully attend their churches, read their scripture and, when egged on, shoot doctors.

Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with this tragedy? What does your qualm with their political speech have to do with this event?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

What little we know really seems to point to a madman, one who could just have easily used the Catcher in the Rye as the inspiration. I wouldn't be lynching Salinger either.

Politics is much more likely, even from what little we know.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

But what does "politics" mean exactly? A classmate of his said that as of 2007 he was a leftist. From what little we know, it sounds like he was primarily emotionally disturbed, and may have had something personal against Giffords stemming from a previous interaction with her.

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The opinion you call "shitty" merely says that folks who make claims about what politics is responsible for this do so without any evidence to support it. Your indictment of it is no difference: it's baseless and without any evidence to contradict its central claim.

I think you criticize it merely because it criticizes your position, but I'm open to hearing arguments against it with greater intellectual substance than merely calling it poop.

I've not seen any evidence at all that this nut was even motivated by the right-wing, and even if he were I think blaming who a madman takes inspiration from is inherently problematic. I think the comparisons to those who want to criticize Muslims for their madmen (who take inspiration from their religion) are valid. Here the lefties are leaping to shower the right with guilt by association but are remarkably adept at noticing that kind of fallacy when it is used on their arguments and positions.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I read that, too. Loughner apparently attended one of Giffords' rallies in 2007...long before Palin was on the scene.

I think the one good thing that could come of this (if the politicians are paying attention) is that rhetoric alluding to violence, even if metaphorical, is not helpful....certainly not necessary...there are better ways to prove a point.

Does anyone think they're paying attention?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wow, two of the biggest right-wing hacks in all of journalism say that there's nothing to see here, everyone go home and move on. How totally shocking and compelling.

Do you have anything in your bag of tricks today other than guilt by association and ad hominem fallacies?

Where is the substance of your arguments? I already know you dislike righties.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Does anyone think they're paying attention?

If it's not a demonstrable trend among the electorate, nor an offer of a campaign contribution, no, i don't.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

for all we know Giffords was shot because she is a blond and the shooter has a psychotic hatred/fear of blonds. anyone remember that Texas Tower shooter? his autopsy revealed he had a brain tumor. (the autopsy didn't reveal whether it was a liberal or wing-nut tumor)

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know