63
   

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:02 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
if he was crazy then motive is irrelevant

That's not true.

We don't know that he is crazy. What people describe is an unstable individual, somewhat creepy, with somewhat strange ideas, who was sometimes given to disruptive behaviors, but that doesn't make him crazy. No one, for instance, has reported that he experienced hallucinations or mentioned hallucinations to them, or that he reported what sounded like full blown delusions.

He acted in a very organized manner in the hours leading up to the shooting. He checked into a motel, called a friend and left him a message, and he posted a comment on his MySpace page. He brought in film to be developed at a Walgreens and bought a black bag to carry things. He went to a Walmart and bought ammunition. He picked up the film he had developed. He took a cab to the supermarket and went into the supermarket to get change to pay the cab driver. He paid the driver. Then he went back into the supermarket and started shooting.

He carried out a crime which was planned and organized. And he apparently had at least one definite intended target--a political/governmental figure--a member of Congress. What motivated all of this is important to understand because it is an element of his crime. Although I suspect we may not learn more about that until this case goes to trial.

Look, Timothy McVeigh hoped to start a revolution by blowing up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and he wasn't crazy.




So what??? People can be mad and methodical, and one does not exclude the other... Insanity does not much enter into whether we execute people.... It once was that the church forbade the execution of the insane in the grips of their insanity out of the feeling that such people could not repent their sins with a clear mind and face death with a clear concience.... Now we would just as soon send some people to hell as look at them one more minute.... I think insanity is just too general, especially in places like Arizona, for anyone to be considered insane unless gagged and bibbed.... It is inevitable that when forms are failing, that the gap between what a person has been led to expect from their society and the reality they must face can only be spanned with a flight of fancy... For those with much fear and little imagination there is no escape from the pain...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:07 pm
@realjohnboy,
I doubt very much anybody noticed the error John.

Are you one of that small minority of Americans who expect people to listen to what you say? There are not many like that left here in England. It's considered impolite and anti-social now. Taking turns in talking is what's the in thing.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:11 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
It's nice to see a conservative Republican, like Joe Scarborough, calling out people like Palin and Beck for their gun-themed violent rhetoric, and chastising other members of his own party for not doing so as well...Bravo, Joe!


The happening at that store have zero to do with gun-themed violent rhetoric such might had accounted for the attempted killing of a congress person but not the cold blood killing of a nine year old girl.


It was all cold... Violence is a fact of life, and a facet of every character... To premeditate violence against any living person, understanding our own pain is cold beyond belief.... I would expland the definition of violence to any injury premeditated no matter how slowly it bear the bloody fruit.... Do you think any of these people buys and carries a gun without ever a thought to using it??? My guns are buried in a sense, and it would take some destruction to get to them... I cannot even use them for their primary purpose of killing deer...I might kill in defense of my family... I do not think I could kill in self defense... I no longer hold myself in such high regard... What ever I do of a violent nature will certainly not be premditated... Meditation is to give the sane the chance to reject the violent solutions, and to look for alternatives...
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:15 pm
@realjohnboy,
I wondered about what would happen to her House seat also. I think the consensus is that it is much too early to even discuss that issue. There is no way of predicting what her recovery will be like yet, and emotions about her shooting are still pretty high.

She has been re-appointed to two committees she previously served on:
Quote:
Giffords keeps committee assignments
By Mike Lillis - 01/19/11

The Jan. 8 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has not kept the Arizona Democrat from retaining two of her three committee assignments in the new Congress.

Democratic Caucus members on Wednesday morning approved a resolution — adopted by the Steering Committee the night before — to keep Giffords on the Armed Services and Science & Technology committees, posts she held in the previous Congress.

She was not named to the Foreign Affairs Committee — a seat she held in the 111th Congress — although one Democratic vacancy remains for that panel.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/138955-giffords-keeps-committee-assignments


Her staffs have been working at her offices and attending to the needs of constituents.
http://www.herald-mail.com/news/la-na-giffords-seat-20110119,0,6007388.story

Quote:
What happens in Congress when a member becomes incapacitated?

They keep their seat until they decide—or their family decides—that it's time to step down. There are no rules in the House or the Senate that say a member of Congress must ever resign due to health reasons. In theory, a total vegetable could sit in Congress as long as their family refused to pull the political plug. Likewise, party leaders rarely pressure a member to step down—at least not publicly. That said, incapacitated members of Congress aren't very effective. Their staffers may continue to write legislation and advocate for their constituents' interests, but the members have little sway if they're not physically able to show up for votes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280826/


In the case of Gladys Spellman, she fell into a coma before she was sworn into office. So, the vacating of her seat, with the permission of her family, was done under different circumstances than exist for Giffords. And that was the only time Congress vacated a member's seat for medical reasons.

There have been many officeholders who have held onto their seats despite being incapacitated:
Quote:
Other members of Congress have continued to serve long after being incapacitated. In the 1940s, Carter Glass, a senator from Virginia, was absent for four years due to ailing health. He refused to step down despite numerous pleas from the editorial boards of Virginia newspapers, and his staff continued to work during that time. (Glass was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.) He kept his seat until his death in 1946. When Sen. Karl Mundt, a Republican from South Dakota suffered a stroke in 1969, his wife took over running his office. Mundt would resign, she said, only if the governor of South Dakota agreed to appoint her as his successor. The governor refused. Mundt didn't seek re-election in 1972 and was replaced by a Democrat. Sen. James Murray of Montana was so senile in the 1950s that his son ran his office and told him how to vote. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized for long stretches in his final years, but he remained in office until his death at 92 in 2010. Despite suffering a stroke in 2006, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota won re-election in 2008 and continues to serve.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280826/


So, it does seem unlikely that Giffords seat will be vacated, unless she or her family make that decision.

0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:18 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

Quote:
The left just hates anti-left rhetoric
and leaps upon the chaotic mayhem of a deranged mind
to fake justification of its degradation of free speech.


The right is paranoid that something will come out - and it matters not if the killer used idiotic right wing violent language to act on or not. The hate filled, gun violent rhetoric of the right sucks - it is WRONG before WRONG now and WRONG in the future. Republicans own the NeoNazis, the KKK, racists and the White Supremacists. They will not disavow them, tell them to get lost, tell them they don't want them. They want their votes and they talk to them through guns and violence. The right is mean, hateful and violent. And, it has got to stop and is WRONG !

Any forum that can be used to say this - is justified, and if there can be useful laws passed to get rid of people killing gun paraphernalia, that is better for society.

Now, you can make your point -

Quote:
Very well said, Bill.
Your points r superbly well taken.


A man I knew once said that the Democrat party knew how to get the red neck vote and it knew how to keep their necks red too... What he meant was that the party used the people's issues to get themselves elected, but they did not cure their problems when they got elected... Now the Republican party has the red neck vote, and they are not doing anything to educate them, or to improve their situation... They are using them, speaking directly to their prejudices, and keeping them in the same condition out of which they first voted republican... It is their way, and the way of all parties...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
bs - it is relevant for legal, political and Psychology purposes - duh
What is your argument? Mine is that the definition of crazy is that we the majority no longer recognize the processing of their minds as being similar to ours. If we cant make any sense out of their mind then we dont place any value on the results of their minds.
One half of the country cannot recognize the train of thought of the other half as being similar or sane... Republican and democrats would both describe the other as insane, or at minimum: Immoral... I think they are both right... If anyone thinks voting for either party is going to solve anything they are as nutty as squirrel ****...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:23 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
a paranoid schizophrenic can plan - but, this is not something the right want to believe - it gets too close to home


They can also watch Fox news and pick up all kinds of ideas...
No one picks up any true idea without understaning the reasoning behind it... All anyone gets from fox is prejudice or evidence in support of their prejudice....
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
They can also watch Fox news and pick up all kinds of ideas...
I suppose that we could do away with the Fourth Estate and eliminate what remains of individual freedom also , but what are you going to do about the crazy persons ability to tune into Cartoon Network for Road Runner and Coyote?? There are loads of ideas in that show that a crazy person might find appealing....and none of them too appetizing for the rest of us.
The fourth estate may believe it has the right to do what it does, and the churches too; but if pressed, they might agree that what they have in fact is a privilage, ONLY.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:28 pm
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


In Britain we do not allow nutty people to possess guns, nor anyone else to do so for that matter.

This works well.

Quote:
are you going to claim that Citizens do not have the right to mount revolution


This argument, if you can call it that, is so daft.
If you are suggesting that an armed citizenry has a chance to overthrow a modern state by force, I have to inform you that the days of the flintlock musket are over.

Under what circumstances can you forsee a successful revolution in your country?

I would not argue that the people have a chance of overthrowing the government by force; and there is a much easier way to do so... What it does need is the ability to defend the revolution from all who would turn it, as so many have been turned; INTO Tyranny... I want everyone armed... I also want people to have the sense not to use their arms on a lark...
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:29 pm
Thanks, Firefly for responding.
As for you, Spendius, my understanding is that things like tweets and twitters or whatever they are called are archived somewhere. So all of the OMG's and WTF's, and perhaps even A2K postings might get saved. Someday a potential PHD candidate will write about JohnBoy and will become perplexed by my erroneous comment. The clarification will allow him/her to get the degree and be able to say "Would you like fries with that?"
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:38 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
This argument, if you can call it that, is so daft.
If you are suggesting that an armed citizenry has a chance to overthrow a modern state by force, I have to inform you that the days of the flintlock musket are over.

Under what circumstances can you forsee a successful revolution in your country?


Seizing military equipments is going to be a first step to any revolt so it not going to be tanks and jets against citizens with handguns and rifles for long. Handguns and rifles will be useful however to do that seizing in the first place.

Second, all the military forces in the world is not going to work if soldiers by the individuals and by the small units and by larger units start to refused orders to fire on and engage in combat their fellow citizens and turn on that modern state themselves.

The tanks unit send to seize Yeltsin during the collapse of the USSR is an example of that.

The right would jump at the chance to turn their weapons against the left and install a tyranny in place of an elected government... Okay; but all that is necessary to destroy any form is to turn ones back on it and disenthrall ones self from it... It needs us; and when we grow tired of feeding it, it must fend for itself or die... In fact, the price of keeping so many behind bars, of defending capital on every foreign shore, and protecting property when property will not pay for its own defense, and of supporting the economy when the economy should support the government and everyone else- is breaking the government already... Bankruptcy is the harbinger of revolution... Let it go broke... It is what the right wants, and they are first in line to deny the government funds... I think they should do just that, and deny to all the good government should provide; and then why should any one support it or pay taxes or obey the laws??? The right has the most to lose and they are the only ones betting high stakes... What does that tell you...
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  5  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 06:58 pm
Right-Wing Media Paranoids Haven't Talked a Nut Into Shooting Anyone for Nearly Six MonthsPosted Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:11 PM | By Tom Scocca
Rush Limbaugh is on the defensive, which is to say the offensive, about the liberal media's instant decision to slander the conservative movement in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting:
Quote:
It's the template. It's the narrative. There's never any evidence. Every projection, every prediction, every association that any act of violence has been made with the conservative right has fallen on emptiness. There has never been any evidence of it.


OK, look: so far, Jared Loughner appears to have been acting on some nonpartisan, lunatic ideology.* The people who jumped to the conclusion that he was a right-winger motivated by Tea Party rhetoric or mass-media criticism of Giffords were wrong—at least, he seems to have been much more upset about her attitude toward his theories of grammar than her vote for Obamacare.

Giffords did not get shot because Sarah Palin's political team put a gunsight logo—or a surveyor's mark, or maybe a football-chalkboard X unified with an O to show that we're all on the same team—on top of her district on a map. She did not get shot because the lumpy guys in suits who run campaigns and write political talking points enjoy using metaphors to make their business sound as exciting and important and dramatic as military combat. (Nor did she get shot because someone at Daily Kos used the nonviolent, conventional English expression "dead to me.")

That said: regarding this crazy, evidence-free narrative about how right-wing media incited someone to violence? The one dictated to the leftist media by their bosses at the Democratic National Committee? Here's what happened a little less than six months ago:

A California man accused in a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers in Oakland early Sunday told officials that he traveled to San Francisco and planned to attack two nonprofit groups there "to start a revolution," according to a probable cause statement released by police.

Bryon Williams, 45, a convicted felon with two prior bank robbery convictions, targeted workers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, said Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg in court documents.


And where did Williams get the idea that he should load up his mother's pickup truck with guns and go try to assassinate members of liberal organizations?

Williams watched the news on television and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," his mother said.

(Maybe he was watching Rachel Maddow?)

A little over a year before that, a Kansas man named Scott Roeder assassinated George Tiller, a doctor known for performing late-term abortions, while Tiller was at church. Here's Bill O'Reilly, from his earlier ongoing, obsessive coverage of Tiller's abortion practice:

Quote:
In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed.



Tiller's clinic was picketed and vandalized. And then, finally, some fanatic walked up to him on a weekend morning and shot him in the head.

A month before the Tiller killing, Richard Poplawski of Pittsburgh ambushed and killed three police officers responding to a call at his house; he reportedly "feared 'the Obama gun ban that's on the way.'"

That's three violent incidents in the past two years, perpetrated by people who were angry about gun control, abortion, or the work of liberal nonprofits. Two of them specifically targeted a person or organization that had been singled out by a Fox commentator. Fallen on emptiness, you say.


And so Rush Limbaugh is talking about Jim Jones—"a full-fledged communist and Democrat"—because even if that was more than 30 years ago, it proves that the only crazies are liberals, the only murderers are liberals, the only threat is the liberal left coming to murder people and destroy your freedom:


Quote:
They're now moving to gun control. That was also predictable. What that happens, you know that they're beginning to change course on this. Now, I guarantee you that somewhere in a desk drawer in Washington, DC -- someplace in an FCC bureaucrat's office or someplace -- the government machinery will be in place to take away as many political freedoms as they can manage on the left. They already have it in place, just like the health care bill, Obamacare, was already written years ago. It was in a desk drawer waiting for the moment that they could begin to implement it.

Do you hear Rush? It's a plot. The Democrats had it all planned. The machine is getting ready to take your freedoms. Your guns, even. Will no one stand up and stop the machine?
==============================================
Joe(Yahsure, vat ve say don't make nobody do nuthin', youbetcha)Nation
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 07:24 pm
@Joe Nation,
Previously removed, this clip has been found as well.



"Shoot them in the head."

A
R
T
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 08:07 pm
@failures art,
Do you think that all the talk should have been directed at glenn beck instead of palin or is it just this type of thinking in general?
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 01:22 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
A little over a year before that, a Kansas man named Scott Roeder assassinated George Tiller, a doctor known for performing late-term abortions, while Tiller was at church. Here's Bill O'Reilly, from his earlier ongoing, obsessive coverage of Tiller's abortion practice:

Quote:
In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed.



Tiller's clinic was picketed and vandalized. And then, finally, some fanatic walked up to him on a weekend morning and shot him in the head.

Not real sure of your point, other than you seem to be trying to claim that O'Reilly caused Tiller to be shot and/or his building vandalized. Tiller's clinic has been picketed and vandalized for YEARS before Bill O'Reilly was even on Fox News. Tiller's clinic was fire-bombed and vandalized in the 1980's. "Operation Rescue" moved its operations to Wichita and conducted its "Summer of Mercy" in 1991. Tiller was the victim of an attempted murder in 1993.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 02:27 pm
@Ticomaya,
There was a chap on CBS News last night who was alleged to have performed some after birth terminations. On the greatest good for the greatest number principle maybe somebody should have offed him a few years ago if it is true. Assuming it's good getting born.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 02:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
Oh, lordy, if they or he is perplexed by you, you sane guy, what about the rest of us?

(There won't be any old book shops for that PhD to work in... or newspapers to deliver at dawn)
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 02:54 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Do you think that all the talk should have been directed at glenn beck instead of palin or is it just this type of thinking in general?

No. I don't blame either person, Beck or Palin. Not causing (an impossible task to prove) the shooting is not to say that they have have been responsible with their media platforms.

I try and imagine it if it was me. If I was of the same degree of media popularity as either individual. I believe I'd be aware of how seriously (or rather how passionately) people react to what I say. With that knowledge, I think I'd feel a very real responsibility with what I said. I have a hard time thinking that either person is unaware of their influence. Further, when it comes time to sell a book or two, the suggestion of their credentials and influence is used as a marketing ploy. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Edit: I'll add that I feel a little bad for Palin and Beck. More than they reveal, I imagine both struggle with how people react to them. They may have deep guilt about many things. I tend to give people a lot of credit, and for what it's worth, they may know no alternative on how to present themselves.

A
R
T
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 03:13 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Oh, lordy, if they or he is perplexed by you, you sane guy, what about the rest of us?

(There won't be any old book shops for that PhD to work in... or newspapers to deliver at dawn)


It was a neat idea of rjb's osso. It's been at the back of my mind since I got into the swing of A2K after a few posts.

The electrician's toolbox idea in Canticle for Leibowitz.

Some archeologists digging in the ruins find the A2K archive in about AF 40,000. It's a unique find. A team of Trobriand Island scientists set to work on decoding it to find out what the buggers were like in the olden days. The love interest can be just as in Jane Austen. I'm an optimist.

You would need 3 or 4 chapters explaining how the torch got carried to the islands but that's easy enough.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 07:22 pm
It just came over the news that some guy was being very non-pc and wrote a column/blog where he stated that the congresswoman shooting was only a beginning as there was 532 or so to go and as a result got raided by the police with his firearms seized.

With the added comment that killings others is wrong when going after a politician.

All in very bad taste and sickening but somehow I question if the police was of the opinion that he was about to go on a killing spree so short of that they have zero rights to raid his home and seized his legal firearms.

I hope they get their asses sue off.

 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 03:43:24