Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet, but that crazy Phelps family from the Westboro (?) Baptist Church is already saying that this was God's work and they plan to show up at some of the funerals.

They had that Shirley Phelps on the Edge radio station today in Toronto (as they do from time to time) to make fun of her and call her out. Today, she promised that if she was a allowed to talk, that their group would not show up at the 9 year old's funeral. Hopefully they hold to their word on that.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I agree. I can flip a coin once, then do it again completely expecting a different result. Obviously I'm loony.

Exactly, the first time I heard someone say that I just ripped the entire assertion apart.

If I shoot 1000 jump shots from the same spot on a basketball court, I expect to become better at jump shots from that spot.

If I take 1000 wrist shots, I expect to become better at wrist shots.

Etc.

I don't know why this ridiculous idea caught on, or why so many people accept it as truth.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes he is anti-government...any government....that has nothing to do with partisan politics. Not sure why you are arguing against that as it has been well established to this point and pretty much even argued by you when you posted this...

His personal politics may not be described as congruent with the current political dichotomy prevalent in the United States, but his actions were politically motivated. He's being described by DHA and the FBI as an anarchist or nihilist, which frames his political beliefs.

Politics and government are seperate things.

I'll define the terms so we're talking about the same thing.
gov·ern·ment

noun, often attributive
\ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\
Definition of GOVERNMENT

1
: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

2
obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion

3
a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

4
: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule

5
a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

6
: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : administration 4b


po·lit·i·cal

adj \pə-ˈli-ti-kəl\
Definition of POLITICAL

1
a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

2
: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

3
: organized in governmental terms <political units>

4
: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system <political prisoners>


pol·i·tics

noun pl but singular or pl in constr \ˈpä-lə-ˌtiks\
Definition of POLITICS

1
a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

2
: political actions, practices, or policies

3
a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

4
: the political opinions or sympathies of a person

5
a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>


You can't define one without the other. They are symbiotic in nature. One does not exist without the other. I will point you to definition 4 of politics, which describes what is being discussed.

False.

He stated it was because of his perception that she treated him at a previous rally (much like the one on Saturday) very poorly or didnt give him enough of her time.

Where did he state that? There was a lot of ramblings on his web sites and in the notes he left behind in his safe, and most of them political in nature. He may has stated that he had disdain for the Congresswoman but he held the same view with pretty well everyone, based on the information available. His one statement about his displeasure about the snub he received from the Congresswoman does not eliminate the dozens of other political statements he made.

Again...politics and government are not one and the same although no question linked.

That's like trying to separate behavior and psychology. Psychology is the study of behavior and motivations. Politics is the behaviors, motivations and actions of government. You can't have one without the other.

She was not shot because she was a Democrat, she was shot because she was a politician...period. One he was familiar with. In fact i read something earlier today where it was explained that he had a big problem with George W as well.

As I said, this could have happened to someone from either party. This guy was unhinged and wanted to make a political statement about government. Giffords just happened to be the representative most available. I think we can agree that the ideology of the Congresswoman is irrelevant, but that does not mean his actions were not politically motivated. His writings and web sites indicate his motivations were political. His last note mentioned his assassination. I think one more definition may be helpful in explaining this.
as·sas·si·nate

verb \ə-ˈsa-sə-ˌnāt\
as·sas·si·nat·edas·sas·si·nat·ing
Definition of ASSASSINATE

transitive verb
1
: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously

2
: to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons

This guy shot these people because he is batcrap crazy...not because of inflammatory political rhetoric.

The inflammatory rhetoric fed his delusions, enhanced his feelings of frustration and inflated his desire to act out. This same rhetoric is having similar results around the country, as indicated by the posted chronology.

That being said, I agree the crap has to stop as even if this particular scumbag wasn't motivated by the nonsense, its not a very hard stretch to see that exact thing happen in the near future with some other nutbar.

Completely agree with you. The heat needs to be turned down. Unfortunately it just continues to rise. Both sides of the debate need to calm down and choose their words a lot more carefully. They also have to get out of the cycle of perpetual campaigning and worry about governing rather than trying to get elected. The election cycle should be 90 days, and all campaign activities should cease outside of this window, to prevent the runaway rhetoric that has developed over the past couple of decades. This tragedy should be a rallying point to bring us together, not push us further a part. If both sides can't come together on what DHS has called a domestic terror attack against our political institutions by an anarchist/nihilist, then what can they come together on?

[J pold]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

It was Albert Einstein.

Didn't he fail high school English?

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by J pold

Didn't he fail high school English?

Not sure. Some people attribute the quote to Benjamin Franklin- but I don't think either were referring to flipping a coin.

It is pertinent to this thread in many ways though. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results might not be 'insane'- but it does seem to be human nature and it does seem to be the driving force in politics.

Republicans can argue for gun rights and Dems can argue for banning guns altogether, but nutheads will still kill people with or without guns. They always have. Republicans can argue for the end of abortion and Dems can argue that women should have the right to choose, but women will always find ways to have abortions regardless. They always have. Republicans can argue for the war on drugs, and Dems can argue for the legalization of marijuana, but people are still going to smoke pot and do drugs. They always have.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by J pold

Didn't he fail high school English?

Considering he was German, I'm not surprised!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Also what is up with this collective schizophrenia of the American public? This frankly insane distrust of "the government" and the same type of sick obsession with the apocalypse (end of days, peak oil, etc. etc. etc.) is a just a bewildering immaturity and psychosis that is easily wedged by the powerful. Any type of moderately accessible and logical policy debate is almost instantly derailed by real life trolls boiling down to these collective lapses is any type of reason, maturity and thoughtfulness by raising the old "big government" straw man and playing off many American's almost sick desire for some type of apocalyptic ending. Yes yes, we know that you all ran from the monarchy and slaughtered one another whole scale in the civil war... I guess they just can't move on from that collective history.

It also helps answer the question of:
How is it that the country with the highest GDP per capita in the world is also somehow populated by what seems to be the most superstitious and irrational people in the western world?

In case you have been living in a cave for the last 10 years, the American government is not serving the American people and they are beginning to wake up to this. This is what is bringing the crazies out of the closet. There is unrest and it is only going to get worse in the next few years.

From unjust, pointless wars, terror attacks, police state policies, extreme debt, unemployment, and bailing out banks and large corporations you can see how people are becoming paranoid.

Banning guns would make for a bit less violence today and tomorrow, maybe save a few lives here and there, but what if a Stalin or a Chairman Mao came to power in your nation? What then? The people would be completely vulnerable to tyranny. History shows that governments have caused more death with guns then citizens ever could, and this is why total citizen gun bans are short-sighted.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Banning guns would make for a bit less violence today and tomorrow, maybe save a few lives here and there, but what if a Stalin or a Chairman Mao came to power in your nation? What then? The people would be completely vulnerable to tyranny. History shows that governments have caused more death with guns then citizens ever could, and this is why total citizen gun bans are short-sighted.

I don't know man... Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world and it didn't stop tyranny or dictatorships from forming there.

[mikey_the_redneck]

...and to give another perspective, here is a short article where the father of the 9 year old victim of the shooting warns the media/government not to exploit his daughters death to revoke freedoms.

http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2011/01/10...voke-freedoms/

"What a classy, brave and thoughtful individual John Green is – father of the 9-year-old girl murdered by Jared Loughner – Green contradicts the distasteful rush to exploit Saturday’s tragic events as a vehicle through which to eviscerate the 1st and 2nd Amendments."

Speaking on the subject of how travel became a nightmare after 9/11, John Green said, “We don’t need any more restrictions on our society,”

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Banning guns would make for a bit less violence today and tomorrow, maybe save a few lives here and there, but what if a Stalin or a Chairman Mao came to power in your nation? What then? The people would be completely vulnerable to tyranny. History shows that governments have caused more death with guns then citizens ever could, and this is why total citizen gun bans are short-sighted.

When is the last time a tyrant came to power in a Western Democratic nation?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by troutman

When is the last time a tyrant came to power in a Western Democratic nation?

1930s.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by troutman

When is the last time a tyrant came to power in a Western Democratic nation?

President George Bush 2004 ...I kid.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

President George Bush 2004 ...I kid.

According to some, Hitler has been President of the US ever since he became the evilest man in history. Which I guess was postwar, but might have been when the Holocaust was brought to international attention, which was the 60s, I think.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Also what is up with this collective schizophrenia of the American public? This frankly insane distrust of "the government" and the same type of sick obsession with the apocalypse (end of days, peak oil, etc. etc. etc.) is a just a bewildering immaturity and psychosis that is easily wedged by the powerful.

I remember reading/hearing a little while back a big reason for this was the prevailence and ingrained "American Dream" in American society. Anyone can accomplish anything, etc, etc. So many people go through their lives with the end goal as having this dream realized and that they will "make it" in the land of opportunity. Thus, the distrust and reluctance to allow the government to interfere in their day to lives as its seen as an impediment to realizing this dream.

Don't ask me to source this, however, as I can't remember exactly where it was from. I found it interesting nonetheless.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Whatever you say. Nice piece of name calling too.

?

I shouldn't be arguing these things on a Smart Phone apparently . . . . I think spell check changed Stimpy to Skimpy which, in hindsight, was appropriate and funny even as it was unintentional. Or maybe I should just call you Lanny since this is all starting to sound vaguely familiar.

As to the politically charged environment, as per the link below, a majority of Americans in a poll released today feel it had nothing to do with the motivations of the shooter in this case. Only one-third of Americans felt it did and more Democrats felt it was not a factor than those that did.

Common sense prevails.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1865468/

In a complete thread-sucking sidebar, as to Sarah Palin's Alaska, I would agree with Oprah Winfrey's view:

“I don’t know her so I can’t speak to [whether or not she'll be a candidate]. But I would say that America’s going to fall in love with her from [her reality series, Sarah Palin's Alaska]. When I saw that first episode, I went, ‘Whoa! She is charming and very likable.’”

Asked if she was scared by a Palin candidacy for President, Winfrey, a Democrat, responded:

“It does not scare me because I believe in the intelligence of the American public.”

Pretty much sums it up, likeable enough but a bit of a fruit loop for policies and no chance to be President.

Having said that, I thought the series generally served her very well, particularly the family aspects.

Her husband and children were great salespeople in a pretty ordinary way. The obvious way the family has embraced their Downs Syndrome child into their lives was touching and would appeal to anyone. I'm sure there will be a cadre of working class people in particular who would love to see Todd Palin as First Man after viewing this series.

Her more blood-thirsty instincts will appeal to some but probably turn off most since the USA is very much an urban population. It's just out of tune with the majority and probably made a lot of people squirm. The notion that most Alaskans hunt and fish and store up caribou meat for the winter is probably demonstratably delusional. Her cheerful father's collecton of heads and bones was a little weird . . . . . but he was kind of loveable as were the other Alaskan characters she met and obviously had a great deal of empathy with along the way.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a more manic insistence to use the word "commercial" as a distinction within the fishing world. It was just irritating but, later you on you learn the family is indeed involved in a commercial fishery so maybe that's where it came from.

Basically, the purpose of the series was to deliver a crafted portrait of herself and her values outside of what she would perceive to be a media filter. That would be the key wording. In that, she probably succeeded quite well. You probably got to know her pretty well. Whether or not you liked her or not is another thing and some parts might have turned even some supporters off.

There's just nothing you can do about that squeeky voice and staggered pronunciation.

Cowperson

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't know man... Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq had one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world and it didn't stop tyranny or dictatorships from forming there.

People who live in stone houses shouldn't own guns?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

...

Basically, the purpose of the series was to deliver a crafted portrait of herself and her values outside of what she would perceive to be a media filter. That would be the key wording. In that, she probably succeeded quite well. You probably got to know her pretty well. Whether or not you liked her or not is another thing and some parts might have turned even some supporters off.

I never watch the show but was curious one evening and flipped the channel to it. I don't know if I tuned in at exactly the wrong moment, but it looked like Sarah and her family were all on a camping trip on a rainy day in the Alaskin wilderness. Sarah says a couple things and then, speaking to her youngest child but loud enough for all to hear, utters:

"And if you stand over here and look between those two peaks, guess what you can see???..... Russia!!!"

Probably just a case of perfect timing but I immediately had to change the channel haha.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

When is the last time a tyrant came to power in a Western Democratic nation?

Depends on your understanding of tyranny.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Depends on your understanding of tyranny.

Someone like this:

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Someone like this:

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.

I'd say that's pretty good. Here's Tocqueville's take:

“Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate; but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls...”

--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II 4.6