Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Can you explain to me why if the political environment is that explosive that this police chief didn't have at least one police officer at a public event put on by their congresswomen?

First of all, I don't think you understand the difference between sheriffs and police in the US. Sheriffs are elected officials of counties, police chiefs are appointed by mayors of cities. County jurisdiction is mostly over jails and criminal prosecution, not enforcement. The sheriff's office is only involved in enforcement in rural areas that are not covered by municipal police.

Police will only be present at an event like this if they are asked. Tucson is a big city, this was intended to be a pretty small event, and wouldn't be on law enforcement's radar unless there was a specific threat, which there wasn't.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

His department also had a history with the shooter and for the most part did nothing. If he had been charged when he made those threats perhaps his own lawyer or the judge could have sought a mental evaluation.

The shooter had never done anything that explicitly forced legal intervention. There were no specific threats in a public arena. It's not against the law to be batsh•t crazy. The US doesn't have a very robust public mental health system (thanks to Ronald Regan), and as such you'd either have to be committed by a parent if you're under 18 or be remanded to an institution by a court - usually after a crime is committed.

I think we can all agree that his parents might have done more to get him some serious mental health care after the college kicked him out and had their talk with them, but there was no legal recourse. He was of age, and hadn't done anything criminal at that point.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Don't you find it strange that they picked this week to quit in fear over tea party threats when no tea party threat has ever been acted on outside of threatening to vote their canadates in? Also how do they know that the people making these threats are tea party members?

Please see Stimpy's posts on page 12. There have been plenty of violent actions instigated by affiliates of the teabaggers. And many more threats of violence. Now the people who have been targets of those threats are taking them more seriously. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Hatred of earmarks, the expansion of big government, soaring debt, government health care, government bail outs, ect. is not confined to the tea party. Most Americans are mad at the status quo.

Most of the Americans who are mad about these things don't really know what they're mad at. They only know that they're mad because they know something is wrong and someone tells them they should be mad at specific things that may or may not have anything to do with the situation we're in. I'm not being cynical. I live here, and I hear it all the time. The people screaming about the "job-killing health care plan" are the same ones who hold up signs saying "keep government out of my medicare."

[HOZ]

President Obama (I apologise for any misquote)
- The truth is that none of us truly knows exactly what triggered this vicious attack

The attempts to find and fix self-serving demonizing blame on an political explanation was and is illogical. This truth seems to have gone flying by quite a few very small people in this thread and elsewhere.

Rocks have more political interest than this guy.

[Gozer]

Concluding the attack was random is willfully ignoranant.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Please see Stimpy's posts on page 12. There have been plenty of violent actions instigated by affiliates of the teabaggers. And many more threats of violence. Now the people who have been targets of those threats are taking them more seriously. Wouldn't you?

Im not even sure if the guys on that list are even Republican let alone tea partiers. Most of them were white supremacists which doesn't make them associates of the tea party. White Supremacists hate Obama because he is black. Tea partiers hate Obama's policies. They aren't affiliated.

Andrew Joseph Stack was mentioned because he didn't like high taxes just like the tea partiers. But Stack also was angry because of the lack of universal health care. Does that sound like a tea partier? I also seem to recall that he was a registered democrat.

Also, why call them "tea baggers" ? Why the contempt? They have a right to a political opinion different than yours. Don't they?

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Most of the Americans who are mad about these things don't really know what they're mad at. They only know that they're mad because they know something is wrong and someone tells them they should be mad at specific things that may or may not have anything to do with the situation we're in. I'm not being cynical. I live here, and I hear it all the time. The people screaming about the "job-killing health care plan" are the same ones who hold up signs saying "keep government out of my medicare."

Poppycock! People have seen their jobs and opportunities disappear at an alarming rate. At the same time they've seen their government spend money faster than ever before; all of which is borrowed. They're not happy and they are placing the blame directly where it should be placed: On the reigning politicians.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also, why call them "tea baggers" ? Why the contempt? They have a right to a political opinion different than yours. Don't they?

Straw man alert. Where was it said, or implied, that they can't have a differing opinion?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Straw man alert. Where was it said, or implied, that they can't have a differing opinion?

Hardly a straw man. I asked a question. I didn't state that he said anything of the sort. I'm trying to figure out why he chose to call this political group "tea baggers". Why the hate?

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm trying to figure out why he chose to call this political group "tea baggers". Why the hate?

I assume they called the party, "The Tea Party" in reference to the Boston Tea Party and Tea Baggers is slang for the members, an unfortunate nickname IMO. LoL

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I assume they called the party, "The Tea Party" in reference to the Boston Tea Party and Tea Baggers is slang for the members, an unfortunate nickname IMO. LoL

It's an acronym.

Taxed
Enough
Already

[Pinner]

You made me look it up

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Pinner

You made me look it up



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

Correct but they have adopted the acronym for a long while now.

The rest of that paragraph...

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation.[8][9] Tea Party protests have sought to evoke images, slogans and themes from the American Revolution, such as tri-corner hats and yellow Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flags.[3][10] The letters T-E-A have been used by some protesters to form the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".

[Pinner]

OK then / Like I care

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Cops tend to stick together. I would be very suprised to see a Police chief speak out against a fellow cop.

They do, and they don't. They are part of the same brotherhood, but they are very territorial when it comes to jurisdiction. County and municipality normally don't have a great relationship and are paranoid of each other. They are not one big happy family and there are clashes between municipality and county. In fact, it was in Arizona where the immigration battle cause a local municipal force to clash with county, preventing them from doing a roundup. County responded with an early morning raid of city offices because a contract service providing cleaning services was using undocumented workers. To claim one cop is going to back another just because they are both cops is highly inaccurate.

Can you explain to me why if the political environment is that explosive that this police chief didn't have at least one police officer at a public event put on by their congresswomen?

That request would have to have been made by the group organizing the event. Not the fault of local law enforcement.

His department also had a history with the shooter and for the most part did nothing. If he had been charged when he made those threats perhaps his own lawyer or the judge could have sought a mental evaluation.

All of it very minor stuff. The most he would have received during those contacts was a citation and possibly a misdemeanor charge. Not enough to demand a psych eval, especially in a state where the Republicans have stripped out all money relating to health care. There just isn't money in the budget to order evaluations like you suggest.

Hopefully the 4 State Republicans who quit their jobs this week had more motivation than fear. Public figures have been getting death threats since the republic began. Yet very little has ever transpired. When something has occured it is just as likely that the guy is a loon as he has a political grudge.

Don't you find it strange that they picked this week to quit in fear over tea party threats when no tea party threat has ever been acted on outside of threatening to vote their canadates in? Also how do they know that the people making these threats are tea party members?

Do I find it strange that they quit this week? A politician was gunned down, after getting threats, which put a very real face on the issue for these people. They just saw what happened and realize that could have been them.

How do they know it was Tea Party members? Do you bother to read any of the links provided or do you just continue to practice projection bias? The people that were threatened knew some of those people who threatened them or had information that confirmed their affiliation.

Hatred of earmarks, the expansion of big government, soaring debt, government health care, government bail outs, ect. is not confined to the tea party. Most Americans are mad at the status quo.

How do you know what Americans are mad about? Most Americans don't even know what they are mad about. I don't see your argument holding much water. Look at the issue instead of the talking points.

Earmarks. Some earmarks are a joke, but most earmarks are how major infrastructure projects are paid for rather than waiting the 5-20 years for the money to be appropriated through regular means. People should try and understand the process rather than listening to some empty rhetoric about a process they know very little about. If they are going to complain about earmarks then how can they be so enamored with Palin and Bachmann, two abusers of the earmark system? Also, the problem is across the board and is unaffected by party affiliation.

Big government. This is another great talking point but holds very water upon examination because the term is never defined. What is big government? Care to explain it? I have an idea and you're not going to like which party was responsible for the greatest expansions in government since the end of the Great Depression. I'll wait for your definition though.

Soaring debt. More projection bias in action. Why can't conservatives take ownership of the problems they cause? The debt increased more under Reagan and both Bushs than all the other presidents combined. They expanded government and increased military spending to the heights never seen before. Own this. Embrace this. It's yours. Run with it, but please stop complaining about it.

Government health care. Americans love government health care! Don't believe me? Take a look back to the health care debate and see how many Americans, especially Tea Party members, were crowing about Obama keeping his hands off their Medicare. Not sure if you realize this, but Medicare is government health care. Ironically, the health care debate was not about health care, but about health insurance, and it ended in there being no government health care, just a mandate that Americans had to have insurance (from private providers no less) and could be subsidized if they did have means to pay. There is no issue with how you tried to frame it.

Bailouts. Another murky subject that the average Joe doesn't understand. The first bailout was on Bush's watch. That's where Wall Street was given almost a trillion dollars of money with no strings attached. That money is gone, because there was no oversight attached to how it could be used. The only positive about this was that it probably averted a failure of our financial system. The bailouts that took place after that, on Obama's watch, were all heavily regulated and had schedules to be paid back by those who took stimulus or bailout money. To date, all of that money is accounted for and the government has made money on almost every entity that took stimulus money.

I want to know if the Tea Party is so up in arms about debt and the cost of government then why are they so firmly behind the Bush tax cuts? All those tax cuts do is add to the debt and increase the cost of government. Holding firm on those, which the Tea Party supports in spades, will add almost a trillion dollars to the debt and increase the service load. This is the contradiction of the Tea Party. They don't know what they are mad about and have no idea how to fix things, but they are good at being mad and making a lot of noise.

[transplant99]

I think its becoming fairly clear that although his target was a politician, it had nothing to do with her politics. She could have been a republican, a communist or a green party member, it simply didnt matter. This was kid who was heading for a psychotic break for a long time and it finally happened. The unfortunate part is that it happened in a time and at a spot that so many innocents were right beside his infatuation and many payed the price because of his delusions.

There is no one to "blame" for this tragedy beyond the shooter. Period. Regardless of Palin's crosshairs or the sheriffs agenda or Rush Limbaughs complete idiocy, this thing occurred because a punk with grand illusions decided it was going to happen. Sick or not, he knew what was right and what was wrong. For that reason alone he will get the death penalty. Being the whole thing has been caught on tape, I doubt there is a defense sturdy enough to aviod it.

All that being said, it doesn't take away from the fact that the tone and the words and the depictions among all politicians and their respective parties against their opponents needs to change and should be debated until something can be agreed to. If that doesn't happen, we will indeed at some point, see another incident like this that will be proven to be completely politically driven.

[Gozer]

Close your eyes enough and all you see is coincidence.

The TeaParty is based on noble ideals, but it has become a festering mix of misdirected outrage and veiled racism.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

While I don't agree with the ideals of the Tea Party and I think for the most part they are a bunch of selfish fools, I fail to see the connection between them and this incident, in which it appears as though there is a guy who is mentally unstable rather than politically motivated.

The irony of the situation is that the people who are against angry rhetoric in political debate are the ones who are trying to peg this on the Tea Party saying that they are the ones responsible for this crime. Is it possible that this criminal had political motivations, it sure is, however it is also possible that this criminal was merely someone who is mentally ill and requires treatment for demons that none of us likely can imagine. I will personally wait until all of the facts regarding this crime have been brought to light before I rush to making any snap judgements about what the cause of this were, I strongly suggest that others do the same and practice some restraint.

[Gozer]

I have no compunction about pointing a finger because I believe my accusations to be true regardless of the outcome of trial or the accused's past voting record.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Outrage toward hatred after an assassination is not ironic.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I have no compunction about pointing a finger because I believe my accusations to be true regardless of the outcome of trial or the accused's past voting record.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Outrage toward hatred after an assassination is not ironic.

You also have an automatic disclaimer for anyone who disagrees, complete with an insult to their intelligence.

Handy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I have no compunction about pointing a finger because I believe my accusations to be true regardless of the outcome of trial or the accused's past voting record.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Outrage toward hatred after an assassination is not ironic.

So even if the evidence suggests otherwise you have no problem with staying true to your initial beliefs. Sorry but that sounds like something that people who support the ideals of the Tea Party would believe.

Showing outrage towards angry political rhetoric by using angry political rhetoric of your own is mildly ironic in my opinion.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You also have an automatic disclaimer for anyone who disagrees, complete with an insult to their intelligence.

Handy.

I was referring to my conclusion, not yours.

The circumstantial evidence IS overwhelming.

Much as I see what I am looking for in this event, you see hypocrisy because you are looking for it.

But I am not guilty of that which denounce. I am not declaring that the Tea Party is the most dangerous force in history. I am not arguing for Second ammendment solutions to an opposing opinion.

This act is being attributed to a madman whose actions defy explanation. I do not agree with that conclusion.
Visible leaders of the political right-wing are inciting their base against the left for political gain. The lead-up to the 08 election was fraught with hatred and fear directed at both Clinton and Obama. Beyond the oft-cited Palin crosshairs, the message from the right was extreme, personalized, and implicitly endorsed by the leaders of the Republican party.
Arguing that a 22 year old with political interest was not influenced by the TV ads (which were massive investments in Arizona, and not just in the federal election) and the opinions formed with friends and neighbors (that collectively were defined by the hate speech to some extent) - these are not a randomly chaotic series of events - this was a logical extension of a pattern.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I was referring to my conclusion, not yours.

.

I wasn't referring to either.