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.
Thats where your argument goes off of the rails, his politics if we are to believe everything that he heard were not defined by the tea party or by the reps or democrats. They were insane conspiracy theories that fit into no sane political spectrum and fueled by a mentally ill mind.
We also know from interviews that he asked a question of Gifford that made no sense and when she couldn't answer it, it more then likely triggered his anger because he felt he either wasn't being heard or wasn't being recognized as some brilliant mind.
Circumstantial evidence will not get you a conviction, nor does it make your argument right.
You point out Stimpy's list of violent actions which are sprinkled with individuals who were either linked to racial groups or survival groups and you automatically apply that to the theory that because those beliefs are right of central that it automatically condemns the tea party or the republicans or their supporters as the same type of individuals, then you take the further step and try to attach it to a person that more then likely wasn't fueled by political rhetoric or ads, but was motivated by political theory that was formulated out of comic books and T.V. shows shot for free by public broadcasters.
Your casting a really wide net.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Your conclusion of circumstantial evidence is one that is weak because there is no actual evidence involving the individual in question. If you could show he attended Tea Party type meetings or Republican Rallies or did something that would actually be attributable to him as a person who was so manipulated by a random Sarah Palin endorsed image that I had never seen before in my life (not doubting it's authenticity but rather it's impact)... then I could see circumstantial evidence, but the fact is all the actual evidence points to this guy just being a crazy loser who shot at someone famous because he is a crazy loser.
Your personal actions right now make it seem as though every left-leaning politician in America is in danger as a result of the Republican Parties tactics. So I question the rationality of your own beliefs which you freely admit you will not change regardless of the evidence you are presented with. As I say, do you not appreciate the irony in the situation?
Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 01-15-2011 at 06:39 PM.
Arguing the United States is changing more dramatically than any of us can imagine, and the leader of this movement is historically evil is irrational and dangerous.
Arguing that an attempted assassination is part of a pattern that draws from the above is not.
I suppose if you dismiss the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and feel my words instill hatred then the irony may be more apparent.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
That request would have to have been made by the group organizing the event. Not the fault of local law enforcement.
Somebody dropped the ball. His office knew of the death threats. Did he council the congresswomen to have protection and she refused or did he neglect to protect. One of the 2 didn't see the death threats as worrysome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Gregory Lee Giusti(one of your suppose tea party affiliates) was give a mental evaluation for threatening Nancy Peolski(sp). If the Sheriff bothered to bring charges against this guy a judge could have ordered a mental assessment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Ok I went back and read your links. After that I googled them because your choice of news sources are frankly garbage. Here's what I've found:
Two of your examples were registered democrats. One of them was also a self professed White Supremacist.
One of the other White Supremacists was killed be his wife before he could act. He had filled out an application to join the National Socialist movement just before he was killed.
The third White Supremacist shot three police officers who came to his home to evict him. His mother had called and wanted him out of the house.
You listed an anti-government militia who has yet to go to trial so they are presumed innocent right? They have been in existance since before the Tea Party and like most of your other examples have no link to the tea party.
The lone black man in these links apparently had been listening to Glen Beck and decided to kill some Tide foundation members. He was picked up driving drunk before he ever got there. He apparently confessed to his intentions.
None of the articles I read referenced one thing Beck said that encouraged violence. This fellow came up with the idea himself. Having been convicted of armed bank robbery twice this guy might have acted on his plans. For the record: Although Glen Beck has spoken out against the behaviour of banks he has never told his viewing audience to rob one.
None of the links you provided(or I read) could point to any of these people attending a Tea Party meeting, giving them money, working as a volunteer for the Tea Party, or owning any of their literature. None of them were even identified as registered Republicans.
Only one of your examples were even threats against politicians and it was just a threat which prompted the mental evaluation.
Im sorry I missed the letter bombs. The one that was mailed to the Home Land Security director contained no clue to why. The other three directed to State politicians were because one guy was offended by some signs in his State that encouraged reporting suspicious observations to Home Land Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Im not going to dig up the surveys. They're easy enough to find on line. Arguing the merits of their opinions is too far off topic for me. The point is: Whether or not you believe their beefs have merit they do know what they are mad at. Last November was an example of that anger being exercized in a healthy manner. You can credit the Tea party as well as many right wing commentators for that expression of democracy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Debt is increased by spending money you don't have. The solution needs to be reduced spending. Increasing the tax burden on the productive members of society isn't fair and can be counterproductive during hard times.
Our governments should concern themselves with our protection and law and order. Wealth distribution should be determined by the creativity, resourcefulness, and sweat of the population. It is not the place of government to determine how much is too much and then take the surplus away.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgaryborn For This Useful Post:
I truly have doubts about the crosshairs on states as a trigger for this young man or any irrational persons call to action.
I think your creating a theory based on guesses and personal opinion.
Where is your condemnation when democratic party members were using gun rhetoric and cross hairs as shown earlier in this thread.
If the congress person for example had been a republican would you be making the same argument?
Were you condemning the violent gun rhetoric in the 70's when Reagan was shot by a deranged mad man?
Wasn't alive in the 70s.
I have not denounced the actions of the left listed earlier - largely because I agree with your thoughts on Palin's crosshairs, a graphic on a website here and there and inappropriate metaphors have not incited a nation.
I would be arguing the same point (well, I would at least hold the same opinion) if the party affiliation was a moderate Republican. Earlier in the thread I offered that the gunmans political leanings don't sway my opinion. I am not, as other posters have latched onto, blind to new evidence. I just don't consider the minor details of the incident to clarify what is obvious to me.
A politician was gunned down at a community political event in the most emotionally charged county in the country. Maybe the gunman did shoot her because her belt didn't match her shoes, whatever. The issue is that he did what a lot of people felt was nessacary.
The issue is the fringe of the political right is inciting fear and hate toward the left, and the actions of the mainstream right lend credence to these fears. The casual language of violence and vitriol justifies the actions of the dangerously unbalanced.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Just to clarify the above, metaphors aren't the issue, language is:
The problem is the tone and passion of the right, the current government is dangerous and your country is changing in the same ways Hitler changed Germany and Mao changed China. You can't imagine what these people are doing to forever alter the country you used to love.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
I have not denounced the actions of the left listed earlier - largely because I agree with your thoughts on Palin's crosshairs, a graphic on a website here and there and inappropriate metaphors have not incited a nation.
Likely because a nation is not incited, there hasn't been any support for the gunman that I have seen. Not a single person and stood up and said, good job. Could that be as a result of most everyone agreeing that it is a crime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gozer
I would be arguing the same point (well, I would at least hold the same opinion) if the party affiliation was a moderate Republican. Earlier in the thread I offered that the gunmans political leanings don't sway my opinion. I am not, as other posters have latched onto, blind to new evidence. I just don't consider the minor details of the incident to clarify what is obvious to me.
Being willfully blind towards any new evidence doesn't make you right, if nothing else it makes you more biased than anyone else in this conversation. I fail to see how being ignorant is seen as a blessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gozer
A politician was gunned down at a community political event in the most emotionally charged county in the country. Maybe the gunman did shoot her because her belt didn't match her shoes, whatever. The issue is that he did what a lot of people felt was necessary.
Who are these people who felt that this was right or necessary? I have yet to hear a single person voice their opinion in favour of what this man did, no one in the media that I have heard and no politician have said anything that couldn't be classified as a broad condemnation of the attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gozer
The issue is the fringe of the political right is inciting fear and hate toward the left, and the actions of the mainstream right lend credence to these fears. The casual language of violence and vitriol justifies the actions of the dangerously unbalanced.
I disagree, I think that the issue is a guy with a mental issue who had access to a gun and was able to target a high profile individual who he irrationally felt had wronged him in the past. There is no evidence he was swayed by any political rhetoric, there is no evidence he even witnessed any political rhetoric.
The issue here is people using a tragedy in order to further their own agenda.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Just to clarify the above, metaphors aren't the issue, language is:
The problem is the tone and passion of the right, the current government is dangerous and your country is changing in the same ways Hitler changed Germany and Mao changed China. You [i]can't imagine[\i] what these people are doing to forever alter the country you used to love.
Hitler? Is that actually your argument... Hitler? The people they are making fun of the video that you posted below are saying the same thing.
Political rhetoric is much the same regardless of political orientation.
Somebody dropped the ball. His office knew of the death threats. Did he council the congresswomen to have protection and she refused or did he neglect to protect. One of the 2 didn't see the death threats as worrysome.
The Sheriff's office would not be responsible for security so he would have no reason to contact the congresswoman's office.
Quote:
Gregory Lee Giusti(one of your suppose tea party affiliates) was give a mental evaluation for threatening Nancy Peolski(sp). If the Sheriff bothered to bring charges against this guy a judge could have ordered a mental assessment.
Swing and a miss. Giusti was already in the criminal justice system and had been convicted of similar behavior. He was also a California resident where the system has money for such evaluations. Different state, different system with completely different situations.
Ok I went back and read your links. After that I googled them because your choice of news sources are frankly garbage. Here's what I've found:
I'd love to see your sources. I'm betting newsmax, Glenn Beck and Fox News.
Quote:
Two of your examples were registered democrats. One of them was also a self professed White Supremacist.
You do know that registering for a party doesn't mean you ascribe to their ideology or will even vote for them? I guess you missed where Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to register Democrat just to mess with the primaries. Registration means nothing. Also, since when do White Supremacists vote Democrat? They are on the extreme right of the political sphere. You're not really doing well here.
Quote:
One of the other White Supremacists was killed be his wife before he could act. He had filled out an application to join the National Socialist movement just before he was killed.
The third White Supremacist shot three police officers who came to his home to evict him. His mother had called and wanted him out of the house.
You listed an anti-government militia who has yet to go to trial so they are presumed innocent right? They have been in existance since before the Tea Party and like most of your other examples have no link to the tea party.
Wow, I can't believe you. Defending White Supremacists and militias that planned and went through on plans to kill law enforcement officers. Can you get any lower?
Also, who do you think the Tea Party is? They're the fringe right of the Republican party, and like it or not, that includes the Supremacists and militias.
The lone black man in these links apparently had been listening to Glen Beck and decided to kill some Tide foundation members. He was picked up driving drunk before he ever got there. He apparently confessed to his intentions.
None of the articles I read referenced one thing Beck said that encouraged violence. This fellow came up with the idea himself. Having been convicted of armed bank robbery twice this guy might have acted on his plans. For the record: Although Glen Beck has spoken out against the behaviour of banks he has never told his viewing audience to rob one.
There's a lot more bunk of yours to refute, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time linking even more reports that make you look bad. We'll cut to the chase.
Quote:
Debt is increased by spending money you don't have. The solution needs to be reduced spending. Increasing the tax burden on the productive members of society isn't fair and can be counterproductive during hard times.
Debt is also increase by cutting taxes. What is really ironic is the Tea Party doesn't have a clue about taxes, taxation or spending. Conservatives Bruce Bartlett and David Frum exposed that.
Fact of the matter is that the Tea Party, a subset of the Republican party, has no idea what to do about the budget. When asked they answer they do not want any significant cuts to spending, but want lower taxes. Those two, like your White Supremacist Democrat, just don't jive.
Quote:
Our governments should concern themselves with our protection and law and order. Wealth distribution should be determined by the creativity, resourcefulness, and sweat of the population. It is not the place of government to determine how much is too much and then take the surplus away.
Nice talking point. Wealth distribution is not the issue. Taxation is not a redistribution of wealth. It is paying for the needs of the nation. Those needs include more than just military and law enforcement expenditures. They include infrastructure and administration over the systems that protect the common good. Taxation is paying for all those nice things that people need, like roads, dams, nuclear plants, power lines, water systems, and on and on.
I guess the thing to ask you is the same question the Tea Party failed to answer. What exactly would you cut from the budget?
Last edited by Stimpy; 01-15-2011 at 08:41 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
The Sherriff in Arizona thinks the nation is incited, and the politicians' resignations reinforce this was not a random event.
Even I agree this was a crime.
I welcome contradictory evidence, I am stubborn but understand the concept of new and relevant evidence. I was clarifying what I assume to be relevant. I feel I have been very forthcoming with my argument and your assertion of my ignorance should have more to support it than a minor point that I volunteered.
Your other arguments have been addressed at length and continuing to expand upon them is more likely to lead to nit-picking instead of addressing the thrust of my argument.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Rex Murphy on the killings. At 2:11 Rex give a quote of his friend; "he did not watch TV, he didn't political radio, he didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left or the right." A total utter dismissal of Gozer's and Stimpy's "Right wing killer" conspiracy theory.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
Political rhetoric, no matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from, has been a part of American political tradition since it's inception. It is what the 1st amendment affords Americans and it should not ever stop.
The corporate media in Amercia loves to create hype and make something somebody's fault.
The percieved heightened tension between the left/right from all the finger pointing leads ultimately to increased ratings and therefore revenue.
As HOZ has pointed out; this particular attack came from an upset, abnormal, and mentally unstable individual. This was not rhetoric-induced.
There is alot of tension in America right now due to:
-the economy is getting worse and worse
-the debt is getting worse and worse
-the endless Afghan/Pakistan/Iraq war
-increased police state measures
It is obvious the US government is not representing the interests of your average American, and it is leading to unrest. The problem is that voting is not working and the people are frustrated by this.
The coming violence will be a result of these things, as opposed to silly media mud slinging like some in this thread are implying.
Last edited by mikey_the_redneck; 01-15-2011 at 08:51 PM.
Political rhetoric, no matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from, has been a part of American political tradition since it's inception. It is what the 1st amendment affords Americans and it should not ever stop.
The corporate media in Amercia loves to create hype and make something somebody's fault.
The percieved heightened tension between the left/right from all the finger pointing leads ultimately to increased ratings and therefore revenue.
As HOZ has pointed out; this particular attack came from an upset, abnormal, and mentally unstable individual. This was not rhetoric-induced.
There is alot of tension in America right now due to:
-the economy is getting worse and worse
-the debt is getting worse and worse
-the endless Afghan/Pakistan/Iraq war
-increased police state measures
It is obvious the US government is not representing the interests of your average American, and it is leading to unrest. The problem is that voting is not working and the people are frustrated by this.
The coming violence will be a result of these things, as opposed to silly media mud slinging like some in this thread are implying.
These kind of attacks have happened in good times and bad times. This is just a freakin lunatic with access to guns. One look at this reject and you can tell he has mental health issues.
Why are people trying to lay blame on something as random as this?
