"The Pima County Sherriff's Office confirmed to ABC News they had received the photographs from the store and turned them over to the FBI."
"The photos, presumably shot in a mirror, show Loughner, 22, posing with the same make of gun he allegedly used in the Jan. 8 shooting. In the photos he holds the pistol against his crotch and buttocks while wearing a bright red thong, sources told ABC News."
Hmmm, I've never heard any media rhetoric about the red thong revolution....
Maybe he stole the thong from Mrs. Giffords? ........
Which part isn't the truth. You are comparing modern political posturing in the United States to what Hitler or Mao did. This either shows your complete disregard for history and common sense, much like the people you rally against, or it shows that you will attempt to manipulate facts in order to make them fit your own views, and do I need to state who this reminds me of. The fact is modern political rhetoric is nothing like what Hitler did, there is no widespread calls to break windows of Democrats, there has been no burning of buildings in order to blame this on the Democrats, nor have their been any calls for Democrats to have themselves branded with a symbol or to have their property stolen and be unable to own land or practice professions... Hell there is absolutely no similarity between the two. The fact you alluded to the Nazis in order to tell how awful the rhetoric is, shows that you are falling victim to rhetoric of your own and you are willfully and joyfully blind to it. You seem to revel in your own knowledge that you are superior to others who are less than you. Now I don't agree with a lot of the messages that the Tea Party and the like are promoting, but to blame this murder on them and people who use political rhetoric is really twisting the reality of the situation and doing an injustice to those who lost their lives.
Also Hitler was nothing like what we currently see in North American politics, it is an insult to those who you compare to him and an insult to those who suffered under the Nazi party. Stupid, much like those who compare Obama to Hitler. Stupid.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Why are people trying to lay blame on something as random as this?
Because the reality is that the political establishment has always used incidents like these to justify certain policy decisions. A prime example of this is the Patriot Act that came a few weeks after 9/11 happened. Sometimes the media aids in this process for whoever happens to be in power at the time.
On top of that you have the usual media mud-slinging to create ratings/hype/revenue and this is what happens as a result.
I acknowledge that I am one of the rotten people who were playing the blame game while the bodies were still warm and the shame associated with that. My only defense is irrelevance.
But I do not accept this personal attack:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
The issue here is people using a tragedy in order to further their own agenda.
I defended Bush well into his second term and supported a Republican for President in '08. While I am an Obama fan, I am certainly not a left-wing shill.
What agenda am I furthering?
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Which part isn't the truth. You are comparing modern political posturing in the United States to what Hitler or Mao did. This either shows your complete disregard for history and common sense, much like the people you rally against, or it shows that you will attempt to manipulate facts in order to make them fit your own views, and do I need to state who this reminds me of. The fact is modern political rhetoric is nothing like what Hitler did, there is no widespread calls to break windows of Democrats, there has been no burning of buildings in order to blame this on the Democrats, nor have their been any calls for Democrats to have themselves branded with a symbol or to have their property stolen and be unable to own land or practice professions... Hell there is absolutely no similarity between the two. The fact you alluded to the Nazis in order to tell how awful the rhetoric is, shows that you are falling victim to rhetoric of your own and you are willfully and joyfully blind to it. You seem to revel in your own knowledge that you are superior to others who are less than you. Now I don't agree with a lot of the messages that the Tea Party and the like are promoting, but to blame this murder on them and people who use political rhetoric is really twisting the reality of the situation and doing an injustice to those who lost their lives.
Also Hitler was nothing like what we currently see in North American politics, it is an insult to those who you compare to him and an insult to those who suffered under the Nazi party. Stupid, much like those who compare Obama to Hitler. Stupid.
I'm not addressing your post, but your premise. You are completely mis-reading my post.
I had posted that "metaphors aren't the problem" and then completed my post with a hit on "dangerous language."
Seeing an obvious discrepancy, I attempted to clarify my hair-splitting by providing an example - that the right was using allusions to Hitler while attacking Obama.
I would revise the punctuation, but editing the post now will likely be more "proof" of whatever point you're making.
Your relentless pursuit of my hypocrisy is not improving the thread.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
"The Pima County Sherriff's Office confirmed to ABC News they had received the photographs from the store and turned them over to the FBI."
"The photos, presumably shot in a mirror, show Loughner, 22, posing with the same make of gun he allegedly used in the Jan. 8 shooting. In the photos he holds the pistol against his crotch and buttocks while wearing a bright red thong, sources told ABC News."
Hmmm, I've never heard any media rhetoric about the red thong revolution....
Maybe he stole the thong from Mrs. Giffords? ........
“I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography. “ - Ted Bundy
The Following User Says Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
The Sheriff's office would not be responsible for security so he would have no reason to contact the congresswoman's office.
The Sheriff's office would be responsible to address death threats. Part of that should have been advise to the victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
The shooter had made death threats before. If they would have been prosecuted the Judge could have ordered an assessment. If the Judge ordered it the State would have to have paid. His own lawyer may have recommended him seek assessment in order to avoid prosecution. His parents should have been able to afford it. The point is there could have been a better result if the police had done more than warn him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
I'd love to see your sources. I'm betting newsmax, Glenn Beck and Fox News.
Actually I don't think either of those sources came up. As I said I just googled their names and ignored what was obviously far left leaning. The titles usually gave them away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Actually usually a persons registration is a good indication of their leaning. White Supremacists hold particular beliefs regarding race which are not accepted by either party. The Tea Party holds no such beliefs.
Remember one of your other Supremacists had applied for membership in the National Socialist movement. Does that sound Republican or something a believer in Tea Party policies would do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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?
Reread my post. I defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty and applied it to the militia. I remember Ruby Ridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
Supremacists embrace the second amendment for obvious reasons. The connection doesn't go beyond that. Yours is a liberal myth.
Militias on the other hand, are not always a bad thing. It depends on their motives. Don't paint them all with one brush.
He looked black in the photo I saw. No matter. He still acted alone. Glen Beck exposing what the Tide institute is up to or the ACLU doesn't make him complicit in Williams crimes. Show me the connect. Where did Beck encourage murder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
The Tea party was savy enough not to name the specific programs they will cut and how much until they look at the books. Also they were trying to get elected. Whatever they named would lose them votes from those who reap the benefits of the government's largeness in that area. It was enough that they declared their intent. Americans elected them knowing it would hurt but, needs to be done.
Even the Democrats are supposedly looking at ways to cut spending. It truely was the mandate given them in the fall election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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.
One man's needs is another man's wants and yes it is wealth redistribution. Wealth is taken from one to the benefit of the other.
Furthermore if the new Congress limits spending to the areas you mentioned above the debt would begin to go down rapidly. The Federal government's spending is out of control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
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?
I'll let the new Congress answer that question. It should be coming shortly.
Personally I would get out of primary and secondary education because it is a State mandate. I would gut the EPA. They should only be concerned with the areas outside of State control like national parks and tidal waters outside of the State's jurisdiction. There would need to be a transitional period as well as some moneys availiable to smaller States who might not have the resources to govern their territory. Alaska comes to mind. FEMA should concern itself with the preservation of life. Their scope is too large right now. The list goes on.
After watching the Loughner home videos I don't think that there is any way that this kid was motivated to kill by political rhetoric.
This guy had a narcissistic personality combined with some severe delusions, and that is a deadly combination. His politics were deranged and unique and not motivated by left or right, more so centered on nobody understands me, I'm angry and that congress woman pissed me off because she didn't understand me.
Look in the video where he basically tells a professor that he's pissed at him because he got a B.
And the weirdness continues as a survivor takes a picture of a tea party representative at a rally and tells him that he's dead.
I'm hoping that its a case of post traumatic stress.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
But those who say right-wing rhetoric was the one factor tipping Loughner misunderstand the complex nature of psychosis. "No single variable explains violence in schizophrenia," write Swanson and eight colleagues in a 2006 paper published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. "Rather, violent behavior occurs within a social-ecological system involving a 'whole person' with a particular life history and state of health." In short, saying Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck caused Loughner's actions is, to put it charitably, completely idiotic.
Enough said.
Related: NYT Article The Tucson Witch Hunt - By Charles Blow Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost. The dots were too close and the temptation to connect them too strong. The target was a Democratic congresswoman. There was the map of her district in the cross hairs. There were her own prescient worries about overheated rhetoric.
Loughner live: They are controlling the grammar!!!!!
Last edited by HOZ; 01-16-2011 at 05:59 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
OK, seriously, folks. Let's avoid the false dilemma of "he was crazy" or "he was motivated by political rhetoric." Both are probably to some extent true--but in the end, it doesn't matter. A nine-year old girl and five others are dead.
I like Obama's take: we don't know what caused this event; it happened within a deranged mind, and we'll never understand it. Let's not try. Instead, let's have a political debate that is worthyof the people that we lost.
This event wasn't "caused" by crosshairs on candidates, or rhetoric calling for "second-amendment solutions." But can you seriously suggest that in the post-Tucson climate, such rhetoric is still appropriate? It isn't, and it has to stop. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
OK, seriously, folks. Let's avoid the false dilemma of "he was crazy" or "he was motivated by political rhetoric." Both are probably to some extent true--but in the end, it doesn't matter. A nine-year old girl and five others are dead.
I like Obama's take: we don't know what caused this event; it happened within a deranged mind, and we'll never understand it. Let's not try. Instead, let's have a political debate that is worthyof the people that we lost.
This event wasn't "caused" by crosshairs on candidates, or rhetoric calling for "second-amendment solutions." But can you seriously suggest that in the post-Tucson climate, such rhetoric is still appropriate? It isn't, and it has to stop. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
It would certainly be inappropriate to use shooting metaphors for the next while. Although after this tragedy is more distant I really see no problem with them being used. I don't believe either side was trying to incite violence by their use nor has it to date.
The problem I see is that your political foes will start taking every thing you say the wrong way to make political noise. It will be like when Barack was first elected and any criticism of him was met with a charge of racism. Political correctness is counter productive in that it allows a person to ignore the merits of your argument and change the conversation.
It would certainly be inappropriate to use shooting metaphors for the next while. Although after this tragedy is more distant I really see no problem with them being used. I don't believe either side was trying to incite violence by their use nor has it to date.
The problem I see is that your political foes will start taking every thing you say the wrong way to make political noise. It will be like when Barack was first elected and any criticism of him was met with a charge of racism. Political correctness is counter productive in that it allows a person to ignore the merits of your argument and change the conversation.
I suppose it should no longer shock me when you entirely miss the point. Sarah Palin did too. She (somehow) thinks that this issue is about her, and the never-ending media conspiracy to paint her as a benighted fool blundering her way into the darkness while loudly proclaiming that she can see the light.
Obama realizes (as the rest of us should) that it's about a nine-year old girl, a long-standing political judge, a retiree who sacrificed his life to save that of his wife, etc. etc.
The point isn't "let's make certain phrases taboo." The point is "let's have a debate that is worthy of those people." One of the things that means is "let's not pretend that people who disagree with us should be shot." But it, of course, means so much more than that. It also means "let's not treat our opponents as though their love of country were at issue along with their ideology." And also--and this is where the Tea Party and Sarah Palin should perk their ears up and listen, "let's not polarize the debate for our own political gain; instead, let's have a debate where in addition to communicating, we also listen to each other." That is, less shouting, less finger-pointing, fewer "calls to arms" and more discourse, more conversation, more intelligence.
More importantly, less demagoguery, more democracy. And that's a rule that Sarah Palin should indeed fear, because it signals the end of her role in politics. The same could be said for a list of politicians on both sides of the aisle, and it's my hope that in the coming weeks we hear from those people less and less.
Last edited by Iowa_Flames_Fan; 01-16-2011 at 01:09 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
The Sheriff's office would be responsible to address death threats. Part of that should have been advise to the victim.
Completely wrong. You don't understand the jurisdictional responsibility of law enforcement in the Arizona so please stop trying to talk about it like you do. The Sheriffs office would have nothing to do with this. Local Law enforcement, that being Tucson PD, or the FBI, would have been the ones to be contacted.
Quote:
The shooter had made death threats before. If they would have been prosecuted the Judge could have ordered an assessment. If the Judge ordered it the State would have to have paid. His own lawyer may have recommended him seek assessment in order to avoid prosecution. His parents should have been able to afford it. The point is there could have been a better result if the police had done more than warn him.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The two instances are completely separate, happening in two different states under two different systems. California has systematic support for such matters and Arizona does not. Without actual felony charges it is impossible for the state to demand a citizen be forced to have a psych eval, and in Arizona that service has been discontinued because of budgetary reasons. Only in the most serious of cases, where a sanity defense is used, and the defense uses a psychiatric expert in that defense, would the state then move forward on having their own psych eval done. As sad as it is, that's the way the conservatives want it in Arizona and that's the system they have set up.
Quote:
Actually usually a persons registration is a good indication of their leaning. White Supremacists hold particular beliefs regarding race which are not accepted by either party. The Tea Party holds no such beliefs.
Actually, no it isn't. Do you know why people register with a party? Do you? I'll save you the time. No you don't. What you understand about the mechanisms of American politics and government can fit in a twitter digest.
You may want to change your tune on the White Supremacists and party affiliation. Remember David Duke? Grand Wizard of the KKK. What party did he finally win a nomination for?
There are links to the Tea Party and the White Supremacist movement all over the country. The Tea Party was the fringe of the Republican party before the 2010 election cycle, just like the White Supremacist movements and militias.
Remember one of your other Supremacists had applied for membership in the National Socialist movement. Does that sound Republican or something a believer in Tea Party policies would do?
The National Socialist Movement is a White Supremacist group.
This group was active at an anti-immigration event in Phoenix. In the video you'll notice one of thier flags clearly has the Gadsden symbol on it, which is the symbol of the Tea Party.
Reread my post. I defended the principle of innocent until proven guilty and applied it to the militia. I remember Ruby Ridge.
And what exactly do you remember about Ruby Ridge?
Quote:
Supremacists embrace the second amendment for obvious reasons. The connection doesn't go beyond that. Yours is a liberal myth.
The evidence seems to be stacked against you.
Quote:
Militias on the other hand, are not always a bad thing. It depends on their motives. Don't paint them all with one brush.
Really? Name one militia movement that is considered a good thing? Every militia movement in the United States is tracked by law enforcement, and for good reason. They operate on the fringe of society and have some real screwed up beliefs. They exist for only one reason, the belief of a series of crazy conspiracy theories.
There is no use in even talking to the rest of your post. It is clear you don't have any idea how things work in the United States and are going off of nothing but talking points. From unfair taxation to out of control spending. From the belief that states do things better than federal programs to the elimination of those agencies that actually protect the public's best interests. All talking points with very little actual substance. There's not much thought behind your rhetoric and even less real world support.
Just one last link, because it is important to have this in this discussion.
"The killing of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll comes two years after he received death threats while he presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher.
When Roll ruled the case could go forward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said in 2009 that talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats."
This view is shared by all law enforcement because they are the ones who see the fallout from the increased friction within the public discourse and see the violence as it happens. Remember, that for every one incident that makes the news there are a hundred that go unreported.
I just read Iowa's last post and he makes some very good points. It's done. We'll never agree on it, so we should move forward rather than looking back. Cheers to Iowa!
Last edited by Stimpy; 01-16-2011 at 09:47 AM.
Reason: Agreement with Iowa Flames Fan
The Following User Says Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
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?
Sure it is. Phrasing in the form of a question may matter on TV, but you're still trying to turn the debate to something else.
It would certainly be inappropriate to use shooting metaphors for the next while. Although after this tragedy is more distant I really see no problem with them being used. I don't believe either side was trying to incite violence by their use nor has it to date.
The problem I see is that your political foes will start taking every thing you say the wrong way to make political noise. It will be like when Barack was first elected and any criticism of him was met with a charge of racism. Political correctness is counter productive in that it allows a person to ignore the merits of your argument and change the conversation.
Seriously? You see no problem with using shooting metaphors down the road once this all blows over?
You know, there is such a thing as having class, honesty and integrity in politics. We might not see it that often, but it can and does exist at times.
I fail to see how political rhetoric can be anything other than counterproductive. The answer to most the problems the US faces is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, but nobody ever hears about it because there are morons on both sides drowning out everyone with some good sense and an idea on how to fix things.
The Congresswoman was in my mind absolutely not part of the problem. Her views on illegal immigration are especially interesting. Too bad they've been clouded over because everyone wants to focus on Palin instead.
Hell, even Obama has fallen out of the news lately in favor of Sarah freakin' Palin.
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.
What is fair? Is lowering the tax burden on the "productive" members so that the debt increases fair? Government has a cost, defined by what it provides a society. So it is very much the place of government to determine how much to take.
Cutting taxes has never brought about recovery from a recession or depression. Spending has. The Clinton administration had budget surpluses. Now there are not. When did this start? Right at the time of Bush's tax cuts.
Although tea party rallies have and will attract people from the fringe, those people do not represent the platform of the tea party.
The tea party has nothing to do with white supremecy, regardless of how some of the media outlets have portrayed them. If you look back to 2008, it was Ron Paul who kickstarted the tea party movement back into the mainstream. He's a libertarian.
If you said that some white supremecists have co-opted the tea party movement, go ahead but it is inaccurate to say the tea party is based around white supremecy. That is just straight bull crap.
Really? Name one militia movement that is considered a good thing? Every militia movement in the United States is tracked by law enforcement, and for good reason. They operate on the fringe of society and have some real screwed up beliefs. They exist for only one reason, the belief of a series of crazy conspiracy theories.
I guess the founding fathers were fringe lunatic conspiracy theorists?
The Constitution is full of "screwed up beliefs"?
You're really painting all militia with a broad stroke here. There have been a couple examples of poorly constructed militia movements no doubt, but you must watch too much msnbc news. Citizen militias have not caused many American deaths. The media loves to paint militiias as a threat to society, when it's purpose is the exact opposite.
You should really read the 2nd amendment. It is meant for the States to form well regulated militias in order to defend themselves from federal tyranny.
