Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.

lol.

I thought I was the only one who was starting to think that.

[troutman]

I think Rachel Maddow has it right:

"It is hard for anybody to find the words to express the horror and the anger and the grief that are the only rational responses to massacres like this," she said. "But the one thing that events like this are not, in America, now, is inconceivable or unimaginable."

"Whether political rhetoric motivated this kid or not, whether this kid was sane enough to process political rhetoric as sane people understand it or not, whether we will understand sooner or later or never the motivation behind this kid...here's the question: do we have any tools to stop the next gun massacre?"

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Maybe I should have been specific(again) and named "handguns". you will allways have an odd ###### bent on suicide willing to use anything to kill including a hunting rifle like the Mayerthorpe case.

Once again, handguns should not be a right, they didn't even exist when the 2nd amendment was written (unless you call a f'n musket a handgun) All your hyperbole doesn't change the fact that the US of f'n A is out of control with gun crimes and now it's starting to bleed into our country with about 10,000 handguns being smuggled across our border each year.

From Wikipedia page on the Mayterthorpe shooting...

Also found were a .308 calibre Heckler & Koch 91 semi-automatic rifle(a Prohibited Firearm), and a .300 Magnum scoped rifle which had been reported missing by Shawn Hennessey's grandfather, and a 9 mm Beretta. The .308 and the 9 mm were not registered.

Two prohibited firearms, including a 9mm handgun, both of which require a special license and background check to buy.

Perhaps we should spend another few billion on a better gun registry. That will SURELY stop incidents like the one in Mayerthorpe from happening.

Oh right, people like Roszko don't usually register their guns. So much for the couple billion we spent.

Yes, I am being overly sarcastic. But only because you seem to completely miss the point each and everytime we have this discussion.

The shooter in Arizona was obviously mentally disturbed. People like that shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Which indicates a problem with background checks.

Enacting laws that deal with the mentally ill, or with those with criminal records, even if they don't show up on the background check.....and making sure they can't legally obtain firearms might be a much better idea than your stupid idea that banning guns will somehow solve the problem of gun crime.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

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.

She was joking in that instance, playing on her earlier faux pas, and she also had a pretty funny moment with the "refudiate" controversy.

Like I said, I think the series did serve its purpose in presenting an unfiltered image of the way she wants to be perceived . . . . and that might work for some and probably wouldn't work with others.

There was a poll a few days ago indicating she was the most polarizing of the potential Presidental candidates on both sides of the spectrum.

People love her or hate her but are rarely indifferent.

I think Rachel Maddow has it right:

"It is hard for anybody to find the words to express the horror and the anger and the grief that are the only rational responses to massacres like this," she said. "But the one thing that events like this are not, in America, now, is inconceivable or unimaginable."

"Whether political rhetoric motivated this kid or not, whether this kid was sane enough to process political rhetoric as sane people understand it or not, whether we will understand sooner or later or never the motivation behind this kid...here's the question: do we have any tools to stop the next gun massacre?"

Rachel Maddow has definitely been one of the most level-headed commentators on the left wing side of the spectrum. A little surprising but true.

Cowperson

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

For interest, the very left wing Daily Kos puts a bullseye on Gabrielle Giffords in 2008.

I'm curious. When did wanting health care and not wanting additional tax cuts for the very rich become "the very left wing" position? Communism, in my opinion, is "very left wing". I would not classify Canada as left wing, either. Seems to me the center has moved right again.

[MarchHare]

More fuel to the fire for those claiming that both sides are equally responsible for the ongoing themes of violence in mainstream American political discourse:

In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

And yet plenty of people who ought to know better are making just that argument, with a heat that suggests they protest too much. For example, Ross Douthat, who brought his promising Times column this morning to its low point. Douthat wrote, in the spirit of phony equivalence, “If overheated rhetoric and martial imagery really led inexorably to murder, then both parties would belong in the dock,” but also this: “the attempted murder of a Democratic congresswoman is a potential gift to liberalism.” In other words, everyone goes over the line now and then, no one actually wants anyone dead, but one side kind of wouldn’t mind. Douthat’s column adds moral ugliness to the intellectual dishonesty that’s characterized the right’s furious response.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I dont know how you guys look at Stimpy's hitlist-list and conclude this situation might get out of hand.

Do you mean the editorialized cut and paste version or a simple list of facts? I'd prefer to see the latter as it might actually have some integrity when used as evidence to support his point. Of course, we won't see that.

[Jordan!]

Having to suffer through 5 hours of Fox News yesterday at the shop waiting for my car.. I can truly say that channel is a disruption to how people think. They don't report news they TELL the news and how the viewers should think about things. To me it's a very irresponsible network.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Having to suffer through 5 hours of Fox News yesterday at the shop waiting for my car.. I can truly say that channel is a disruption to how people think. They don't report news they TELL the news and how the viewers should think about things. To me it's a very irresponsible network.

I am not a big FOX fan either, I can't stand Bill O'Reilly especially. However, I know that pretty much all news is 'told' and the media slants everything to either the left or the right. There is a lot of liberal media too.

It's up to people to use their brains to decide what is right, and what is wrong, and to be 'fair and balanced.' That doesn't happen in this country very often- and each side of the political spectrum is guilty in my opinion.

Organizations depend on radicals to pull as hard as they can to one side or the other. And the people who are capable of independent thought are left in the 'middle.'

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Having to suffer through 5 hours of Fox News yesterday at the shop waiting for my car..

Were you getting a turret gun installed on the roof for safety?

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

More fuel to the fire for those claiming that both sides are equally responsible for the ongoing themes of violence in mainstream American political discourse:

Somehow, I don't think all those donkeys violently protesting events such as the G8, the WTO and so on are "right wing party" voters...

To suggest there aren't yahoos on both sides of the political spectrum is crazy.

[J pold]

Giffords Has '101% Chance of Survival,' Doctors Say

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075983804081292.html?m od=e2tw

Pretty amazing.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Having to suffer through 5 hours of Fox News yesterday at the shop waiting for my car.. I can truly say that channel is a disruption to how people think. They don't report news they TELL the news and how the viewers should think about things. To me it's a very irresponsible network.

Not trying to be an arse, but were you forced to watch Fox for 5 hours?

Sure you were waiting for your car, but did someone have a gun to your head making you watch their T.V for 5 straight hours?

Well you were in Arizona so maybe you were forced...

[Weiser Wonder]

The mainstream media is a joke, really. Fox generally has less integrity than the rest, but if the trend continues, the other networks will follow Fox down the road of no objectivity and higher profits. Investigative journalism is basically dead, as Wikileaks has made painfully obvious, replaced by mandates to maintain access and not ruffle feathers. Discussion has been replaced by yelling matches with each side throwing out unverifiable blurbs and insults. Objectivity replaced by a combination of spouting talking points fed to them (Fox and the Republican party) or just unquestioning regurgitating of conventional wisdom in Washington.

Not to say there aren't bright spots. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and Shepard Smith on FOX are two bright spots who don't attempt to be a moderate between both parties, rather they attempt to bring the news as they see objectively. Which will obviously paint some in a bad light from time to time.

However, in order to gain a real understand of what is going in the world, you need an internet connection and strong ability to comprehend and think critically about each topic. It's very daunting, and I feel for people trying to gain an understanding while working a full time job and raising a family. It's basically impossible.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.

Call me whatever you like, as long as it is consistent and civil. You appeared to make an ad hominem by playing with my name, so I mentioned it. Can I assume that is another ad hominen, or is this just the way you play your games of dodging the issue? If its an honest mistake, then its an honest mistake. We all make them.

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.

Almost 50% of Americans think the world is only 6,000 years old. Does that mean that opinion is fact too? Sometimes you can beat someone over the head with the facts and they will still turn away to find their own truth. Everyone is guilty of it. I find this subject to be like that as well.

I will give you credit though, you know how to make a guy laugh. Claiming common sense prevails and then derailing the thread with an article about Sarah Palin was pure comic genius! That was awesome!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Somehow, I don't think all those donkeys violently protesting events such as the G8, the WTO and so on are "right wing party" voters...

To suggest there aren't yahoos on both sides of the political spectrum is crazy.

I wasn't suggesting there are not extremists on both sides because that's clearly not the case. I'm just consistently irked by the repeated claims of false equivalence; one side is far more likely to invoke firearm-related metaphors and appeals to violent revolution. Surely I don't need to tell you what side that is. You're being purposely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest if you think both sides are equally guilty of this.

The types of protesters you mentioned are radical fringe elements on the extreme left, and many of them tend to think both the Democrats and the Republicans are merely two sides of the same coin. Their actions are certainly not encouraged by any Democratic candidates or elected officials, unlike GOP-backed candidates like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle pandering to their base.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Were you getting a turret gun installed on the roof for safety?

I find your views intriguing. Tell me more about turret gun installs, I have a truck this would be perfect on.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Locke

I find your views intriguing. Tell me more about turret gun installs, I have a truck this would be perfect on.

Are you planning a trip to South Phoenix for work? If not, you probably don't need it.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I wasn't suggesting there are not extremists on both sides because that's clearly not the case. I'm just consistently irked by the repeated claims of false equivalence; one side is far more likely to invoke firearm-related metaphors and appeals to violent revolution. Surely I don't need to tell you what side that is. You're being purposely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest if you think both sides are equally guilty of this.

The types of protesters you mentioned are radical fringe elements on the extreme left, and many of them tend to think both the Democrats and the Republicans are merely two sides of the same coin. Their actions are certainly not encouraged by any Democratic candidates or elected officials, unlike GOP-backed candidates like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle pandering to their base.

Unfortunately, this is the mindset that perpetuates most disputes in the world- and disputes of all scales for that matter: "the other side is wrong and they are the ones that need to change."

While it may be beneficial, in response to your post, to point out the formal and informal ties that many violent protesters have with left-wing political groups, I think it would be much wiser to acknowledge that both sides have individuals that have committed some pretty deplorable acts.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Not to say there aren't bright spots. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and Shepard Smith on FOX are two bright spots who don't attempt to be a moderate between both parties, rather they attempt to bring the news as they see objectively. Which will obviously paint some in a bad light from time to time.

I agree with most of your post but....

Rachel Maddow is a bright spot?

She is no different than the folks over at Fox, except she is as left biased as you can get. I remember she was trying to smear Rand Paul (republican, tea party) during the primaries by suggesting he wanted to get this - repeal the civil rights act. Yeah ....she's a real bright spot..