Jump to content

Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) shot in AZ.


ghdi

Recommended Posts

Its a little ironic she was on Sarah Palin's "target list".

Point blank shot and killed.

5336166579_f85c0d54d7_o.jpg

Good ole rightwing nutjobs.

All of the sites that Palin had her target list are now down, as is her own website, her PAC website. All of it.

Edited by ghdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a little ironic she was on Sarah Palin's "target list".

Point blank shot and killed.

5336166579_f85c0d54d7_o.jpg

Good ole rightwing nutjobs.

All of the sites that Palin had her target list are now down, as is her own website, her PAC website. All of it.

Buddy, you're friggin' pathetic, but typical of people who try to score political points with something like this. Not much is known about the shooter, but apparently he's an Afghan war vet. I suppose you'll say that serving in the military means you're a psycho who's predisposed to political asassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Staying away from the whole political talk thing but I wish all the best for her and her family along with all of the others that were shot (12 people).

The suspect is in custody also.

Edited by Quinn01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy, you're friggin' pathetic, but typical of people who try to score political points with something like this. Not much is known about the shooter, but apparently he's an Afghan war vet. I suppose you'll say that serving in the military means you're a psycho who's predisposed to political asassination.

Dont put words in my mouth.

Its fact that Palin had CROSSHAIRS on this woman. Its not an attempt to score points, its the first thing to get spread all over the place when it first broke as most people dont know anything about Giffords other than she was a target of Palin's PAC.

So, he should get a pass because hes a war veteran? Its also coming out (on Fox) that he was a tea partier attending rallies and meetings related to AZ tea party candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont put words in my mouth.

Its fact that Palin had CROSSHAIRS on this woman. Its not an attempt to score points, its the first thing to get spread all over the place when it first broke as most people dont know anything about Giffords other than she was a target of Palin's PAC.

So, he should get a pass because hes a war veteran? Its also coming out (on Fox) that he was a tea partier attending rallies and meetings related to AZ tea party candidates.

I'm not going to take this any further, except to say the following: I have no love for Sarah Palin or tea-partiers, and in fact, would probably vote for Obama, despite considering myself conservative, if Palin were the GOP nominee in 2012. But obviously Palin was talking about trying to defeat a political opponent in an election and the cross-hair thing, or whatever it was, is, in case you never made it past the sixth grade, a metaphor.

And since you apparently lack basic reading comprehension skills, I did not say he gets a pass because he's in the military. My point is that you, quite clumsily and despite your bogus claims to the contrary, are trying to point the blame at a particular segment of the population for what is an obvious act of lunacy by one, or maybe a handful of actors. If you're painting broad strokes, you might as well say political violence is a peculiar trait of veterans, if reports turn out to be correct.

I have not put any words in your mouth; I don't have to, you've done enough to embarrass yourself. You have taken a tragedy, and, like the Jerry Fallwells of the world, are attempting to point the blame at politicians or cultural movements you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to take this any further, except to say the following: I have no love for Sarah Palin or tea-partiers, and in fact, would probably vote for Obama, despite considering myself conservative, if Palin were the GOP nominee in 2012. But obviously Palin was talking about trying to defeat a political opponent in an election and the cross-hair thing, or whatever it was, is, in case you never made it past the sixth grade, a metaphor.

And since you apparently lack basic reading comprehension skills, I did not say he gets a pass because he's in the military. My point is that you, quite clumsily and despite your bogus claims to the contrary, are trying to point the blame at a particular segment of the population for what is an obvious act of lunacy by one, or maybe a handful of actors. If you're painting broad strokes, you might as well say political violence is a peculiar trait of veterans, if reports turn out to be correct.

I have not put any words in your mouth; I don't have to, you've done enough to embarrass yourself. You have taken a tragedy, and, like the Jerry Fallwells of the world, are attempting to point the blame at politicians or cultural movements you don't like.

I dont give two sh!ts about your political idealogy.

Don't you think a crosshair as a metaphor is a bit OTT for political means? Thats the whole point of why people are upset about that particular aspect. Its one thing to rally people for a side to a political motivation, its another to use one that is typically used in respect to SHOOTING things. Crosshairs! This wasn't a circle or an X or any other metaphor that could've been used. Palin's people used a crosshair to symbolically remove political opponents. That's at the very least, irresponsible.

Your mentioning of him being a war veteran was worded in a way that it came off as being used as an excuse for this guy. Yes, he's nuts. It's also clearly politically motivated as he's already made that clear in what little has come out so far.

Get off your high horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin's people used a crosshair to symbolically remove political opponents. That's at the very least, irresponsible.

It wasn't irresponsible to use a crosshair. The same stink would have been made if post-909-0-22449500-1294561700_thumb.jpg was on Palins' website.

Drawing a line linking this guys crime to a crosshair metaphor is the stuff modern frivolous lawsuits are made of.

Them putting a crosshair on Arizona is not what put the idea of shooting this woman into this kooks head, nor would I hold anyone accountable to that.

That's like saying someone using the term "We're gonna murder them" or "We're going to kill em" is irresponsible since this is obviously suggesting that someone should die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont give two sh!ts about your political idealogy.

Don't you think a crosshair as a metaphor is a bit OTT for political means? Thats the whole point of why people are upset about that particular aspect. Its one thing to rally people for a side to a political motivation, its another to use one that is typically used in respect to SHOOTING things. Crosshairs! This wasn't a circle or an X or any other metaphor that could've been used. Palin's people used a crosshair to symbolically remove political opponents. That's at the very least, irresponsible.

Your mentioning of him being a war veteran was worded in a way that it came off as being used as an excuse for this guy. Yes, he's nuts. It's also clearly politically motivated as he's already made that clear in what little has come out so far.

Get off your high horse.

Because other people weren't doing things like this or:

DLC-Targeting-map.gif

And by the way, it seems absolutely clear now that this guy was a total whacko of the John Hinkley mold and had no discernable political agenda.

And if you interpreted what I wrote as giving the guy a pass because he was supposedly a vet (which actually turns out to be false), then your reading comprehension skills are even more deficient than I originally felt.

Again, what's clear is that you took a tragedy and used it to knock a political opponent (which turns out by the way had nothing to do with said tragedy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what's clear is that you took a tragedy and used it to knock a political opponent (which turns out by the way had nothing to do with said tragedy)

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

The attempt to use this in your argument is absolute BS. Can't you see the difference between this and Palin's? Her map singled Giffords out. This is an electoral map pointing out which states the Democrats need to win for a presidential election and make no mention of names. Palin's map is like a hit list in comparison.

It wasn't limited to Palin either. Another Arizona politician did the same thing after she started the "Don't Retreat, Reload" mantra.

jesse-kelly-giffords-m16-event.jpg

jesse-kelly-post-crosshairs-353x450.jpg

Now, I agree, its pretty clear that this guy was not pushed at all by Palin's propaganda, but its not a stretch to think that he was when it first happened considering Giffords' party and the fact gun imagery and language was used by political opponents towards Giffords from a national figure and her own opponent in the last election to have her ousted from office in an election. Symbolically or other, its irresponsible. It wasn't used to "score points". That was the information that was out there when the story first broke.

Edited by ghdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

It's just as silly to blame that quote for any gun shootings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're ignoring context. Obama did not single out anyone. Its a spin on the old "you dont bring a knife to a gun fight" quote and considering the context is referring to a "political knife fight", its not nearly the same as what we've been discussing in this thread. I think all violent metaphors should be out of politics, so I'm not giving Obama a pass, but the context is not the same.

The difference between that quote and Palin/Kelly is that they had a specific target named and used metaphors and symbols to shoot someone out of office complete with crosshairs and M16 rallies. I don't recall using crosshairs to symbolize defeating a political opponent, although it's probably been done before on both sides.

Here a lovely right wing radio host calling to shoot people "if ballots dont work"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0

Edited by ghdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're ignoring context. Obama did not single out anyone. Its a spin on the old "you dont bring a knife to a gun fight" quote and considering the context is referring to a "political knife fight", its not nearly the same as what we've been discussing in this thread. I think all violent metaphors should be out of politics, so I'm not giving Obama a pass, but the context is not the same.

The difference between that quote and Palin/Kelly is that they had a specific target named and used metaphors and symbols to shoot someone out of office complete with crosshairs and M16 rallies. I don't recall using crosshairs to symbolize defeating a political opponent, although it's probably been done before on both sides.

Here a lovely right wing radio host calling to shoot people "if ballots dont work"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0

First rule of holes, when in one stop digging. The facts (lone nutso with serious mental issues, who one high school classmate described as "quite liberal") don't fit your narrative (crazy right-wing tea-partier egged on by politics of hate). When confronted with these facts, and other images that show a target being used by both political parties, you nit-pick and say "well those weren't over specific people". And when it's clear that the shooting had nothing to do with a Sarah Palin map, you assert a nebulous connection between political rallies where people talk about guns and the acts of a mentally disturbed individual.

Face facts, what happened yesterday had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, nothing to do with the tea party movement, nothing to do with Glenn Beck, nothing to do with "the politics of hate", or any other political movement. It was a wacko who has no discernable political agenda and is obsessed with "grammar" and "currency". Absent any new facts that may emerge, it's clear that what happened yesterday has zero to do with the political climate, partisan rhetoric, and otherwise has no political significance. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to make it so.

Edited by Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First rule of holes, when in one stop digging. The facts (lone nutso with serious mental issues, who one high school classmate described as "quite liberal") don't fit your narrative (crazy right-wing tea-partier egged on by politics of hate). When confronted with these facts, and other images that show a target being used by both political parties, you nit-pick and say "well those weren't over specific people". And when it's clear that the shooting had nothing to do with a Sarah Palin map, you assert a nebulous connection between political rallies where people talk about guns and the acts of a mentally disturbed individual.

Face facts, what happened yesterday had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, nothing to do with the tea party movement, nothing to do with Glenn Beck, nothing to do with "the politics of hate", or any other political movement. It was a wacko who has no discernable political agenda and is obsessed with "grammar" and "currency". Absent any new facts that may emerge, it's clear that what happened yesterday has zero to do with the political climate, partisan rhetoric, and otherwise has no political significance. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to make it so.

Are you seriously so ignorant to think that dude had no agenda or at the very least that politics didn't help fuel his schizophrenia? It wasn't a thrill kill. He has talked about her in the past with vitriol.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/09/arizona-suspected-gunman-no-stranger-to-trouble/

Yes, in the past he has been said, by others, to have been very far left/anarchist type. His current writings say otherwise. He condemns the current government for not following the constitution, he's very anti-immigration, and anti-Federal Reserve - these are conservative idealogies.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/8/21576/68127

"The writings of Jared Lee Loughner are an odd jumble of right-wing Patriot and anti-Federal Reserve themes mixed with rhetoric similar to that from people who are mentally unbalanced. It is too early to tell where this story will lead. It is clear, though, that aggressive right-wing rhetoric targeting Democrats as treasonous encourages some unstable people to act out in aggression or violence"

This is exactly the type of rhetoric that Palin, Kelly, and that bimbo talk show host have engaged in. Using crosshairs metaphorically is aggressive rhetoric. "Don't retreat, reload".

I agree with you in certain respects. Loughner was not motivated by Palin at all, as I've said 15 times in this thread since the information has come out, but the rhetoric she used prior to yesterday is irresponsible. Republicans, today, are saying the same things. This type of rhetoric can and does fuel nutcases to do things like this.

And....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html#ixzz1AaGJGtVa

Edited by ghdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when the rhetoric doesn't match the record, when people keep building up fear and hate instead of trying to have civil discourse. Sarah Palin is just part of a much bigger problem in our politics right now.

We have lost the ability to disagree and traded it in for automatic anger and contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but its not a stretch to think that he was when it first happened considering Giffords' party and the fact gun imagery and language was used ...

Yes, it is. Like Stretch Armstrong stretchy. None of the above ads, Dem or Rep, solicited people to shoot politicians. That's ridiculous. Please stop. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says it much better than I can. Snippet:

Sheriff Dupnik's political sermon came before any conclusive or even circumstantial proof had been offered that the shooter had been incited by anything except the gas music from Jupiter playing inside his head.

For as long as I've been alive, crosshairs and bull's-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such "inflammatory" words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I've listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I've even gotten angry, for goodness' sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I'm not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer.

I also strongly condemn JD Sallinger for writing Catcher in the Rye, as it obviously leads unbalanced people to murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also strongly condemn JD Sallinger for writing Catcher in the Rye, as it obviously leads unbalanced people to murder.

Not a stretch lol. I wouldnt condemn Salinger at all, but Mark David Chapman, for one, cites Catcher in the Rye as being a motivator in his murder of John Lennon. Chapman wanted to model himself after Caulfield. Its not Turner Diaries, but it proves that the wrong material in the wrong hands (minds) can lead or motivate people to do things. As you previously mentioned, John Hinckley, ALSO cited Catcher in the Rye. Robert Bardo, who murdered Rebecca Schaeffer, played the same card Chapman did in regards to Catcher. He was carrying a copy of it when he was killed her and had one on him when arrested.

Do I condemn Salinger? Absolutely not. There is a difference between literature and political propaganda. There are cases where political propaganda can be literature (Mein Kampf for instance), but Palin's propaganda with the PAC does not fall under that same category.

Considering how inflammatory the current political climate is, as not since the 60s has it been THIS heated between the sides, IMO using violent imagery, to further a political viewpoint is irresponsible because of people like those that would commit these damn crimes. Radicals on either side are fueled by these things. I am against censorship and 100% a free speech liberal. Id like to think that politicians would be more pragmatic in their approach to furthering their viewpoints rather than going to extremes to get their messages across. Crosshairs and using gun terminology in a political campaign is crass. They can use it all they want because of the rights we have here, but it doesnt mean it can't be criticized just because its been done before.

Edited by ghdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.