On one end of a continuum we have the situation where, if one voices his/her wish that a certain thing about our country be improved, there are those who question his/her patriotism, say s/he hates his/her country, and tells him/her to move to another country. On the other end of the continuum, you have people who believe, if they don't like the way things are, they are justified in shooting the politicians who stand against their personal views regarding how things should be done. What's interesting is that you can find some people who inhabit both ends.

If the press glamorizes the people responsible for this shooting, we are likely to see much more of it. Heck, we may just see much more of it anyway!

this 22 year old who did it and was caught had some very odd thoughts out on the internet along with some photos.

This is the second shooting here in AZ this week.  However,the other at a mall ended with NO killings or injuries - was a robbery not policitially charged.

Gabby Giffords, the Congress Woman made it thru surgery and is fighting for her life.  He shot her in the head. The doctors are optimistic about her recovery.

Gabby our thoughts and prayers are with you.

-- Modified on 1/8/2011 5:28:28 PM

there won't be some voices that do so on the internet.

Oh REALLY------you couldn't tell from THIS board-------

I'm waiting for some prominent media figure to say something stupid about this senseless tragedy--------if some one disagrees with me on this, I'd be willing to take bets on it-----positive some really inflammatory remark is gonna make its way down the pike-----

"Six people were killed and 12 others wounded -- including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- in a shooting outside a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store where the congresswoman was holding a constituent meeting, police said."

Read and discuss.

so sad that a life that started on such a tragic day had her own life ended so sadly.  And she was just elected to student council at her school and that is why she was there - to meet a public servant.

The press will not glarmoize him, and no one except the nut cases are going to glamorize him.
He will be universally condemned by every significant figure you can name.  No radio talk show host will say anything good about him, and no paper that isn't printed in the basement of some loon will say anything other than an unambiguous condemnation.

Every society and every group has nuts.  The way to judge the society and the group is how do they react to acts like this.  In certain cultures, they dance in the street and hand out candy when someone kills 5 people.  In the U.S. no one condomes it.

WHen the nut case killed the abortion doctor you could not find a church of more than seven members that condemned it.  The same thing here.

No on of any significance will say anything that glamorizes it.

A certain percent think Elvis is alive.

I said there are always nuts. I said you judge the society not by the nuts but by how society as a whole, or at least significant groups, react.  

Have you noticed that the internet has its share of loons?  To say there are some voices on the internet who may glamorize it just proves my point.  Any serious commentator has a voice elsewhere.  I seven minutes I can have four internet identities and support the death penalty by skinning alive for people who sneeze in public.  

That is why I don't think the violence in the Islamic world is a fringe.  The support of the guy who killed the governor in Pakistan is huge.  It seems that more than 500 leading Muslim scholars, representing what the Associated Press called “moderate school of Islam”  in Pakistan not only celebrated the murder, but argued that no one should mourn the victim or even or pray for him.  And those are the moderates!!!!!!

Compare that to the U.S.  Do you really think that 500 Baptist preachers are going to say anything close here?  How about 100?  How about a group of 2?  Out of I-don't-know-how-many-million Baptists there are in the U.S., if two support the killer, that puts it in such a small fringe it is less than the number that think Elvis is alive.  (BTW, I saw him at the gym yesterday.  He said to say, "Hi.")

I would love to see some anti-death penalty person defend this guy's right to continue sucking oxygen. What he did is utterly indefensible.

Gifford could be the looniest liberal that ever walked the earth (to my knowledge she was more of a moderate), and I still wouldn't wish something like this on her. Violence is never an answer to political differences.

There just aren't words to express the outrage of a 9 year old little girl being caught in the rain of this man's gunfire. The horrible irony of having been born on a day of terror, only to die by a terrorist act. Truly, truly awful. My heart goes out to her family, and the families of the others who died in this tragedy.

I hope this scumbag rots in hell. Soon.

His internet postings are from Fruit Cake City.

It doesn't even make sense.  One posting says "The school is breaking the constitution..........The teachers are taking advantage of you in the first and Fifth Amendment."  As someone with experience in Con Law, what the hell does it mean to take advantage of someone in the first and fifth Amend?  Bongos.

Another one says, “I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods."  

Loon Town.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/shooting-suspects-apparent-youtube-video/

"Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law," he said.

Phil, care to provide a link ?

so it won't suprise me when some fringe character, looking for his 15 minutes of fame, tries to defend the indefensible.

The only disagreement I might have with Pri on the subject is the definition of "prominent" I don't think anyone of any real prominence will commit political suicide this way, but someone will, and their remarks will get them a lot of press. Hey even Charlie Manson has his share of supporters.

why am I not surprised it was you?

I am sure it never occured to you that if one or more of the victims were armed themselves, the body count might have been a lot lower.

Both of your examples have already come true.

what bothers me is how we frequently personaly decide that one life was/is more important than another. This is a tragedy. Equally as tragic is how this man came to the conclusion that this action was his only recourse.

I find it disturbing that the media wants to focus on how 'nuts' the man have been. We're all nuts at some point in our lives. Stoicism was created by MAN to deal with the shit they throw at each other.

Years of counseling has led me to believe that 'humanity' suffers from the lack of just that.

The survivers are the real losers here. Left wondering WHY.

We don't know the motives of the schizo loon at this point; he also may have had an accomplice who is still at large. Until all this gets resolved, both sides should chill, STFU & stop making cheap political points about this tragedy.


-- Modified on 1/9/2011 11:30:07 AM

FWIW I give you respect for not joining the little cunts who are trying to make political hay over a tragedy of this magnitude.

It was totally predictable who among us was going to come out of the woodwork and point fingers at an entire party for the actions of a single madman. At least it wasn't possible for me to think any less of them than I already did. They are sad excuses for human beings IMO.

I haven't given you props for much lately, but kudos for being a voice of reason, and shame on the little fuckwads who can't seem to miss an opportunity to score political points. Poor, poor excuses for human beings IMO.

after the persecution of Tiller by O'Reilly, did you hear any statement by him, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, or any high ranking Republican office holders, condemn the murderer's actions or allude that he was fruit cake?

You've really stepped in it this time!

-- Modified on 1/9/2011 12:59:45 PM

we settle our differences at the ballot bax!!

If you mean someone will say something positive, I will place bets NO ONE will do that.

If you mean any stupid comment, you create an impossible standard.  OF COURSE all prominent figures are going to say "SOMETHING" stupid.  They will all be true but vapid "Senselss tragedy, terrible thing, blah, blah, blah."

I do not blame him, because it is his job, but the Pres already had a silly, canned comment. If my guy had won he would have had a silly canned comment.  They all have to say something, and there is nothing to say.  

It's like when a friend's father dies.  You got to say something, but it is all so meaningless.

Posted By: Priapus53

Oh REALLY------you couldn't tell from THIS board-------

I'm waiting for some prominent media figure to say something stupid about this senseless tragedy--------if some one disagrees with me on this, I'd be willing to take bets on it-----positive some really inflammatory remark is gonna make its way down the pike-----

The killer is in the Ninth Circuit.

If they charge as a capital offense, he is a good 15 years away from the death chamber.

While I agree people should not settle our differences this way, people will certainly use this event to justify our political differences.  First things that come to mind is the Left trotting out the gun control angle.  The Right parading death penalty.  Either way, tragic events like this are a heyday for politicians, lawyers and the media.  The kinds of people that would sell their Mothers if it got them to the front of the Starbucks line.

It's only wrong when the "other guy" does it.

Members of both parties are guilty of it, but I don't think they are "equally" guilty. The compassionate, open minded left, seems anything but. Not that I am excusing the right when they do the same, but the left seems to be even worse than the right if that is possible.

With all the lies, false accusations, and calls for a "Second Amendment Solution" by the right.  It was only a matter time before some crack pot tried to take it upon themselves to take action.  

In my opinion the TEA Party and other right wing activist have "Blood of their Hands".

Just google it. Let me be really clear. I am not knocking him for it. I said that he had to do it. I know that is part of his job.  If McCain had won, he would have made the same empty comment.  If Bush was still pres it would be his stupid comment.

I am NOT knocking Obama.  But the comments are empty rhetoric. "Unspeakable tragedy....our prayers are .....violence has no place....."

As I said, this is like when someone you know dies.  You have to say something, but there is nothing intelligent to say.  I have done it a dozen times.

Part of his job is to make that type of statement. But it ain't a great quotable for the ages.

Yeah, and the left has never told a lie. And the left has never encouraged activism. And the left has never engaged in any violence, like bombing universities, burning banks, smashing windows.  And the left has never used words like "battle ground.

And in the election of 2008, the left didn't keep saying "Take back America."  Yes, it was the left that shouted that, and then when the Tea Party said the exact same words it was inflamatory.

Like the left never used the word "regime" for Bush, and just is so shocked at that language.

No. It was bound to happen because only the right uses rhetoric  that may cause people to act badly.

It was bound to happen because there are no people on the left who might be unhinged.

Really, Tea Party has blood on its hands? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this guy had any involvement in the Tea Party. Tea Partiers tend to be conservatives like myself who have become fed up with a political party that claims to be conservative yet is anything but.

Do you know many conservatives who list the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf as their favorite books?

This guy was a left wing wacko, not a right winger at all. Based on what we know so far, I'd say he was probably an anarchist more than anything, if he identified himself by any particular political party or ideology at all.

Seriously, inform yourself a little better before you shoot your mouth off.

Lets do some comparisons:

When Bush was inaugurated, the traditional walk down Pennsylvania Avenue had to be cut short, and Bush had to be escorted into a limosine for the remainder of the trip. Why? Protestors were so agressive that they littered the street with not just garbage and rotten fruit, but FECES. They flung HUMAN FECES at the newly inaugurated President.

When Obama was inaugurated, no one flung anything at him. He was able to take the traditional walk uninterrupted. However, the Mall was covered in a massive blanket of garbage after the uncouth hordes left. Very classy.

Outgoing president Clinton was greeted with applause when he stepped onto the stage at Bush's inauguration. Outgoing President Bush was greeted by boo's, catcalls, and jeers. So very classy.

Lets talk about the DNC and RNC conventions in 2008. The city of Minneapolis played host to the RNC. Sure, there were protests going on. Some folks got themselves arrested. Undoubtedly there was probably some property damage done, though nothing significant was reported.

The city of Denver played host to the DNC. Hundreds of arrests were made, hundreds of cars had their tires slashed and windshield's shattered. An estimated $500,000 in damage was done to storefronts alone.

And do you really mean to tell me you've never seen Bush's face in the center of a bullseye? Images like that have been around since the day he was inaugurated. Cheney's too, and Rumsfeld's as well. Condi Rice and Colin Powell have both been referred to by a variety of "Uncle Tom" themed monkiers. There was at one point, a website called 'lynchcolinpowell.com' I believe it is now defunct, but it certainly wasn't a conservative who created that website.

Remember when Bush was in Georgia (the country, not the state), and that loony tossed what turned out to be a defective hand grenade at him? Did you have your head up your ass during the days that followed in which numerous tongue in cheek jokes were told about the incident? Did you miss the lamentations of lefties who mourned the fact that the grenade turned out to be defective? I certainly didn't.

Time and time again, the left has shown themselves to be scumbags, with less couth and class than a hyena. And somehow, you have apparently failed to take note of any of it. Either your head is shoved so far up your ass that you have to blow your nose to take a shit, or you are just plain ignorant.

And finally, again, we have the inconvenient 'fact' that the shooter in this incident was not in any way a conservative, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he had any involvement in the Tea Party movement, or that he subscribed to any part of their platform.

Well in the last decade I have NOT heard the left call for the assassination of the opposition, but I have heard the right call for murder (Second amendment solution)!

I stand by my statement.  Every Tea Bagger, every birther, anyone who repeated the hate the last couple of years is an accomplice to murder!

First, there was that stupid actor on a national talk show who called for people to burn down Thomas's house.

A lot of people say a lot of things. No one of any signifcance has called for murder.

Challenge: One quote with link provided for any serious leader of the "Tea Baggers" or GOP who called for assasination.  Not just some nut on the internet or calling in to a talk show.

Even your "second amendment solution"  is silly.  A call for an armed citizenry is not a call for murder.  The left focused on "battle ground" states last time. Gosh, what happens in battle grounds? People are killed. I quess all of Obama's tactical people were  calling for murder.  How silly is that?

And no one on the left ever talked about targeting a congressional seat.  But when your people do it it is figurative.

And the silly, silly, one-side "BIRTHERS."  Get me straight. Birthers are stupid.  They are as stupid as the hate filled lefties who thought Bush organized 9-11.  Gosh, suddenly stupid political theories are so hate filled they inspire murder.

Even then your argument is silly.  Apart from the Loonies Crew, name one serious "GOP who is a birther.  With link.  Glen Beck and Rush have a total of tens of thousands of hours of talk that is recorded, much of it is off the cuff, responding to live callers. Link one recording with them spouting Birther Garbage.  Hewitt, Medved, O'Riely, Pragger, TownHall, NRO, and 1,000 others. Find a birther comment.

I just gave you hundreds of thousands of pages and hours of right wing discourse.  You will find about .0000001% of "birther" talk.  Of course, for you, the .00000001% taints the other 99.9999999%.

Oh, yeah. Didn't Malcolm at one time call for bullets or ballots?  Didn't he quote Mao "power comes out of the barrel of a gun?

And the Panthers, photographed with automatic weapons.  No. Not a hint of violence there.

Flash forward to 2009, a couple years ago I saw the photo of Huey Newton with the rifle, still being sold in leftie book stores.  No. Not a call for violence there.

The First Amendment requires robust debate.  

People are free to use figurative language, and they often do it in real life.  There is nothing wrong with using figurative provocative language, so long as it doesn't incite action.  (A speaker standing on a podium, shouting, "Let's storm City Hall, now." Brandishing the gun, and urging others to join him as he goes to his car to head downtown.

Shouting, "Let's lynch James.  Here's the rope. Who is with me?"

There are always nuttsies who will be provoked by normal language.

We can ban Romeo and Juliet because it glamorizes kids disobeying their parents and committing suicide.

We can ban Taming of the Shrew because Petrucion mistreats Kate.

If we sanatize our language to the point where nut cases are not inspired, we would have a bland, tasteless, emotionless world.

The level of hate was was put out by right wing groups is the worst I have ever seen in my lifetime.  

But it does not matter.  Even if the left had done the same thing, IT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE TEA BAGGERS AND OTHER HATE GROUPS ON THE RIGHT!

To their credit some of the Republican leadership has asked to tone it down, because they know of what it has done.

Obviously, Huey Newton with rifles and Malcolm with power coming from the barrel of a gun mean little to you.  Equally obviously, that actor who goes on TV and calls for someone's house to be burnt down is not provocative at all.

And of course, you can't meet the challenge with one really inciteful thing that anyone said other than random voices in a crowd or on the internet.  A hundred thousand hours of talk radio on tape and you can't find two minutes.

Obviously, we will never agree as to who uses more inciteful rhetoric.

As a result, I will leave submit it to the court of public opinion, at least on this board, and leave it to everyone else and ask these questions that I would like everyone to ask him or herself based on his or her memory:  

In the past, when you heard there wa a protest and "it got out of hand," which side do you think was protesting?

In the past, when you heard there was a protest and windows were broken or buildings were damaged, which side do you think was protesting?

In the past, when you heard there was a protest and cars were burnt and/or overturned, which side do you think was protesting?

In the past, if you heard there had been a building "taken over," with heated rhetoric, which side do you think was protesting?

In the past, if you heard someone saying "ballots or bullets," or "no justice, no peace," which side was it coming from?

For the last 45 years, with the exception of 40 or 50 people outside the Supreme Court once a year, the left has had an almost complete monopoly on protest and "robust" debate and action.  

Now that the right has a voice, it is so irresponsible.

Just 2 years ago, "dissent was patriotic." Now speech is treason.  

Finally, you almost lie.  You say "some" GOP leadership.  Everyone who has made a statement has condemned it. But only by saying "some" can you taint the rest.  There ain't no rest.

and the Secret Service blamed Palin's rhetoric for the spike in those threats...

Now go back to your WNBA, or go find a fat broad to White Knight for.

Man I have to say, I haven't read a more hilarious piece of pseudo-journalism in a long time.

I'll just hit some highlights:

*  Palin is quoted using the phrase "paling around with terrorists". Last time I checked, planting bombs to make a political statement or influence the political process is the textbook definition of terrorism. That makes William Ayers a terrorist. Furthermore, he states to this day that he regrets not having done enough. That makes him an unrepentent terrorist.

*  I love this line "It has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have encouraged white supremacists to go even further". Read that statement about 5 times, and see if you can avoid laughing. What exactly does "go even further" mean? Obama is alive and kicking, indeed, not a single attempt has been made on his life. So "further" doesn't appear to mean making an actual attempt on his life. Furthermore we are talking white SU-PRE-MA-CISTS. They need Palin's permission to "go even further"? They need encouragement from anyone?? They hate minorities period. That is sort of how they got their name in the first place. If you think anything anyone in the mainstream says is going to influence them one way or another, I have a nice bridge I can let you have for a nice price. Just in case the statement wasn't absurd enough, all we get IS the single statement. What exactly "emerged" to indicate Palin may have encouraged them? The world may never know, because the article never says. Neat-O.

*  The Secret Service warned the Obama's that they had seen a dramatic increase in death threats in mid-October. Hmm, I'm racking my brains here, trying to think of anything that might cause death threats to increase around that time. Oh yeah! These death threats must have ocurred in the weeks following the DNC in which Obama accepted his party's nomination. Then came the financial meltdown right about the same time. Gosh, anti-gov't sentiment in general was surely at an all time low, and surely the presidential front runner wouldn't bear the brunt of angry voters who's job was just eliminated. Nope, that can't possibly have anything at all to do with it.

I'm not a big supporter of Palin, but it was stupid a few years ago when claiming that questioning Obama's patriotism, or saying that he hangs out with terrorists contributed to death threats against him. Its even more stupid now.

Obama is our first black president. That fact by itself means he is going to be the target of hatred by some members of our society. Sad, but true. Nothing Palin or anyone else can say will change that fact.

Or, is it just away of "guilt be association."

Paling around connotes more than having been in meetings, or in the same room with someone else, but rather that you frequently keep company with the person, and see eye to eye on many issues and matters of life. And, she said "paling around with terrorists." That plural, not singular! So, most people were quite aware of what she was accusing him of, which falls in line with another of her statements that, "He (Obama) is not one of us." She intentionally wanted people to believe he had the mind set against the well-being of this country, like a terrorist.

You forget that Obama also stated he was willing to meet with Achminejedad with no preconditions, and actually held sit down meetings with represetnatives of Hamas before he'd even locked in his nomination as the DNC presidential candidate.

Your argument, like so many you make on this board is full of hot air and utterly devoid of facts. Perhaps it is just that I pay closer attention to events, or have a better memory than you. In either case, Google is your friend. Try using it in the future to make better arguments based on facts.

I see that even though the mainstream media is now starting to write some news stories about the shooter, you apparently haven't availed yourself of the facts.

Absolutely nothing, zilch, zip, NADA, of his writings, or his rantings bore even a passing resemblence to anything connected to the tea party. He has absolutely no association with them, and does ont share their rhetoric. He spouted communist/socialist/anarchist rhetoric, all of which is the complete antithesis of Tea Party rhetoric.

The simple fact is, Gifford had the misfortune of being the elected Congressional representative from his district. That's it. She could have been Republican, Democrat, or an alien with purple spots. He would still have targeted her because she was a member of Congress.

Seriously, just STOP. Every time you post a response you look like an even bigger idiot than your previous posts.

Oh! My memories just fine. Well, at least fine enough to stay on the topic. You still haven't answered my question. Is there something wrong with your short-term memory?

First off, you asked a question then answered it yourself. What more was there to add?

The only point of disagreement was the use of terrorists, plural, versus terrorist. Since I cited only Ayers as an example, I responded with the additional examples of his eagerness to meet with Achmadinejad unconditionally, and the fact that members of his staff actually met with members of Hamas, before he even had the authority to meet with anyone, and sure as hell not a terrorist organization.

I agree with your assessment that Palin's intentions were in fact to highlight that Obama's agenda is NOT in the best interest of our country. To say that means he is not one of us is putting words in her mouth, but the point she made is a valid one. He is friends with bad people. Simple as that.

The article that formed the basis of this debate attempts to make the point that saying he's friends with bad people led to an increase of death threats against Obama. Its a perfect example of ad hoc ergo proptor hoc logic. Literally, "after therefore because of it", or the idea that one thing follows another, and therefore causes another. The problem is, rarely is that logic true. Obama recieves death threats because he's the president, because he's black, because he's a Democrat, because the stars are in the right alignment, because the Bulls lost a game, and also because some people don't like his policies, the color of his tie, his friends, or they just plain don't like him. What one lady has to say about him is not going to change that.

There, was that clearer?

Every one of his classmates that have been interviewed, describe him as being politically, a 'leftist'.

But your Junior High School insults show your true level.

And may people like you who want others to live by the gun meet the logical end of that love affair.

Now...you go back and find some board newbie you can impress or frighten. Your boundless ego only nauseates me.

He does not have to be a member of the TEA Party to be influenced by the rhetoric!

I remember them reporting that exact same thing!!!

Who is more of an idiot? Me? or the one that can't defend his position without name calling?

Then there was the DHS report, from last year expressing their concern over right wing groups...