The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: TheGabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: TheGabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    Lies?  Smears?  Such as?  Did she or did she not use terms like:  "In the crosshairs", "Don't retreat, reload", "American values under attack." Attacks, sure.  Her public persona is that of a highly agitated airhead, ignorant but rife with hitherto suppressed violent urges.  She reads so many newspapers she can't name any, and loves ALL the founders so much she can't name a single one she likes.  Her publicists can't even come up with good excuses for it.  But doncha' know, she can sometimes see Russia!
    Posted by WhatIsItNow

    Yes she did and so have the Democrats including Obama. Look back at the 2006 campaign and the same crap Palin and Bachman are spewing was said by the Democrats. AND no I am not saying it is right now because they did it first, I am saying it is wrong PERIOD and if We the People don't get rid of these 2 corporations and take back control of our country, I fear this may be the first in a line of tragedies of this type.
    This idiot isn't a D or R he is an Independent and a gutless POS. The left commentators including Oberman and Matthews are pointing the finger at the right wing before they even have all the facts and they look like idiots too! Here is a DLC (Democrat Leadership Council) map of America for the 2006 campaign... Notice the bull's-eyes and the "Behind Enemy Lines"...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    Just to correct the record - while some are all flipping out over Palin's "Crosshair" map - here's one the Democrat Party used frequently for the last election cycle: You DO notice the symbols are all Bullseyes, yes?
    Posted by PragmaticAmerican

    Sorry! Didn't see you posted it before I did...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mhc90. Show mhc90's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    johnodog--who has Nina Totenberg wished death on?  And you would know this how? 

    I'll stand by my conviction that a) this shooter was angry at the government in general and may have targeted Giffords not as a Democrat but as the "face" of government.  However, it can't be ruled out that Giffords' vote on the health care bill or other legislation could be a factor, and b) calling a political district a "target" for the opposing party is a very different turn of phrase than putting a candidate "in the crosshairs". 

    Finally, I have yet to see those who claim the shooter is on the "loony left" explain was someone they see as a liberal would have a gun??  I thought all liberals hated guns and wanted to take them all away?? 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting : Mein Kapmf is absolutely a liberal book, promoting a socialist agenda.  Give it a look see.
    Posted by skeeter20


    Yo have no idea what you are talking about.  I have read Mein Kampf, the Manifesto and any number of liberal (Locke, Mill, etc.) writers and they have virtually nothing in common other than being about politics.  People who lump democratic theorists and totalitarians together are uneducated fools. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mhc90. Show mhc90's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    Skeeter: what Obama said in 2008 was "if your political enemy brings a knife, you bring a gun".  What Sarah Palin said was to put certain Congresspeople "in the crosshairs" because of certain votes they've taken.  That's a far more individual thing that using a metaphor more than 2 years about in the abstract.  Neither meant to promote violence.  Obama, however, was talking about winning a political debate or race, not about shooting or stabbing.   Palin was talking about removing individuals from Congress by putting them in the "crosshairs".  I believe Palin's statement would more likely be taken literally by some.  And didn't several Congressional Democrats have office doors shot at???

    In this case, I don't know that the shooter went after Giffords for her political beliefs, because he was taking political rhetoric from any side literally, or because in his mental state she represented the government to him.  For all we know the letter she sent him in 2007 contained a grammatical error and that drove him over the edge. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bill1013. Show bill1013's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    Listening to the talk shows and Fox News, the right appears to be on the defensive about this, and, to some extent should be. Obvioiusly, this horrible episode was the work of a deranged and disturbed individual. But when we have people advocating '2d amendment solutions,' using crosshairs to target elected officials and telling people to 'reload,' it certainly adds fuel to the fire. Palin and people like Sharron Angle obviously are not directly responsible for what happened, but perhaps they should consider toning down the rhetoric, and lose the attack-dog personas which have served them too well.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    Skeeter: what Obama said in 2008 was "if your political enemy brings a knife, you bring a gun".  What Sarah Palin said was to put certain Congresspeople "in the crosshairs" because of certain votes they've taken.  That's a far more individual thing that using a metaphor more than 2 years about in the abstract.  Neither meant to promote violence.  Obama, however, was talking about winning a political debate or race, not about shooting or stabbing.   Palin was talking about removing individuals from Congress by putting them in the "crosshairs".  I believe Palin's statement would more likely be taken literally by some.  And didn't several Congressional Democrats have office doors shot at??? In this case, I don't know that the shooter went after Giffords for her political beliefs, because he was taking political rhetoric from any side literally, or because in his mental state she represented the government to him.  For all we know the letter she sent him in 2007 contained a grammatical error and that drove him over the edge. 
    Posted by mhc90


    Really?  OBama was just using a metaphor, but Palin's metaphor escapes you?  So much for the intellectual elite.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheScareAlsoCrows. Show TheScareAlsoCrows's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    Is this a result (at least in part) of just how heated -- even outright nasty -- the political divide and rhetoric has become? 

    Probably not. The accused had prior encounters and interaction with Giffords that preceded the rise of Palin and all the childish handwringing over incivility. Moreover, his apparent philosophical leanings do not mesh with any of the vituperative mainstream.
     
    And yes, you are overreacting. Incivility in politics has been a good thing. It flushed out Bush and chased out incumbent Congresscritters at a higher than normal rate. Used correctly it can be a powerful tool against an increasingly arrogant republic.

    Don't fear incivility, embrace it. Take a picture of your least favorite politician, draw a bullseye or crosshairs on him or her, and pat yourself on the back for viewing it metaphorically, and not as some call to put a bullet in the fool.

    Now is not the time to cower and play nice with the politicians.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    In Response to The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting : Probably not. The accused had prior encounters and interaction with Giffords that preceded the rise of Palin and all the childish handwringing over incivility. Moreover, his apparent philosophical leanings do not mesh with any of the vituperative mainstream.   And yes, you are overreacting. Incivility in politics has been a good thing. It flushed out Bush and chased out incumbent Congresscritters at a higher than normal rate. Used correctly it can be a powerful tool against an increasingly arrogant republic. Don't fear incivility, embrace it. Take a picture of your least favorite politician, draw a bullseye or crosshairs on him or her, and pat yourself on the back for viewing it metaphorically, and not as some call to put a bullet in the fool. Now is not the time to cower and play nice with the politicians.
    Posted by TheScareAlsoCrows


    Embrace incivility?  You need a course on ethics.  You certainly can have a political debate that is civil in nature, indeed it is a far better course so as to inform the listeners as to what the actual issues are free of emotional posturing.  AND because we have deranged nuts out there looking for a cause, the apocalyptic language and violent imagery of today's discourse can help "trigger" a dreadful situation.  Statesmen are far better than demagogues. 
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheScareAlsoCrows. Show TheScareAlsoCrows's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting : Embrace incivility?  You need a course on ethics.

    Do not presume to tell me what I need. Just love your chains, crouch, and lick the hand that feeds.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from plasko. Show plasko's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    I had hoped that some nut shooting people would not be used as political ammunition for both sides (as is the case whenever anything ever happens).
    But the worms are out of the woodwork again and using it to play the blame-game.
    Yet, on the news, I haven't heard the anti-gun people weigh in on this as yet, which is a bit bizarre to me given that the concept of allowing nutjobs to own guns is the primary problem. Can't tell who is a nutjob? Then don't give ANYONE a gun! Or if you HAVE to give people guns give them newly-designed ones that can only fire 1-bullet per minute. Constitution saved, and fewer homicides to-boot!

    Nothing to do with politics. At all. Just common sense.


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting : Do not presume to tell me what I need. Just love your chains, crouch, and lick the hand that feeds.
    Posted by TheScareAlsoCrows


    Do not presume that you have all the answers.  You can be enslaved to your own self created ideology where bad is good and good is bad. Still doesn't mean it is right.  Use your unchained freedom for good and fly away loon.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mhc90. Show mhc90's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    Johnodog--really? You're believing a person who knows the shooter as gospel truth?  Seriously? Compared to her, he might be "quite liberal", but that's hardly proof that he's a left wing radical. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mhc90. Show mhc90's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    Brat and Pragmatic: The imagery is similar on the surface, but you might see a slight difference in a party targeting a whole state as a possible swing state in an election, vs. Palin's imagery of crosshairs over a district represented by one individual.  Palin was talking about "taking out" members of Congress considered vulnerable. She didn't mean it literally, but it's so hard to tell with her.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    "Palin was talking about "taking out" members of Congress considered vulnerable. She didn't mean it literally, but it's so hard to tell with her. "

    Yes, hard to tell... "taking out" ... 

    Wait, last week, didnt you order Chinese "take out"?  This clearly contributed to the climate of hate...while you are not to blame, you should temper your rhetoric.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SC1970. Show SC1970's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    Sarah Palin's website was mentioned about 5 minutes after this took place.
    What role does Sarah Palin have in the tragedy?? Being baited and demonized non-stop by the Liberal attack machine since 2008 makes her responsible for what a left-leaning nut did? No Democrat or Liberal has ever used cross-hairs (or much more violent imagery) in demonstrating the need to vote out this or that Conservative politician?  Do leftists not make a point of tearing up every city where an international summit is to take place, be it Seattle 1999 or
    Pittsburgh, Copenhagen and Toronto in the past 2 years? I guess that overheated rhetoric by the left against a Conservative target is the "good" kind of hate?  By the way, I hope that this sheriff in Tuscon has taken a strong stance against illegal immigration, since he should know that it has led to absolute carnage on the border with Mexico.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    The unhinged left can't win any policy arguments unless those who love this country and what it stands for are silenced.  That's what this debate is about.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    "Palin was talking about "taking out" members of Congress considered vulnerable. She didn't mean it literally, but it's so hard to tell with her. " Yes, hard to tell... "taking out" ...  Wait, last week, didnt you order Chinese "take out"?  This clearly contributed to the climate of hate...while you are not to blame, you should temper your rhetoric.
    Posted by BobinVa


    "Off the pig" is also ambiguous, when viewed in complete isolation. 

    But only F-Tards make arguments by discussing each sub-point without any context.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    The unhinged left can't win any policy arguments unless those who love this country and what it stands for are silenced.  That's what this debate is about.
    Posted by skeeter20


    There you go, skeetard.  When you got nothin', just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of hating America.  Good move.  Which Fox anchor taught you that one?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    More important than his alleged political leanings (one of his favorite books is Mein Kampf. hardly a liberal bestseller) is the fact that he appears to be a deluded homicidal killer.  Focus on that fact and avoid the nasty political barbs that already are too prevalent today. Actually his reading list included the communist manifesto( hardly a rightwing bestseller) and indeed hitler was a national socialist.  I did avoid the nasty barbs by sticking to facts without comment. How about you take your own advice? and of course none of these themes reflects the cause of the shooting. A mentally unstable jerk.  It has been the liberals who have tried to make this a cheap politcal victory and has provided the majority of barbs and incivility. My post were rebuttals showing the calousness of their intent.
    Posted by Johnodog



    Actually if you read the communist manifesto it better describes the means and methods of certain republicans. Concentration of control of the means of production, control over the workers free expression, control of the media, use of propaganda to inflame certain groups to control others. Its a repubcommie plot. The concentration of control was through the banks getting huge. Control of the media fox news, nuff said. Control of workers free expression, card signing. Use of agitprop. Targeting democratic swing districts with explicit ads touting targets and guns.
    The communist manifesto was all about control not whether it was for the state or the individual(large capital) in control. That is what capitalists learned. It does not matter if it is the state control as long as you control it.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PragmaticAmerican. Show PragmaticAmerican's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    Brat and Pragmatic: The imagery is similar on the surface...
    Posted by mhc90


    Well no, what I see is people falling all over themselves to take two identical things, and represent one as OK and the other as inciteful.

    There's a lot of splitting of hairs going on.  Reductio ad Absurdum, you know?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

     I find it hilarious that nobody has mentioned that not only was a dem shot but so was a rep (the judge).
     Where's the outcry for him? Oh, he's a rep, he doesn't count, never mind that his life came to a screeching halt due to a gunshot. 

     Not for nothing, but based on what I've heard about this guy, looking into his mental health is a must. A full evaluation to determin exactly what the problem is.
     The next question to ask is why he wasn't getting help or meds for the problem in the first place (his brain didn't flip the switch overnight, so when did it start and has it ever been bad enough to be worthy of bringing him to a hospital?)?
     I seriously doubt politics has much to do with this. It's sounding as if he was simply planning on killing people, and he went with the person he apparently hated the most.

     You cannot have it both ways. How you choose to see a life is up to you, and I'm no angle myself, but there's a big difference between not caring if someone dies and wishing they did die because their outlook on life isn't the same as yours.
     So, in this tragedy, was it a rep that died or a father? Was it a daughter that died, or a little girl who had nothing to look forward to? 
     Personally, I don't care. I'm more interested in how this kid, who is clearly showing signs of a mental health problem, didn't get the treatment he needed, allowing him to go over the edge and do this.

     Also, although I do not believe she'll ever be back to 100% again, Giffords being able to breath on her own is very good sign, and I wish her all the luck in the world on her recovery.


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
     I find it hilarious that nobody has mentioned that not only was a dem shot but so was a rep (the judge).  Where's the outcry for him? Oh, he's a rep, he doesn't count, never mind that his life came to a screeching halt due to a gunshot.   Not for nothing, but based on what I've heard about this guy, looking into his mental health is a must. A full evaluation to determin exactly what the problem is.  The next question to ask is why he wasn't getting help or meds for the problem in the first place (his brain didn't flip the switch overnight, so when did it start and has it ever been bad enough to be worthy of bringing him to a hospital?)?  I seriously doubt politics has much to do with this. It's sounding as if he was simply planning on killing people, and he went with the person he apparently hated the most.  You cannot have it both ways. How you choose to see a life is up to you, and I'm no angle myself, but there's a big difference between not caring if someone dies and wishing they did die because their outlook on life isn't the same as yours.  So, in this tragedy, was it a rep that died or a father? Was it a daughter that died, or a little girl who had nothing to look forward to?   Personally, I don't care. I'm more interested in how this kid, who is clearly showing signs of a mental health problem, didn't get the treatment he needed, allowing him to go over the edge and do this.  Also, although I do not believe she'll ever be back to 100% again, Giffords being able to breath on her own is very good sign, and I wish her all the luck in the world on her recovery.
    Posted by undead


    It is unfortunate that anyone died at the hands of this crazed loon, but it is clear that the Representative (and perhaps her staff) was the main target and the others were collateral damage.  Therefore it is sensible to focus on why the Democrat was shot as opposed to why the Republican was: it was an assassination attempt of the former not the latter.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting

    In Response to Re: The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting:
    The unhinged left can't win any policy arguments unless those who love this country and what it stands for are silenced.  That's what this debate is about.
    Posted by skeeter20


    It is just this kind of unhinged rhetoric that is the cause of the toxic political environment that is being discussed here.  Only ideological idiots believe that only one side of the political debate loves the country (and the other hates it).   And such a view of the world can lead to violence: why shouldn't you defend the nation by whatever means necessary from the traitors within?  Follow the logic of your own premise and you find only moral corruption.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share