This is the Republican idea of taking out your opposition

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser22575

First off, let's clear up the crap here: The Tucson Citizen reports that Rep. Giffords was "shot point blank in the head."

That, my dear sirs, indicates it was indeed an assassination attempt and not merely some random shooting. So let's not try and minimize it by saying he was on some weekend shooting spree and just "happened" to wing Gabrielle Giffords or, as Gizmo alleged earlier, that he may have been targeting someone else. Giffords WAS the target of this incident, of this there is no doubt.


Indeed, and that's the same call as the GOP. They are --- one and the same. Look, I know you don't like me making the connection, but the connection is huge, and the events that have transpired, the list presented, the two remaining candidates, with Gifford as the first on that list, all of it is obvious. And if it's obvious to me, it would be obvious to a "nutter." So, while I'm not making a conspiracy call, I am indicating that Palin's actions were grossly negligent, at the very least, and her actions, along with people like Glenn Beck and O'Reilly, have been fueling the fires of wing-nuttery for far too long. This --- is the result of irresponsible politicizing. This --- is the fault of the Republicans for not putting a halt to such behaviors. You simply cannot sit idly by whilst irresponsible Republican figureheads encourage criminal behavior. And yet, that is exactly what the Republican party, and it's representatives, have done. By their silence, they provided tacit permission.


Gizmo, the huge difference with your map and the one presented by Palin, is she targeted specific individuals, literally calling it a, "hit list," in addition to making comments like, "reload." In contrast, the 2004 map was innocuous. When that map first came out, along with Palin's "reload" post on Twitter (and elsewhere), there was indeed a lot of concern in the White House (and, by default, the U.S. Secret Service) that "nutters" would construe her posts as a request to assassinate the Representatives she listed.

This is what I'm stating, because although it may not have been a direct request, it was indeed inferred and an inference is sufficient to motivate a "nutter," particularly when the person making the inference is a political entity of no small measure. Add to that the well-known fact there are a helluva lot of "nutters" in the Tea Party, which is no doubt a radical wing of the Republican Party, with Palin directing many of her talks, and her fliers, to the Tea Party wingnuts. The end result is one of only two remaining Democrat Representatives in Palin's hit list, now teeters on the precipice, in critical condition with a bullet hole through her brain.

A year ago, when Palin's hit list was released, shortly thereafter Gifford's office was vandalized. In response, Representative Gifford stated, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is, the way she has it depicted it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Indeed --- consequences. Like the words of a ghost, Gifford's statement made a year ago will haunt the GOP for a long time to come, a foretelling of this tragic day.

Yeah, this was quite clearly an planned assassination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110109/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot

Not only did he shoot her through and through the head from about 4 feet, he had asked to speak with her before the shooting, then returned and opened fire.
 

DeletedUser

The idea that the tea party is to blame is insane and idiotic. It doesn't even matter what his political party was because he is INSANE.
This is like saying J.D. Salinger is responsible for the murder of John Lennon.

This should not be a political issue at all.
 

Diggo11

Well-Known Member
Yep. I believe we all agree that the shooter was nuts, a nutter, insane, etc.

On that basis, before you point towards Sarah Palin's "hit list", you really need some further facts before you can blame anyone with certainty. For example, was this guy killing authority for the sake of it? We know he seemingly didn't fancy either political party, but authority as a whole, and may well have just been targeting his closest 'lawmaker'. (Ie, co-incidence it happened to be a Democrat.) Or, perhaps the guy was going to kill someone anyway, and used the "hit list" purely as a map to do so in a game of "eeny meny miny moe"? Whilst that would prove the "hit list" to be grossly irresponsible, life would have been lost regardless. Heck, being a deranged social outcast, did he even know of the "hit list"s existence?

Presently, we know the guy was a fruitcake. I'll wager he was going to kill some figure of authority regardless of what Sarah Palin said or did - she's a member of the authority too and he more than likely hated her just as much. Of course, that is equally well the same sort of speculation as saying the "hit list" caused the death, and you really need further solid evidence before a correct conclusion can be drawn.

So yeah - "hit list" irresponsible, both Sarah Palin and the shooter complete screwballs, but by no means factual (thus far) that it "is the Republican idea of taking out your opposition". It's a valid possibility, but equally well counter valid possibilities have not been ruled out.
 

DeletedUser

I'm a little disconcerted by the label being given this guy. "Insane" and "fruitcake" are easy outs, and while I would agree with these assessments, while I agree he's clearly not altogether there and has demonstrated sociopathic characteristics, we shouldn't label him and toss his actions aside. It is a mistake to do so. I agree, we need more information, and we need to determine what specifically prompted him to act as he did, although we already have ample evidence to pose a general conjecture. It cannot be dismissed that "hucksters of violent imagery," as Eli calls them, should not be participating in public political banter. The political hucksters (Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, etc) have been encouraging this mentality, and here it is, swallowed hook, line and sinker by a "nutter."

Oh, and Pete, it is a political issue. The man clearly had political motivations and his target was a political figure.
 

DeletedUser

I feel sorry for the friends and family of the dead and injured, and hope that all those who were hurt make full recoveries.
America is a violent society. Giving weak-minded young men the constitutional right to own guns shows poor judgement in myopinion. People are held legally accountable for the probable consequences of their actions, whether that was their intention or not.
Hucksters who disseminate violent imagery should be no exception to this principle.

A-freaking-greed. People unable to demonstrate mental fitness around firearms with radical obsessions along with the mental problems especially should not be allowed to purchase firearms. I am sick of all these socially inept trashbags thinking themselves 'high and mighty' enough to do this crap; we've seen it at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now here with this 22 year old r. They're all fruits, and they all had mental histories. I'm all for limiting these types of fools from posessing something that can kill me. I'm not in their category, so I don't care what they are barred from, I'm sick of them giving America a bad name and trying to kill people/actually killing those who are trying to help society.

I'm a little disconcerted by the label being given this guy. "Insane" and "fruitcake" are easy outs, and while I would agree with these assessments, while I agree he's clearly not altogether there and has demonstrated sociopathic characteristics, we shouldn't label him and toss his actions aside. It is a mistake to do so. I agree, we need more information, and we need to determine what specifically prompted him to act as he did, although we already have ample evidence to pose a general conjecture. It cannot be dismissed that "hucksters of violent imagery," as Eli calls them, should not be participating in public political banter. The political hucksters (Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, etc) have been encouraging this mentality, and here it is, swallowed hook, line and sinker by a "nutter."

Oh, and Pete, it is a political issue. The man clearly had political motivations and his target was a political figure.

This bloody idiot hated the government; I know many Anarchists at my school, and had gotten close to one Anarchist girl until I found out her 'real' ideals. I'm talking about kids with violent and repressed histories and are in their mid-teens, 16 years and up, who want to murder. Kill, kill, kill. I have nothing against Anarchists, but this is the work of a radical one. Maybe he is Teapartier material, but the evidence at hand makes it a harsh unreality.


Yeah, this was quite clearly an planned assassination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110109/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot

Not only did he shoot her through and through the head from about 4 feet, he had asked to speak with her before the shooting, then returned and opened fire.

Anyone saying this was a 'random shooting' is a complete dunce. From what I've read, this guy had something against the 'bible' being issued to soldiers, and the irony here is Giffords read the 'first amendment' from the constitution when she read at the swearing-in or whatever. She was a perfect target for this delinquent's rage, and not to mention her centerist stance and wide acceptance. If not that, what's the best way to strike at a government other than eliminating an official? This guy was a conspiracy freak, he was mad enough to take it all to heart, and he unleashed his madness upon the innocent. I'd read somewhere that some guy in the crowd took a shot at him, too. Not sure if it's true though, but can someone confirm?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

lol, Conservative News Media (CNM). I'll watch it when I can stomach the propaganda. Seriously Gizmo, do you ever watch real news?
 

DeletedUser

I had heard that they thought he may have done it because she is Jewish and he was associated with the American Renaissance group. Has anything more been said about this (has it been confirmed or been ruled out?) I'm not interested enough to really follow up on it (shame on me), but it sounded to me like it was more based on race/religion than politics.
 

DeletedUser

lol, Conservative News Media (CNM). I'll watch it when I can stomach the propaganda. Seriously Gizmo, do you ever watch real news?

have you read the Disclaimer on the video's yes it is opinionated from what they interpret from ALL media sources. but of course the guy is a Graduate of UC Berkley (he has said it multiple times in his videos and I think in one of these videos he points it out)and to come out of that school and still be Conservative is hard to do.
And what do you consider real news? what you call hard facts the this maniac killer is a tea partier, Sarah Palin supporter I call hog wash because there is no evidence linking Jared Loughner to Sarah Palin's "vote out" list. infact there is more Evidence that he was a Daily Kos (American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a progressive point of view.)user because if you bothered to do research (or watched the videos) you would see that just days before the shooting there were posts on the site saying Giffords must die for being one of the 19 Democrats not to vote for Pelosi for house speaker just a few days ago.
who knows if this is true and is the reason she got attacked we may see 18 other assassination attempts by this loon web sight.
now lets keep your Bigotry and hatefuless off the forum Hellstromm. and good Job with the Reading Hellstromm "conservative NEW media" not NEWS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Oh that's just plain blarney, you've just been watching too much propaganda. The goal of propaganda sites/media is to discredit real news sources and have you distrust them. Makes it easier for them to sell you their spin. Hook, line and sinker, Pete -- hook, line and sinker.
 

DeletedUser

I'm a little disconcerted by the label being given this guy. "Insane" and "fruitcake" are easy outs, and while I would agree with these assessments, while I agree he's clearly not altogether there and has demonstrated sociopathic characteristics, we shouldn't label him and toss his actions aside. It is a mistake to do so. I agree, we need more information, and we need to determine what specifically prompted him to act as he did, although we already have ample evidence to pose a general conjecture. It cannot be dismissed that "hucksters of violent imagery," as Eli calls them, should not be participating in public political banter. The political hucksters (Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, etc) have been encouraging this mentality, and here it is, swallowed hook, line and sinker by a "nutter."

Would you say that the "political huskers" are encouraging violence on this level though? I don't listen to any of your listed people, but I doubt that they go around encouraging shootings at political rallies and get togethers or any sort of violence. TBH though, I don't really know.

Oh, and Pete, it is a political issue. The man clearly had political motivations and his target was a political figure.

You may say he had political motivations, but if that was all he really had then why would he shoot 10+ other people in the process? If his motivation was to simply kill a political figure, then why would he shoot a 9 year old girl in the face? This man was sick in the head, he hated the world and he was willing to commit suicide and die and take out as many inoccent people as possible in the process.
 

DeletedUser22575

Would you say that the "political huskers" are encouraging violence on this level though? I don't listen to any of your listed people, but I doubt that they go around encouraging shootings at political rallies and get togethers or any sort of violence. TBH though, I don't really know.



You may say he had political motivations, but if that was all he really had then why would he shoot 10+ other people in the process? If his motivation was to simply kill a political figure, then why would he shoot a 9 year old girl in the face? This man was sick in the head, he hated the world and he was willing to commit suicide and die and take out as many inoccent people as possible in the process.


Teh Train Robber if I might I would like to provide what I see as two different examples here with what I see as two very clear different degrees of responsibility for their words.

First the George Tiller case and Bill O'Reilly.

When George Tiller was murdered at a Kansas church in 2009, liberal critics savaged Bill O'Reilly for having attacked the abortion doctor more than two dozen times, labeling him "Tiller the Baby Killer." The Fox News host called the criticism "nonsense," saying "evidence shows that Tiller was a gross human rights violator. Yet, because most media people are pro-choice, they looked away. Now they are trying to justify their apathy by attacking us."

Bill O'Reilly knew when he was running his mouth about George Tiller and inflaming the situation the following facts:

He knew there was nutters out there, and he could not help put knowing the nutters who opposed abortion listened to his show because his views on abortion matched theirs.

He knew that these nutters would take action sooner or later again because they had numerous times in the past, bombing abortion clinics, etc. Common sense said it was just a matter of time.

He knew there were other approaches he could have taken to have gotten his point on abortion across without inflaming the situation.

He also knows the power of desensitizing people towards other people and making those he opposed and making them seem less than human by attaching "tags" to them. He is a smart guy and there is no doubt he has seen the numerous studies on it. It is in fact how the military does it to make it easier for soldiers to kill.

Despite that he choose to continue the path of inflaming the situation with George Tiller and a nutter walked into church and shot him through the head at point blank range and killed him.

And despite the fact that no matter what your views on abortion are George Tiller had committed no illegal acts Bill O'Reilly shrugged it off with the comment of "evidence shows that Tiller was a gross human rights violator.

Now you take the case of the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman.

I do think that Sarah Palin and her rhetoric inflamed the situation in Arizona. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had previously comment on the situation with what she thought were Tea Party members breaking her windows and she had commented on the "hit list" with the gun sights on it. I think her comments show that she felt an increased risk because of the comments.

But do I think that any one who was a mentally normal member of the Tea Party or Sarah Palin herself thought anything like this would happen, or wanted it to happen.

Absolutely not.

I do think Sarah Palin did know the value of her little key "catch phrases" to not only catch the interest of a certain segment of the population but to maintain it and her support.

I think if Sarah Palin had thought about it she might have come to the conclusion that the approach she was taking might not be the best possible approach for her to take and she might have chosen a different approach to make her points.

I think what happened with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was the last thing Sarah Palin wanted to happen for numerous reasons. On that list has to be the fact that there is a very good chance her political career is as dead as last weeks mackerel.

Also on that list has to be the fact that the Tea Party has been injured by what has happened here. Combine that with the way the Tea Party has been used and manipulated by the main steam Republican party and in reality is not going to be able to accomplish many if any of their promises they made while running for office the Tea Party may well be dead right along with her political career.

During the next two years there is a very strong possibility that when you add this all together all the Tea Party may be able to do is be a divisive force within the Republican party possible forming a third party for the 2012 election as a clear cut revolt in protest against the Republicans compromising with the Democrats and betraying the Tea Party giving Obama an easy victory.

I think this is the last thing Sarah Palin would want. I also think that one of Sarah Palin's biggest weakness is she does not think often enough and runs her mouth to much. And that weakness has caught up with her.

Do I think in actually Sarah Palin is responsible for what happened to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords? No I don't and that goes for the Tea Party also.

Do I think Bill O'Reilly bears any responsibility for what happened to George Tiller. Absolutely and criminally so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

something I think everyone is forgetting Jared is also a very anti-Christian/anti Religious person (as pointed out in many of the links in this thread) so I wouldn't see why someone like him would even be associated with the tea party.

edit: since we are getting close to the 100 post cut off lets look at all the facts
Jared is a right wing tea partier: 1. a map with Giffords name on it put out by Palin
Jared is a left wing Liberal mad at Giffords' not voting for Pelosi: 1. posts on the Daily Kos saying 'Gifford "is dead to me"' 1.1 a hit list put out by Daily Kos having Giffords name on it for being a blue dog 2. people who knew Jared who say he is "left wing or Liberal" 3. people who knew Jared who said he is anti religion. 4. he is a pot smoker.
anything else we can add?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser22575

something I think everyone is forgetting Jared is also a very anti-Christian/anti Religious person (as pointed out in many of the links in this thread) so I wouldn't see why someone like him would even be associated with the tea party.

edit: since we are getting close to the 100 post cut off lets look at all the facts
Jared is a right wing tea partier: 1. a map with Giffords name on it put out by Palin
Jared is a left wing Liberal mad at Giffords' not voting for Pelosi: 1. posts on the Daily Kos saying 'Gifford "is dead to me"' 1.1 a hit list put out by Daily Kos having Giffords name on it for being a blue dog 2. people who knew Jared who say he is "left wing or Liberal" 3. people who knew Jared who said he is anti religion. 4. he is a pot smoker.
anything else we can add?

Yes, its really to early to know much at all definite about him. At this point its all just conjecture except he is a nutter.
 

DeletedUser

the only thing I can compare the Media's response to this is Ft Hood. most of the media claimed the shooter to be a right wing tea partier in the beginning when it turned out he was a Muslim nut case.
after that event I really can't trust the Media on reporting tea party "Violence"
 

DeletedUser

Offensive to whom? Sarah Palin, the vice-Presidential Republican candidate for 2008 presented that "hit list" and a 22 year old hitman just put a bullet through the head of one of only two remaining persons on that list.

Those are the facts.

not just due to this quote but most of your other postings in this thread;
you are implying that the shooter was a 'hitman' acting on Republican ideology and recent political campaigns. you have no basis in fact for this and are instead joining the dots of circumstance.

i find it a lot more shocking that rather than question gun control laws that allowed a mentally disturbed individual to legally posses a firearm, senators are discussing their need 'to pack heat' when they go back to meet the people they 'represent'.

lets face it, its nothing to do with this persons political ideology (which again everyone is just joining the dots because the shooter hasnt spoken!) - the real discussion about all of this should be solely based on;

why somebody judged not mentally stable enough to attend college without a doctors note is allowed to purchase a fire arm.


dont get me wrong i dont agree with the imagery and rhetoric used by many Republicans and highlighted in this thread, but i think the democrats are playing a clever game where they are using the imagery and rhetoric as a smokescreen so they dont have to deal with the wider gun control issue.... something that will make them even more unpopular with the right.
 

DeletedUser22575

not just due to this quote but most of your other postings in this thread;
you are implying that the shooter was a 'hitman' acting on Republican ideology and recent political campaigns. you have no basis in fact for this and are instead joining the dots of circumstance.

i find it a lot more shocking that rather than question gun control laws that allowed a mentally disturbed individual to legally posses a firearm, senators are discussing their need 'to pack heat' when they go back to meet the people they 'represent'.

lets face it, its nothing to do with this persons political ideology (which again everyone is just joining the dots because the shooter hasnt spoken!) - the real discussion about all of this should be solely based on;

why somebody judged not mentally stable enough to attend college without a doctors note is allowed to purchase a fire arm.


dont get me wrong i dont agree with the imagery and rhetoric used by many Republicans and highlighted in this thread, but i think the democrats are playing a clever game where they are using the imagery and rhetoric as a smokescreen so they dont have to deal with the wider gun control issue.... something that will make them even more unpopular with the right.

Actually when Kofi when the 2004 Clinton gun laws expired the Democrats were not at all happy about it, they just couldn't do anything about it.
 

DeletedUser

TJ sorry, im not saying the Democrats are happy about gun control legislation as it stands, but when they are trying to get things passed in congress that dont sit well with republicans anyway, surely attacking and trying to change the holy grail that is the 2nd ammendment would only distract from everything else they are trying to do and further increase anti democrat feelings across the country.

therefore its more in their interests to just attack the Republicans out right for their poor imagery and rhetoric choices, that way they are not seen to be blaming or attacking something which swings voters like the 2nd ammendment.
 

DeletedUser

edit: since we are getting close to the 100 post cut off lets look at all the facts
Jared is a right wing tea partier: 1. a map with Giffords name on it put out by Palin
I'm pretty sure you are forgetting a few facts there buddy.

Jared is a left wing Liberal mad at Giffords' not voting for Pelosi: 1. posts on the Daily Kos saying 'Gifford "is dead to me"' 1.1 a hit list put out by Daily Kos having Giffords name on it for being a blue dog 2. people who knew Jared who say he is "left wing or Liberal" 3. people who knew Jared who said he is anti religion. 4. he is a pot smoker.
anything else we can add?
Didn't know being left wing automatically make you anti-religion or vica versa,
nor did I know that only liberals smoked pot.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top