You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 08:43:03 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords  (Read 6340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2011, 09:58:32 AM »
(Emphasis added.)  I don't believe I'm being knee-jerk politically correct or over-sensitive about this.  By making such a statement in a public forum and leaving that remark without further explanation, you've left open the possibility that you were making a racist suggestion -- specifically, saying that the girl's race/skin color made her death somehow more horrific or more tragic.  I don't know you personally, and neither do many who will read that statement, so please say something to make such a misinterpretation impossible.  Thanks.

Sadly, there is a documented bias in the media towards both of those groups - the 'young white girl' and the 'powerful person'.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome There are missing persons cases involving young non-Caucasians (male and female) that don't get nearly as much coverage as, say, Caylee Anthony.  It's not that it's more horrific or tragic.  If anything, it's more tragic that cases involving non-Caucasian victims are so under-reported.

Offline Parlabane

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2011, 12:01:33 PM »
Another weird thing that Loughner was connected to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist

The site they refer to (http://dwmlc.com/) is deeply weird - I've seen some weird internet sites in my time, but this one looks like ti comes from an entirely different planet.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2011, 12:02:45 PM »
Neither side has a claim of purity of cause in this.  Both the right and left are given to black book tactics, verbal hyperbole and demonizing the other side. The media adds to it, by choosing the more divisive and loud elements on both sides. That makes for good viewing, or at least ratings.

We, the viewing public, are as culpable as the broadcasters, the pundits and the rest of them. We empower all of them by tolerating these actions from our elected officials, the media personalities and such. Time for everyone to take a step back, and THINK before we speak.

I think we can do better than elected officials who hold press conferences to publicly berate the other side of the party line for not going along with her, or a media personality who creates new names for folks he disagrees with. Time to consider who we support with our votes or viewing time.


Offline Zakharra

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2011, 12:15:31 PM »
 I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2011, 12:26:52 PM »
I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

It's the same logic some Florida DA is using against the idiot who wrote the pedophilia book that WAS on Amazon isn't it? I'm not sure about the methodology and legal precedent of it but there are valid arguments on both pro and con on the topic.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2011, 12:36:33 PM »
I dont really see how you immediately (and logically) came up with GLenn Beck as the starting point. Historically, when economic troubles came up precious metals like gold and silver have always been worth more and considered more reliable then our standard currency. I remember learning that in high school when we went over the great depression, its fairly common knowledge

Dont get me wrong, it is possible (but I would consider it unlikely due to his paranoia) that Glenn Becks gold promotions helped him come to that conclusion but I think its stretching it to jump to him as a cause first

We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November.

Quote
I have to admit the cynic in me just wondered if from your point of view you believe they can do no right. Normally you are a rational minded person but its clear that rationale and logic arent being used here. There is no evidence I know of and none that you have posted to show any kind of connection (vague or otherwise) between JLL and Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and/or Glenn beck. However you seem to be very clear that you still want to hold them responsible for the tradgedy, at least in some small way

Because there are deaths that are more linked to Glenn Beck (the three police officers above). It was only a matter of time before some nutjob actually managed to kill someone in a manner that got significant media attention.

Quote
I have to cut you off here. "They deserve it" is a very slippery slope. Some of the worst atrocities in history were caused because "They deserved it". Frankly you're better then that.

If you can find me a serious redeeming feature of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, I will gladly concede the point.

A serious redeeming feature would be something along the lines of
1) Consistently promoting and supporting a well-recognized and appreciated charity.
2) Consistent calls to avoid violence before Saturday.
3) A consistent history of admitting when they were in the wrong.

...something along those lines. Something that speaks to a greater depth of character than fearmongering.

Quote
If you dont mind I would like to quote Mel Brookes here when he was explaining the difference between "dark comedy" and regular comedy

What he meant here is when you look at things from the outside they tend to more funny especially when they are more serious(i.e. when you see one of your friends do something and hurt themselves). When you are part of the situation it seems far less funny because theres an attachment rather then detachment.

I hope that makes sense so far

Now to be completely honest, yes I did chuckle because I have no attachment to either Reid or Pelosi in any tangental sense (read: Detachment). While you will have a hard time seeing it as funny because your attachment (your hatred of torture and belief that its use should be treason) is an all important issue to you. Our perspectives are different and thus so are our reactions.

Whether one finds it funny or not its clear that it was meant as a joke (even you believe that). Was it appropriate? Well yes for the context of the conversation I believe it was. The reason I believe it was was because the point of the discussion was getting "the nuts" out of the white house, the whole kidnap and dont hurt them or waterboard them "well except maybe pelosi" was symbolic of getting them out of office.

Beck Jokes About "Put[ting] Poison" In Nancy Pelosi's Wine

"By the way I put poison in your-"

I was actually looking for the clip about O'Reilly saying Pelosi could be found bobbing up and down in a river. The vitriol against Pelosi in particular has been horrific.

On Brandon's point about dark comedy; I think some people point to it as vitriol when it conveniently fits their narrative, and other times brush it off as just comedy when it doesn't. Either it's wrong 99.99% of the time, regardless of the person issuing it, or it is not. These people, O'Reilly, Palin, Beck, etc. are not leaders with lawful responsibilities. Comparing them to say Hitler and how he incited people to commit genocide is wrong headed in my opinion.

How was Hitler a man with lawful responsibilities while in prison writing Mein Kampf? To say nothing of the way Glenn Beck talks about progressives right now in the free.

There are people who respect and listen to what they say, and as such they have responsibilities for that. Even if they're big on pretending not to by quitting their job halfway through.

It doesn't offend me that you don't give my argument weight, or that you decided to use an expletive here.  What offends me about this statement is its obvious implication that I'm being less than serious in my comments on these issues.  If that's what you meant, well, that's a presumptuous, inappropriate, and offensive thing to suggest.  I may lack your level of education or knowledge, but I'm confident that I approach these topics with at least as much seriousness as you or most others do.  If that's not what you meant to imply, well, please say so.

Having someone spread lies and hatred so freely, to so many, is a problem. People end up believing the lies. This removes people from, as one conservative think tank put it, 'reality based thinking'.

In the long run, these people will be disadvantaged compared to those who are able to make more apt judgments about their environment, Glenn Beck's popularity will collapse, and history will look more frankly at what caused what in this period.

Yet in the mean time, more people like Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder, etc. are all out there, waiting for their crazy to reach the right point.

Quote
Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the use of anonymous violence against certain non-violent public protesters.  I assume that's not what you meant, but I don't know you well enough to say that for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.  Personally I have no affection for the "Phelps clan" but do not advocate violence against them either; if you do, I'd like to hear you talk about the justifications.

WBC was recently the victim of car vandalism. No one in the entire town would take their money to get their vehicle fixed, and no one was giving any clues about the perpetrator. It was a reference to recent news.

Quote
(Emphasis added.)  Here, it sounds like you might be advocating the euthanization of certain people with mental illnesses.  Granted, you move on quickly from that point, but the point was still made.  Again, I assume that's not at all what you really meant, but I don't know for certain, so I'd appreciate clarification.

It's a question that belongs in a different topic, but as you might be aware, the later a mental illness is treated, in many cases, the harder it is to treat - to the point where it's an open question, given their mental state, if forcing them to live is really the humane option.

Quote
(Emphasis added.)  I don't believe I'm being knee-jerk politically correct or over-sensitive about this.  By making such a statement in a public forum and leaving that remark without further explanation, you've left open the possibility that you were making a racist suggestion -- specifically, saying that the girl's race/skin color made her death somehow more horrific or more tragic.  I don't know you personally, and neither do many who will read that statement, so please say something to make such a misinterpretation impossible.  Thanks.

Oniya got this already.

Other people have been murdered already. I've said this repeatedly. Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder - all brushed under the carpet. The media circus is only occurring because of this time, it wasn't police or abortionists in the firefight. It has no bearing on my own racism or lack thereof.

Offline Noelle

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2011, 12:42:53 PM »
The thing about free speech is that it doesn't cover things that incite violence. Usually, I am willing to defend WBC, however annoying they are, because they never actually explicitly call for violence towards others, but I think their latest release definitely crosses that line -- I can't and wouldn't defend anyone who says "MORE SHOOTINGS PLEASE" because I think it is inciting and can have a very dangerous effect, especially given anyone who would follow and take the WBC seriously is probably already prone to some mental disturbance.

"Instruction manuals" of the sort really skirt the line. The Anarchist Cookbook, for one, details how to make different kinds of explosives and the like, which can promote urban terrorism and the like, but doesn't encourage attacks on any group in particular, to my knowledge. Even I have trouble defining where I would defend the author and where I think it should be removed -- I think it's tricky, and it's definitely easier to err on the side of taking away rights to free speech than it is to defend. I don't think there is an easy answer.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2011, 12:53:25 PM »
Another weird thing that Loughner was connected to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist

The site they refer to (http://dwmlc.com/) is deeply weird - I've seen some weird internet sites in my time, but this one looks like ti comes from an entirely different planet.

It just seems to be speculation at this point, drummed up by a similarity in viewpoint. It could be valid but all that's certain right now is what he's written on ATS and posted on Youtube.

I believe there was a book published during the second election of G.W. Bush that detailed how to assassinate the President. It's critics pointed out that it was a possibly inflammatory book, and the supporters defended it through the Free Speech amendment. If someone had tried to assassinate the President, by some reasoning, the authors could and should be held culpable.

It would depend on if it was inflammatory rather than a dry treatise on security threats posted to a public audience. The latter gets discussed all the time in all sorts of venues, for very legitimate reasons, including publicly.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2011, 01:24:37 PM »
This just in:  Giffords is still in a medically induced coma, but the swelling seems to have stabilized.  The doctors say that in an injury like this, at this stage, 'no change' is a good thing (because it's early enough that it hasn't reached the healing stage).  Swelling can apparently take up to 5 days to top out, so the longer that remains stable, the better.  She was still responding to basic commands, and communicating via hand-squeezing before the coma was induced, which is also a good sign.

Offline Remiel

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2011, 01:51:08 PM »
Wow, it's obvious that emotions are riding high in this thread.

I have to agree with Zamdrist and rick957 here. To assign blame for Loughner's heinous act to anybody but Loughner himself (and any potential collaborator) is treading on very dangerous ethical and philosophical ground, with particularly profound implications for the freedom of speech that we hold so dear in this country.  I think we can all agree that the freedom of speech isn't absolute, and that we should indeed be held responsible for what we say.  As we recently learned, writing a book on pedophilia, even if it cannot be proved that the author committed the act itself, is a legal offense.  But to basically accuse pundits like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as complicit in the murder, however, strikes me as extreme.

Vekseid, I was particularly surprised at your assertion comparing Palin to Hitler:

Quote
You are quite wrong. Both legally and morally.

Why do people claim Hitler killed six million jews? Did he, personally, even slay a single one?

We hold Hilter morally culpable for the behavior he engendered in others.

People who incite others to violence can in fact be legally held accountable for it. Even in personal situations, 'Fighting words' as a legal defense, for example. If you berate and belittle someone until they snap at you, you may in fact be held accountable for the resulting violence.

Godwin's Law not withstanding, this is an obvious logical fallacy.  Sarah Palin is not Adolf Hitler.  No, Hitler may not have personally executed a single Jew, but he did order their extermination through his subordinate, Henrich Himmler.  Sarah Palin, to the best of my knowledge, has not advocated the murder of anyone.  Adolf Hitler was the supreme ruler of a fascist regime; Sarah Palin was only the governor of Alaska, and now is not even that anymore.  Hitler explicitly called for the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf; while the graphic of the crosshairs on Palin's website may have been in extremely poor taste, I find it very difficult to believe her intent was to have Giffords murdered.

Quote
"I hate violence," Palin told Fox News' Glenn Beck in an e-mail, which Beck relayed on his radio program Monday morning. "I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this."

To use an equally absurd analogy, would we accuse Jody Foster of being complicit in the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan?

There are many good subjects for discussion here, such as gun control, and mental illness as a mitigating factor in violent crimes, but to accuse right wing-pundits of contributing to the massacre is as ridiculous as accusing Marilyn Manson of abetting the 1999 Columbine school shootings.

Offline Remiel

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2011, 02:22:53 PM »
Also, I would just like to point out that there is some hypocrisy here, as George W. Bush certainly enjoyed his share of death threats from liberal activists during his tenure, and similarly tasteless comments such as this one by a Nobel prize winner. 

Partisan vitriol is nothing new to either side; the only difference is that the right has access to a greater audience through megamedia outlets such as Fox.

Offline Jude

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2011, 03:21:05 PM »
There's a difference between blame, responsibility, and their legal counterparts.  I'm not an expert on the law, so I can't rightly say when someone's speech crosses the line, but if you think prominent conservative and liberal voices haven't been contributing to the extreme acts of violence we've seen, I'd say you're delusional.

The level of intensity is certainly partly responsible, but I think one thing that a lot of people are missing out on is the exact logic employed by the shooter.  He clearly demonstrates the kind of conspiratorial thinking that is widespread in conservative media today.  Now, the right doesn't have a monopoly on this, there's plenty of insane conspiracies that the left buys into (9/11 truthers for example), but it's certainly more prevalent when it comes to the right.  Taking prominent figures mentioned in the thread and discussing them one by one...

- Glenn Beck created a conspiracy known as "crime inc" which presupposes that the current administration is involved in illegal, radical activity.  He's constantly taking a conspiratorial tone as he discusses Progressives, the Federal Reserve, and the media.  Couple that with his constant warnings of "big stuff is coming and it's dangerous," and it's surprising that his listeners aren't strapped C4 to their chest and charging the White House at this point.

- Sarah Palin loves to talk about government as if it has aims and desires in and of itself.  This anthropomorphizing of an institution is conspiratorial at its very root.  This is probably the most mainstream of all conservative paranoia as well.

- Rush Limbaugh has a gift for making up conspiracies unlike any other.  Around the time that the BP spill happened he implied that the government was involved and it was a manufactured disaster intended to gin up support for leftist environmentalist causes.

There are a number of prevalent viewpoints which have taken hold in the mainstream conservative movement which I did not even list above.  Damn near every conservative commentator out there is convinced that Global Warming is some sort of conspiracy/hoax perpetrated by elitist scientists for some unknown reason (which by the way is getting more and more ridiculous, funny how no media outlets covered the fact that the impartial investigations in the wake of the East Anglia controversy actually ended up verifying the integrity of the work done there).  The right is absolutely obsessed with imagining elaborate schemes which are attempting to subvert American traditions and sovereignty.

I don't point all of this out to shame conservatives however, I have no interest in the partisan wars as I'm an independent myself who does not adhere to ideology as an end to itself.  Conservatives have a lot of important, relevant things to say about the way our country is governed.  Furthermore, liberals are every bit as guilty of employing the same logic I'm condemning here, just less so at current for some reason.  The problem is the pervasiveness of that logic as political drift continues, the gap widens, and the internet is used to spread mass misinformation.

The mainstream media needs to get more in the business of dissolving myths and conspiracies, and less in the business of giving a platform to the nuts who perpetrate them.  However, the media is only feeding Americans what they wish to eat, the underlying blame lies with the populace.  Critical thinking is practically dead in mainstream society at this point.

Offline rick957

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2011, 03:47:44 PM »
I'm stopping in just to bow out of this thread now, at least as a participant.  I wanted to express personal thanks to all of you who shared your perspectives so far.  I strongly hope that others here will continue to articulate their views on these topics in a civil way.  This thread contains numerous statements that I find deeply disturbing, surprising, and uncharacteristic of this community -- unrepresentative of its best qualities, or so I thought -- and still think, as a matter of fact.  >:(  :-) 

I've expressed my positions already, as best I could.  If you agree, or if you disagree, please take a moment to share your perspective, so that I and others can benefit from it.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 03:54:05 PM by rick957 »

Offline Remiel

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2011, 04:00:25 PM »
Jude, that's why I love sites such as factcheck.org.  They've always done such a wonderful job of calling out both sides on their B.S.   But you're right.  Let's not forget that the primary objective of all "big" media is, ultimately, ratings (and the "bias" of any newspaper is, ultimately, to sell more newspapers).  I have absolutely no doubt that a story about an Obama scandal will draw just as much play in the MSM as a GOP scandal.  Why? Because it draws attention, meaning more viewers, meaning more advertising revenue.

Edit: And then there's always  Snopes.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 04:01:50 PM by Remiel »

Offline Noelle

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2011, 04:49:54 PM »
Unfortunately, Remiel, that requires an extra step that most people don't want to take. You have to first be skeptical of the facts presented to you before you think to bother checking Snopes or FactCheck, and when the average person is watching the news, they probably aren't actively cross-checking the claims the network makes. It's unfortunate that networks don't hold themselves to a higher standard of broadcasting.

Offline Jude

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #90 on: January 10, 2011, 08:21:09 PM »
Recently there was a study wherein they showed people a newspaper clipping that claimed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.  They polled the amount of people that believed it at that point.  Then they showed them a clipping of that newspaper that was a printed retraction, saying that the previous article was incorrect and weapons were not found.  Here's the crazy part:  Republicans were more certain that weapons of mass destruction were found after the retraction.  This isn't a statement on Republicans so much as the general public (in order to establish Republicans in particular you'd have to do more studies, and the opinion in the research community is divided on whether Liberals are equally as self-deluded), people believe what they want to and ignore what they don't.  The fault is with us, though it is in vogue to blame the media.

Offline Brandon

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #91 on: January 10, 2011, 08:54:04 PM »
I want you to understand that its difficult for me to discuss this because to me these people are virtually unknowns. The only one of them I have actually met and talked to was Sarah Palin and even that was just a 20 minute conversation between her speeches as she was running for VP. I like her as a person but not a political figure, IMO shes to headstrong and lacks the ability to consider compromise when it really counts. Without a doubt she has deep seated political beliefs which are central to her personality but I have a hard time picturing her as a fearmongerer and even more difficulty picturing her as a lier (as odd as that sounds for a politician)

We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November.

<.<

>.>

That makes no sense at all. We were talking about his political belief (pretty much the only one he had) of creating precious metal backed currencies. You mentioned Glenn Beck promoting gold.

Then I mentioned historical trends where precious metals served as a reliable buffer in times of economic trouble and how it was well fairly common knowledge

Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

Because there are deaths that are more linked to Glenn Beck (the three police officers above). It was only a matter of time before some nutjob actually managed to kill someone in a manner that got significant media attention.

Again, you dont seem to be using logic here. There is no evidence of JLL having any connection with any of those people yet (or at least none that Ive seen). Based on interviews taken from people that claim to know him I think it is also unlikely any will come out. You cant pin this on someone without evidence. It would be like if I consistantly talked about trimming the local black bear population, then someone goes out and puts down black bears, so people blame me claiming I incited poaching without any proof that the other person knew, met, or had ever even talked to me. That kind of thing might have been rampant in the days of the American revolution, civil war, or wild west but today it just sounds absurd and not in the funny way

To be fair, if you can prove that these people are really inciting violence then I urge you to contact your local authorities.

If you can find me a serious redeeming feature of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, I will gladly concede the point.

A serious redeeming feature would be something along the lines of
1) Consistently promoting and supporting a well-recognized and appreciated charity.
2) Consistent calls to avoid violence before Saturday.
3) A consistent history of admitting when they were in the wrong.

...something along those lines. Something that speaks to a greater depth of character than fearmongering.

The problem with the idea of redemption is it seems so utterly arbitrary. What constitutes a well recognized and appreciated charity? What constitutes a history of admitting they were wrong? Wrong about what?

However even though it seems arbitrary Ill try and give one, you can explain to me why or why it doesnt fit. Awhile back Glenn beck did that big rally shortly before John Stewarts. Didnt he raise a huge sum of money for some charity for wounded/killed soldiers and/or their families?

If that isnt enough why? Are we taking the old testament biblical style of monotery value where a beggar who gives a single coin out of 2 is a saint and the merchant prince who owns half the land gives 100 coins (a very small amount of his fortune) and is seen as a greedy bastard?

Beck Jokes About "Put[ting] Poison" In Nancy Pelosi's Wine

"By the way I put poison in your-"

I was actually looking for the clip about O'Reilly saying Pelosi could be found bobbing up and down in a river. The vitriol against Pelosi in particular has been horrific.

Im not sure what Im supposed to say here as that clip was just there. Am I supposed to explain the deeper concepts of humor and detachment again? Am I supposed to talk about why I do or dont find that appropriate or funny? I just dont understand the purpose of posting that clip with no context in the actual show or context in what you want from me.


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #92 on: January 10, 2011, 09:26:44 PM »
I have watched Palin and Beck as much as I can. Which was not much I'll admit. Palin is a strong willed, opinionated person. I don't think she's a fearmonger, I do think she wants to be in the Oval Office anyway she can get. I doubt there is not much she won't say or do to spin things in her favor. I am sure she'll try to get the nomination in 2012, and part of me sincerely hopes her role in this event damages her chances. There are much better leaders out there and as much as I hate to say it, the Republican party needs a Dewey more than another Bush on the ticket. A moderate who, like President Obama, is wiling to talk and build a consensus.

We've gotten too divisive over the last decade or so. I will say this, as much as I dislike some of the President's policies and plans, I respect him and if it came down to him or Sarah Palin, I would vote for him.  While not moderate in his policies he's willing to talk and work with rivals within and outside his party. Palin, on the other hand, will be the most rigid President we've had in decades if ever.

Glen Beck on the other hand, strikes me as someone with major issues. He strikes me as a bit like I was before councelling and medication. He's all over the map and starts to rant. He gets flushed, hyper and runs on. A lot like I did, but to a greater degree, when I was on my hyper phase when I started rapid cycling. Bipolar, untreated, sucks big time by the way. Not saying that Beck is, but he strikes me as someone who is their 'up phase' as I called it.

He rants, raves and I really don't think he considers what he says when he is saying it and later when he has time his ego won't let him back up. Too much rest on his reputation for him to admit he's wrong.

Like I said before, everyone has flaws. Right now though, Ego in the media and political arena keeps folks from admitting to mistakes. The media feeds on image and the ego feeds on that image, a viscous circle that aggravates the situation at hand.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #93 on: January 10, 2011, 09:45:45 PM »
We were talking about his political belief (pretty much the only one he had) of creating precious metal backed currencies. You mentioned Glenn Beck promoting gold.

Then I mentioned historical trends where precious metals served as a reliable buffer in times of economic trouble and how it was well fairly common knowledge

Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

With the strange leaps of (il)logic in JLL's videos, there's currently no telling if anything even related to his beliefs or to any demagogue's ranting made him buy the gun.  It could have been that he was essentially kicked out of college, when they insisted that he bring in a note from a mental health specialist saying that he was not a danger to himself or others.  It could have been a brain tumor, like Charles Whitman.  It could have been the six-foot invisible white rabbit standing in the corner (although Harvey always struck me as rather peaceable).

Or, it could indeed have been inspired by a graphic of a set of crosshairs, a casual comment about how America needs to 'reload' instead of retreating, or a long-winded spew about returning to the gold standard. 

Hopefully, this will come out in court, but if he's far enough gone that he's not competent to stand trial, or if he enters a plea agreement, the American public may very well not find out at all.  He may have to be sent off to a mental institution for treatment until he is competent (which could be never), or he may be confined to prison or an institution as part of a guilty plea.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #94 on: January 10, 2011, 10:38:14 PM »
          What galls me about some of the defenses of Beck, O'Reilly and the like is a really sweeping pattern of asserting that the problem lies with individuals as if they had no context in a society.  Sadly, it boils down to a pretty consistent tune across so many issues -- not only physical violence, but symbolic violence, humiliation of people who don't have an inheritance to fight back with, and gross exploitation.
 
          When the political right in America wishes to tear down social programs and neglect infrastructure...
          ..... To turn a huge budget surplus into a massive deficit ...
          ....  To give untold billions in tax cuts to the upper few (even around a recession), the few who generally tend to hoard it ...
          ....  Or to say their leading commentators had nothing whatsoever to do with violence when they talk about violence specifically, frequently
          and in an earnest tone of fear-mongering...

      Then it's all a matter of individual sanity or personal responsibility of the man on the scene and nothing else.  No one is connected to anyone or anything in this rhetoric.  The basic story goes:  Individual people either rise above all situations as heroes, or disappear into squalor or suicide quietly and save all the "moral" leaders the trouble.  Or sometimes, they just randomly and "insanely" snap.  Oh look at that, how pitiful.  What an "unusual" case.  How un-American and uncivil.  Surely leadership and social organization had nothing to do with it.  This person came out of a vacuum and just "lost it." 

       The story goes:  Only people who make "bad life choices" ever end up on welfare --  The person with violent tendencies simply "failed to control himself," never mind the correctional system put thousands of him on the streets during the last 40 years --  Targets of violence are random as lightning.  They have nothing to do with media models of who is moral and who is not, and how very cold and angry speakers sound about it.  If a military base or a business tower is hit by "people who hate freedom," then it's time to mobilize the whole country in anger and storm in with attempts to colonize and drill baby drill "reform" a whole society elsewhere.  But if a guy on Main Street USA shoots an official, then it's no one's fault except the person who actually pulled the trigger.  Maybe not even his.  After all, it's "normal" for people to be a little crazy in the face of "Communism" and "government takeovers by Indonesian Muslims" is it not? 

       This is not to say that an assassination of say, W. Bush would not have been met with a few nods of "finally someone woke up."  Allthough, I happen to think a war over doctored intelligence and crass treatment of the poor is rather more worthy of vitriol than an attempt to provide broader health care.  The point remains that there is a jarring shift here by a faction who otherwise lean more toward enforcing flag pins and generally masculinist "family values" (rarely practical ones -- see divorce rate in Texas) to demands for solely personal accountability and "individual" redemption or damnation, bootstrap economics, and a free pool of semiautomatic weapons just to make it all more dramatic. 


Offline Noelle

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2011, 10:54:15 PM »
I think some are missing the point.

The point isn't to say Palin/Beck/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/insert-right-wing-pundit-here is directly responsible in that you can trace his actions back to one exact quote of theirs that explains everything. I even think pointing to Sarah Palin's graphic with the crosshairs as THE THING that set this dude off is silly.

The point is responsibility. The point is, a culmination of all of these voices on top of the fearmongering and non-facts already allowed to populate the airwaves is the kind of stuff that draws these crazies out of the woodwork. You don't have to believe that Glenn Beck directly made this man go on a shooting spree to be able to discern that Glenn Beck spouts a lot of really insane, whackjob shit that is grounded in little to no fact whatsoever and has the power to drum up some of this kind of behavior to some degree. It is absolutely irrelevant if you think his antics are a joke. You're probably not a sociopath or someone with severe mental illness or someone who is prone to following fringe conspiratorial thinking like his. Congratulations. But some people are.

Offline Serephino

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2011, 10:54:51 PM »
This saddens me, but doesn't surprise me.  The way things were going, it was bound to happen.  I mean, this past election was the worst I've ever seen.  Granted, I'm not that old, so there may have been times when it was worse, but I was seriously considering saying fuck it and moving to Canada.

Ever since Bush Jr, the Republican party has gotten out of control.  I'm not going to claim that Democrats are innocent, but the Conservative side seems to have the most nuts.  Every single Republican add I saw claimed that the Democrat opponent wanted to do things that were against good ol' fashioned American values.  Palin kept referring to 'real Americans'.  I'm sorry, but just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I'm not an American. 

I'm fairly certain it was Palin who first portrayed President Obama as a Muslim, which we Americans have been taught to fear.  I still remember the rally where McCain had to correct some lady when she said she didn't feel like she could trust Obama because of him being Muslim. 

A lot of the claims made during campaigns were just fucking ridiculous.  Naturally, it would draw the attention of the insane.  In my experience, the people who swallow this drivel spouted by these nuts without question are either nuts themselves, very ignorant, or very gullible.

Obviously this guy must have heard something somewhere that made sense to him.  You don't have to follow these people to hear their messages.  Last year during campaigns it was all over the news.  There were tons of ads on TV from local candidates.  It was 99% hateful garbage; yes, even from the Democrats.  I'm just glad I don't have a listed number so I didn't have to deal with robo-calls.

Are these people responsible for this tragedy?  In my opinion, yes, to a point.  No, they didn't intend for this to happen, but they vocalized whatever crap came to their minds with no regard to consequences.  If I yelled fire in a crowded theater and people were trampled to death I would be in trouble.             


Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #97 on: January 11, 2011, 03:30:36 AM »
Vekseid, I was particularly surprised at your assertion comparing Palin to Hitler:

It should be surprising, since I didn't.

The point was, we assign blame to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Temujin, etc. for acts that they themselves did not commit.

Quote
Godwin's Law not withstanding, this is an obvious logical fallacy.  Sarah Palin is not Adolf Hitler.

Good to know, since I never said she was. I accused Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and so on, of being fascists. That is not the same claim.

Quote
No, Hitler may not have personally executed a single Jew, but he did order their extermination through his subordinate, Henrich Himmler.

How is a perceived command from an authority someone respects not an order? That doesn't take political power. We hold religious and business leaders responsible for their abuses. And yes, political hacks as well.

Quote
Sarah Palin, to the best of my knowledge, has not advocated the murder of anyone.  Adolf Hitler was the supreme ruler of a fascist regime; Sarah Palin was only the governor of Alaska, and now is not even that anymore.  Hitler explicitly called for the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf; while the graphic of the crosshairs on Palin's website may have been in extremely poor taste, I find it very difficult to believe her intent was to have Giffords murdered.

1) There's plenty of people calling for progressives, liberals, and jews to be rounded up and murdered at the moment. How convenient of them to wipe their hands of it and pretend it doesn't exist.
2) Again, for the umpteenth time, these are not the only ones who are dead. These are just the ones who have been noticed.

Now its "We're not going to know for awhile at best, or ever at worst, what exactly pushed him to buy the gun in November." That doesnt fit anywhere in the coversation

I think we're addressing different concepts, it's not terribly relevant.

Quote
Again, you dont seem to be using logic here. There is no evidence of JLL having any connection with any of those people yet (or at least none that Ive seen). Based on interviews taken from people that claim to know him I think it is also unlikely any will come out. You cant pin this on someone without evidence. It would be like if I consistantly talked about trimming the local black bear population, then someone goes out and puts down black bears, so people blame me claiming I incited poaching without any proof that the other person knew, met, or had ever even talked to me. That kind of thing might have been rampant in the days of the American revolution, civil war, or wild west but today it just sounds absurd and not in the funny way

And again, see my point above - these aren't the only dead.

Fundamentally, we have a responsibility for what we say, and people are getting killed because of the rhetoric.

Fundamentally, we have a responsibility for the policies we promote. And people are getting killed because people who don't know jack shit about what they are talking about are spreading lies as facts.

Sound, well-implemented policies would certainly have prevented this massacre.

Quote
To be fair, if you can prove that these people are really inciting violence then I urge you to contact your local authorities.

The problem with the idea of redemption is it seems so utterly arbitrary. What constitutes a well recognized and appreciated charity? What constitutes a history of admitting they were wrong? Wrong about what?

How have they made the world better?

For all the power they supposedly have, how have they made it better? They have a solid grip on a fifth of this country's population. Obama doesn't really even have that - he blew that chance.

This goes a bit back to my point about this country not really having a leader. We have a serious deficit of inspiration, in general. It's not just the right wing.

Quote
However even though it seems arbitrary Ill try and give one, you can explain to me why or why it doesnt fit. Awhile back Glenn beck did that big rally shortly before John Stewarts. Didnt he raise a huge sum of money for some charity for wounded/killed soldiers and/or their families?

You mean his call for donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? That's kinda low, really.

He apparently donated his speaking fee at that rally to the Operations Warrior Fund. I don't know how much that was, however, compared the millions he earns in salaries.

Quote
If that isnt enough why? Are we taking the old testament biblical style of monotery value where a beggar who gives a single coin out of 2 is a saint and the merchant prince who owns half the land gives 100 coins (a very small amount of his fortune) and is seen as a greedy bastard?

Doesn't need to donate anything if he inspires people to do something genuinely good.

Quote
Im not sure what Im supposed to say here as that clip was just there. Am I supposed to explain the deeper concepts of humor and detachment again? Am I supposed to talk about why I do or dont find that appropriate or funny? I just dont understand the purpose of posting that clip with no context in the actual show or context in what you want from me.

I find it childish, personally.

But maybe that's just a 'difference in opinion'. Doesn't mean it's one I respect.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #98 on: January 11, 2011, 08:47:59 AM »
Quote
It should be surprising, since I didn't.

The point was, we assign blame to Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Temujin, etc. for acts that they themselves did not commit.

 Those men were also leaders of nations that actively killed those they found undesirable and to get/keep power.

 
Quote
Good to know, since I never said she was. I accused Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and so on, of being fascists. That is not the same claim.

 Hitler was a fascist. It's a point a lot of people will see if you compare people to him.

 
Quote
How is a perceived command from an authority someone respects not an order? That doesn't take political power. We hold religious and business leaders responsible for their abuses. And yes, political hacks as well.



1) There's plenty of people calling for progressives, liberals, and jews to be rounded up and murdered at the moment. How convenient of them to wipe their hands of it and pretend it doesn't exist.

 Can you provide text that says they are saying that? The people you name have enough speeches and radio shows broadcast that IF they did say that, it would be easy too.  If they are actually saying that, provided it's not being taken out of context and spun like hell (something both sides do very well), then there is suitible reasosn to say they are calling for the killing of people.

 A perceived command isn't neccessarily an actual command if the person does what they 'think' their leaders want. Those people will use that to justify their actions and are rightly called crackpots (terrorists are a decent example of that)

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
« Reply #99 on: January 11, 2011, 11:34:56 AM »
Listening to the news now:  Giffords is now breathing on her own, still able to respond to simple commands.  Loughner appeared to be lucid during his federal arraignment (charges regarding the 5 victims with federal ties - state charges are likely to be congruent), responding to questions, including whether he realized that his actions could result in the death penalty.  He is not talking to authorities, but his parents are.  The other wounded victims have all been taken off the critical list - a couple have been discharged, some still have surgery scheduled.