Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[BigSqwert]

Seems pretty clear with what we've learned so far that this guy wasn't aligned with either party, and oh yeah, he's also a nutjob. That's why we can't really blame any specific party or politician, and shouldn't.

Which is not much.

[iamshack]

Yes he's an idiot but I still don't understand why so many, with almost no evidence other than a youtube profile and a little facebook data from googling, is 100% convinced that this was a 100% apolitical event. Just because his facebook page didn't say "I will kill the local Democratic Congresswoman because Sara Palin and other leaders I admire told me to" doesn't mean that there couldn't be some political motive in this. After all, he went to a political event and went up to the Congresswoman and shot her first. That didn't seem random. My first inclination would be that somehow this was politically motivated. Maybe I'm wrong but who knows? None of us have interviewed him or searched his belongings or interviewed people he knows. We really don't have that much info into what he really thinks to completely dismiss this as politically motivated. And yes he seems to be crazy.

 

And even if he admitted that he did this because he agreed with Palin or Rush or whoever doesn't make it their fault but his. But it would be evidence to those politicos to tone down their rhetoric instead of getting defensive as we've been seeing. I just hope that investigators are looking at all possible motives and not excluding one because it could hurt some people's feelings.

I can admit that maybe this crazy bastard was in some way motivated by the violent rhetoric.

 

The distinction I made in my post to you was that no sane person could take it literally.

 

We can't be limiting our manner of expression because crazy people might interpret them literally. And that isn't to say that I think the map or some of the other stuff that goes around in politics isn't taking things too far.

 

But this week, it was a map with targets on it. Next week, it will be something someone said. The following week, it will be something else. What needs to be changed is the entire freaking system. Not just the degree of violent rhetoric that is allowed. Some group of people needs to stand up and be willing to accept things that are not necessarily in their best interests for the time being, but are in everyone's best interests in the long run, and take the hit. Until that happens, this crap, at least IMHO, will continue to spiral downward.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is not much.

Actually, I'd say its a lot. The whole country has access to all sorts of information on this guy's writings, reading choices, postings, personal relationships, family life, academic history, etc.

 

If there was motivation of a specific political slant involved other than "the government is out to get me", we'd have discovered that by now.

 

[Texsox]

There is political and there is partisan. It seems as if this was political, some of his rants were anti-government. That makes it political. I don't think she was targeted because of a (D) behind her name. That makes it non partican IIRC

[BigSqwert]

There is political and there is partisan. It seems as if this was political, some of his rants were anti-government. That makes it political. I don't think she was targeted because of a (D) behind her name. That makes it non partican IIRC

 

But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it.

 

EDIT: And you could be 100% correct. I just don't think we have the answers yet but many people are behaving as if we have all of the answers already.

Edited January 14, 2011 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it.

You are completely backwards with the burden of proof here. Its impossible to prove it wasn't partisan, you are setting an impossibly high bar. The proof should be if he DID do it for partisan reasons, and there has been no indication whatsoever of this being the case.

 

Frankly, I think it was a matter of convenience. This was the US house rep for the Tucson area, which makes her the most easily accessible federal elected official in Tucson. Therefore, that's who he targeted - someone he could get to.

 

[iamshack]

You are completely backwards with the burden of proof here. Its impossible to prove it wasn't partisan, you are setting an impossibly high bar. The proof should be if he DID do it for partisan reasons, and there has been no indication whatsoever of this being the case.

 

Frankly, I think it was a matter of convenience. This was the US house rep for the Tucson area, which makes her the most easily accessible federal elected official in Tucson. Therefore, that's who he targeted - someone he could get to.

I think you're even giving him too much credit there.

 

I think he knew some federal politician made a habit of showing up at the grocery, and decided it would be a great idea to shoot her.

[BigSqwert]

I think he knew some federal politician made a habit of showing up at the grocery, and decided it would be a great idea to shoot her.

Case closed!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think you're even giving him too much credit there.

 

I think he knew some federal politician made a habit of showing up at the grocery, and decided it would be a great idea to shoot her.

Pretty sure that's what I said, using slightly different words.

 

[iamshack]

Pretty sure that's what I said, using slightly different words.

Yeah, pretty much. But you intimated that he actually sought out who would be the easiest to get to by what position she held and what her duties were. What I am saying is he probably didn't even think it through that much.

 

It was not meant to be a challenge to your point. It was me agreeing with you, but just taking it a step further anecdotally.

 

Edit: Oh, I see what you meant now. That the fact that she was that politician made her the easiest to get to, which is who he ended up having access to. I slightly misread it.

Edited January 14, 2011 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it.

 

EDIT: And you could be 100% correct. I just don't think we have the answers yet but many people are behaving as if we have all of the answers already.

 

What he know from his rantings is that he was pretty much crazy and latched on to very, very fringe ideas. Stuff that makes 100% of what Beck and Palin say look like calm, measured and rational thoughts.

 

No, I don't think it was apolitical, but I don't think it has anything to do with even 99% of the right wing of American politics.

[Jenksismyhero]

To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened.

 

Time line:

 

- Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names

- One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence

- That same person gets shot in the head

 

Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature.

 

In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable.

[southsider2k5]

But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it.

 

EDIT: And you could be 100% correct. I just don't think we have the answers yet but many people are behaving as if we have all of the answers already.

 

If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs?

 

Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything.

[BigSqwert]

In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable.

Perhaps you need to look up the word stereotyping.

[StrangeSox]

In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable.

 

What do you know about Palin?

[Jenksismyhero]

If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs?

 

Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything.

 

bingo, agree 100%

[Jenksismyhero]

Perhaps you need to look up the word stereotyping.

 

You're taking a few general characteristics of the situation and painting a pretty broad brush to come to your conclusion.

[bmags]

In liberal speak, involving say a brown person or a black person or a woman or a gay person, this would be called stereotyping and not at all acceptable.

Is palin a race?

[StrangeSox]

If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs?

 

Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything.

 

There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything."

 

That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith.

 

[StrangeSox]

You're taking a few general characteristics of the situation and painting a pretty broad brush to come to your conclusion.

 

That's not stereotyping.

[Jenksismyhero]

Is palin a race?

 

I was aiming more at the "oh it must be that awful violent rhetoric," not specifically her

[Jenksismyhero]

That's not stereotyping.

 

I'm making an analogy, not a definition.

[Jenksismyhero]

There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything."

 

That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith.

 

Of course it is...you crack me up.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm making an analogy, not a definition.

 

But it makes no sense. It's not a stereotype or any sort of generalization. It's looking at a map by Palin with Giffords name in crosshairs and Giffords being shot in the head.

 

You can argue against his conclusions here, but your lame attack on liberals caring about minorities doesn't make any sense.

[StrangeSox]

Of course it is...you crack me up.

 

Do you care to address where I pointed out why it's a terrible comparison?