Had you read Miay Koumpf properly, you’d know this is all left wing propoganda. And they were all left wing types, like Hitler.
Yeah, he should have shot all the really liberal Congress people from Arizona. They elect a lot of them down there. It’s a fucking liberal hotspot.
I love how you righties dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole every time you open your mouths.
The last time I read Mine Klump, it was clearly a denunciation of Mama Grislies and Sugar Cookies.
That is absolutely false, and totally out of line.
How come the ***" the rabble rousing that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc have been indulging in lately" *** did NOT cause 308 million other Americans to shoot their Congressman?
What you are saying is like saying that the violence in today’s video games and motion pictures causes people to commit murder in the United States
If we outlaw political rabble, then it would follow that we also must outlaw video games and movies.
It blows my mind that people wouldnt know how to spell it. Meaning they havent ever seen it written. I dont know how’s that posssible.
It speaks volumes about a person (especially when said person is an uber Palin fanatic, and likely pretty used to all the Obama/Nazi talking points).
I am willing to bet that a lot, most, of the people here on Straight Dope are going to be completely surprised and completely flabbergasted, when it comes out that the murderer who shot Gabrielle Giffords is not a member of the
Tea party and is also not a contributor to Palin’s PAC.
Uh, you are just going from the particular to the general. I think there is a fallacy for that.
The line is broken IMO when low abiding citizens are declared by the rabble rousers as targets. I do remember when there was a video game that some jerks released where the president was the target of a suicide bomber.
It was indeed condemned by all and I believe the makers would had been justifiably shunned by all in the industry if someone had done the deed.
AFAIK the makers have trouble now making something new because of the controversy.
And so it is IMHO the punishment the rabble rousers deserve.
Having shot her point-blank, in the head, with a 9mm, it would be reasonable for him to believe that she was killed. He knew he had a nearly full mag, was already fully committed to his act and what the hell, “Only Liberal Democrats would come out to meet a Liberal Democrat…might as well grease a few more.”
I can’t know what he was thinking but that is one possible thought train that might have been going through his mind.
You have provided few “leftists” on it and claimed that it proves that “most” of them are left wing?
Booth: Right wing
Ray: Right wing
Sirhan: upset about foreign policy with no serious right/left U.S. connections, (aside from attacking a politician on the “left.”)
Fromm: an apolitical nutcase
(For that matter, Jones studied Hitler as well as Marx and most of his “leftist” rhetoric was in favor a civil rights, not economics while Torresola and Collazo were much more concerned about Puerto Rican independence than any debate on Socialism and Capitalism, so even those “leftists” were more centrist than leftist.)
And, of course, you notably excluded the Right wing Charles Guiteau.
As usual, you got both your “facts” and your conclusions wrong.
Well you will lose it with me as I already said it was most likely a nut with a gun. What I have seen here and elsewhere demonstrated me that the right does not want to do the right thing also. That is: being more proactive on identifying and **helping **people with mental issues to have productive lives without having access to guns.
Unfortunately what I have seen makes it clear that that is unacceptable by the right, it goes against their points that many should not have more access to health care and they are in fear that the authorities will concentrate on limiting the rights of the “undesirables” ones. Forgetting that after the courts already gave the verdict that guns are not just for militias that that excuse is inoperative now.
And that leads me to say that some in the right like the system as it is because it allows many crazies to have access to guns and to more opportunities to “get rid of those meddlesome priests” like Henry II used to say.
This is already the law in “shall issue” areas, like Oregon, where I live. In my area it pertains to concealed carry permits only since I do not need a permit to possess either a handgun or a rifle. I only need a permit if I wish to carry the weapon concealed.
“Shall Issue” basically means that if the local sheriff can find no reason why I should not have a CWP then he has to give me one. The sheriff (or other regulating agency) must issue the permit if I meet all the criteria even if he thinks I’m an asshole. Absent documented reasons why I should not, I get my permit.
who will be left to vote?
Judging from the evidence so far, the guy’s tracks don’t lead in any set direction.
"IF" I lived in a time and place that glorified war and violence, and
"IF" political leaders, those very same people who spend millions of dollars on expertly [del]manipulating[/del] convincing the public to vote for them, used violent and aggressive language that called on the people to take aim and use their second amendment rights against the opposing party, metaphorically of course, and
"IF" the people refused to see an issue because of their own ego-driven lack of belief in the power of words and suggestion that they themselves are victims to (see point above) . . .
. . . then I would not at all be shocked to find that my world was one in which violent people felt more free and willing to act out violently. Disgusted and saddened, but not at all shocked.
The issue is not that so-and-so said to shoot the lefties, so someone must have either followed the “instructions” or not. The issue is with those who refuse to see that violent rhetoric/advertising/culture/media/manipulation does have a cultural effect. It may be that you’re too smart to be affected, but then, you’re probably above average.
How about stepping back a little? Please comment on each question.
Question one: Do populist political movements (Right or Left) sometimes inspire violence? Of course. But they don’t have to.
Question two: Are psychiatrically unstable individuals metaphorically (and as said in the Pit Thread) potential “lit matches” around which the gasoline of inflammatory rhetoric gets splashed? I would also say of course.
Question three: Is there any point that speech that provokes violence is held as being morally accountable and partially accountable for the violence that occurs? I believe so.
Question four: If so where does that line get crossed? What needs to be said?
Turning to the specifics: Giffords had, in March, expressed concern that the Palin graphic putting her name in crosshairs, coupled with the “reload” rhetoric was putting her at risk.(“The thing is, the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” Giffords said in March. “When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.”) To no avail. Tea Party grouping have target practice with opposing politicians faces. Angles calls for exercising the second amendment option.
How do those actions of rhetoric fit in with where you believe the line should be placed and why?
Yes, there are too many politicos out there who are irresponsibly flirting with violent rhetoric. Yes, someday it will influence someone to do something awful. No, that’s not what happened yesterday. If you read the shooter’s screeds on YouTube, he is clearly as nutty as the TimeCube guy.
Though I do find it interesting that the Palin camp took down the crosshairs-thingy with great haste.
I do not understand why you believe that his being “nutty” means that he was not politically motivated. The “nuts” are the ones so inclined to respond to such rhetoric.
Well, there’ s political motivation and there’s political motivation. The one kind is aimed at actual, mainstream political discourse. The other kind is when you’re concerned about the government imposing mind control through grammar. The latter is best simply classified as “nuts”.
The other is the GOP rhetoric.
Watch your grammar. I can see through your mind control attempts!