Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event

So I'm a troll because it's my opinion that there is a big difference in his speaking when he's not using his teleprompter? You can buy into the bullshit line that he's quite the silver-tongued orator and a master of the speech, but I don't. He's average at best. If being a troll means that I don't slobber all over what the president does, then I guess I'm a troll. If your opinion of me meant a damn thing, I might care a bit.

If you think wild applause at a memorial service is okay, good for you. I found it tasteless and unseemly. If Barry would have put up his hand and said something like "Please, this is a memorial service", it would have stopped. The whole thing seemed to pep-rallyish. Parts of it seemed politicized - and a bit creepy.
 
Clearly it must've been a great speech, since the only substantive criticism isn't even of Obama or the speech, but of the appropriateness of the audience's reaction to it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Y'know Don Chubo might be a troll too. There are people here who actually believe this![/quote]

Yep, it is impossible to tell a right wing troll from someone genuinely right wing.

Their views tend to be equally ridiculous.

Also, that isn't just referring to the black hearted circus freaks that post here but to the Republican leadership also.

Is "Barry" a birther jab btw?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Name names Bob. Call 'em out.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']Seriously - you're on the right side here, you just need to calm down a little. Take a nap or something.[/QUOTE]

...?
 
I don't think it's birther specific. Just a way to call him a nickname to be disrespectful. Just like all of us calling the last president "Dubya" etc.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']So I'm a troll because it's my opinion that there is a big difference in his speaking when he's not using his teleprompter? You can buy into the bullshit line that he's quite the silver-tongued orator and a master of the speech, but I don't. He's average at best. If being a troll means that I don't slobber all over what the president does, then I guess I'm a troll. If your opinion of me meant a damn thing, I might care a bit.

If you think wild applause at a memorial service is okay, good for you. I found it tasteless and unseemly. If Barry would have put up his hand and said something like "Please, this is a memorial service", it would have stopped. The whole thing seemed to pep-rallyish. Parts of it seemed politicized - and a bit creepy.[/QUOTE]

You would have loved every moment of it if nobody applauded.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think it's birther specific. Just a way to call him a nickname to be disrespectful. Just like all of us calling the last president "Dubya" etc.[/QUOTE]

He used to go by Barry.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You would have loved every moment of it if nobody applauded.[/QUOTE]

people applaud = oh my god, look at how disrespectful those people are! this is a memorial service, not a pep rally!!! :roll:
people don't applaud = guess Barry isn't so good without his teleprompter
emotsmugbert.gif
 
I don't get the problem with the shirt. Websites are talking about it like it should be obvious. Is it a DNC slogan or something?
 
what shirt?

http://www.truth-out.org/poor-poor-sarah66781

Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media machine have turned professional victimhood into a license to print money, and people like Sarah Palin are all too happy to jump on that bandwagon. You're losing your country, your rights, your guns, your family, your religion, the sanctity of your marriage, the supremacy of your heterosexuality, my God, you're losing Christmas, for the love of God! You're losing everything (...psssst...they're talking to White Christians when they say this stuff, by the way, which just cracks me all the way up...), and if you don't "take up arms" to stop it, well, it will just make the Baby Jesus weep bitter, bitter tears.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']He used to go by Barry.[/QUOTE]

And W was called W by friends and family. Point is it's just a quick and silly way to act familiar (and thus not respectful) to a president you don't support.
 
I'm curious on two issues that have been widely discussed, but I think inadequately:

1. The attack was not politically motivated.
2. The attacker is insane/mentally unstable.

Starting with the first issue, a lot of the political dialog on understanding this rages between whether this guy was a frothing, Tea Party/Conservative maniac upset by the liberal agenda and egged on by major conservatives (the extreme liberal viewpoint). Or, he was a nutjob with zero political affiliation and simply wanted to gun down people in tragic murder (the conservative viewpoint).

Considering that we know that the gunman had contact with Giffords in the past (the 2007 meeting where he apparently "got an answer to his question that he didnt like"), and the written documents stating that he "planned this", how likely is it that this was a politically motivated killing, but not one that benefits the agenda of either major political party?

My suggestion is that the guy wanted Giffords dead for her role as a government official, and while I cannot speculate as to why (since we dont know the question he asked in 2007), it's possible that any other political official could have easily been in Gifford's shoes that day and in 2007. (I know a Judge was killed, but it appears he was not the target that day).

This brings me to my second point, on whether this guy is insane or not. I'm of the opinion that when you have a historical trail several years long (from 2007-2010) starting from an initial point of contact, a couple instances of ranting online on topics related to the person from that initial contact, written statements on planning an attack prior to said attack, that's a lot of organization for an insane individual (which is also why that logic is going to fail miserably in court).

There's a small margin of difference between ignorance and insanity. We've seen a lot of both politically the past couple of years, and I suspect everyone's answers on which is which is going to diverge greatly on each topic or example brought up.

My point is, without the murders, could anyone truly determine which description would fit this guy?

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Considering that we know that the gunman had contact with Giffords in the past (the 2007 meeting where he apparently "got an answer to his question that he didnt like"), [/QUOTE]

I thought the question was "What is government if words have no meaning?" or something like that. Which pretty much answers the "Nutjob?" question...
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'm curious on two issues that have been widely discussed, but I think inadequately:

1. The attack was not politically motivated.
2. The attacker is insane/mentally unstable.

Starting with the first issue, a lot of the political dialog on understanding this rages between whether this guy was a frothing, Tea Party/Conservative maniac upset by the liberal agenda and egged on by major conservatives (the extreme liberal viewpoint). Or, he was a nutjob with zero political affiliation and simply wanted to gun down people in tragic murder (the conservative viewpoint).

Considering that we know that the gunman had contact with Giffords in the past (the 2007 meeting where he apparently "got an answer to his question that he didnt like"), and the written documents stating that he "planned this", how likely is it that this was a politically motivated killing, but not one that benefits the agenda of either major political party?

My suggestion is that the guy wanted Giffords dead for her role as a government official, and while I cannot speculate as to why (since we dont know the question he asked in 2007), it's possible that any other political official could have easily been in Gifford's shoes that day and in 2007. (I know a Judge was killed, but it appears he was not the target that day).

This brings me to my second point, on whether this guy is insane or not. I'm of the opinion that when you have a historical trail several years long (from 2007-2010) starting from an initial point of contact, a couple instances of ranting online on topics related to the person from that initial contact, written statements on planning an attack prior to said attack, that's a lot of organization for an insane individual (which is also why that logic is going to fail miserably in court).

There's a small margin of difference between ignorance and insanity. We've seen a lot of both politically the past couple of years, and I suspect everyone's answers on which is which is going to diverge greatly on each topic or example brought up.

My point is, without the murders, could anyone truly determine which description would fit this guy?

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

The attack was politically motivated because he was brainwashed by Sarah Palin into carrying out her hit list; there's no disputing this fact. Sarah Palin is an evil, racist, bigoted, despicable, stupid women who knowingly planned out this massacre in every step of the way; her map with crosshairs is an indisputable proof. All and all, the shooter was simply an innocent, unsuspecting victim of Sarah Palin. Hopefully his curing process go through quickly so he can testify against her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HotShotX']while I cannot speculate as to why (since we dont know the question he asked in 2007)[/QUOTE]

The question was (according to his friend [an actual one - he received a message from Jared a couple hours before the shooting]) "What is Government if words have no meaning?" which ties in with his growing disconnection with reality and fascination with lucid dreaming.

- edit It also ties in with Philip K. Dick being one of his favorite writers.

[quote name='Philip K. Dick in 1978']It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly.

But the problem is a real one, not a mere intellectual game. Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into the heads of the reader, the viewer, the listener. Sometimes when I watch my eleven-year-old daughter watch TV, I wonder what she is being taught. The problem of miscuing; consider that. A TV program produced for adults is viewed by a small child. Half of what is said and done in the TV drama is probably misunderstood by the child. Maybe it's all misunderstood. And the thing is, Just how authentic is the information anyhow, even if the child correctly understood it? What is the relationship between the average TV situation comedy to reality? What about the cop shows? Cars are continually swerving out of control, crashing, and catching fire. The police are always good and they always win. Do not ignore that point: The police always win. What a lesson that is. You should not fight authority, and even if you do, you will lose. The message here is, Be passive. And—cooperate. If Officer Baretta asks you for information, give it to him, because Officer Beratta is a good man and to be trusted. He loves you, and you should love him.

So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing. It is my job to create universes, as the basis of one novel after another. And I have to build them in such a way that they do not fall apart two days later. Or at least that is what my editors hope. However, I will reveal a secret to you: I like to build universes which do fall apart. I like to see them come unglued, and I like to see how the characters in the novels cope with this problem. I have a secret love of chaos. There should be more of it. Do not believe—and I am dead serious when I say this—do not assume that order and stability are always good, in a society or in a universe. The old, the ossified, must always give way to new life and the birth of new things. Before the new things can be born the old must perish. This is a dangerous realization, because it tells us that we must eventually part with much of what is familiar to us. And that hurts. But that is part of the script of life. Unless we can psychologically accommodate change, we ourselves begin to die, inwardly. What I am saying is that objects, customs, habits, and ways of life must perish so that the authentic human being can live. And it is the authentic human being who matters most, the viable, elastic organism which can bounce back, absorb, and deal with the new.

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. George Orwell made this clear in his novel 1984. But another way to control the minds of people is to control their perceptions. If you can get them to see the world as you do, they will think as you do. Comprehension follows perception. How do you get them to see the reality you see? After all, it is only one reality out of many. Images are a basic constituent: pictures. This is why the power of TV to influence young minds is so staggeringly vast. Words and pictures are synchronized. The possibility of total control of the viewer exists, especially the young viewer. TV viewing is a kind of sleep-learning. An EEG of a person watching TV shows that after about half an hour the brain decides that nothing is happening, and it goes into a hypnoidal twilight state, emitting alpha waves. This is because there is such little eye motion. In addition, much of the information is graphic and therefore passes into the right hemisphere of the brain, rather than being processed by the left, where the conscious personality is located. Recent experiments indicate that much of what we see on the TV screen is received on a subliminal basis. We only imagine that we consciously see what is there. The bulk of the messages elude our attention; literally, after a few hours of TV watching, we do not know what we have seen. Our memories are spurious, like our memories of dreams; the blank are filled in retrospectively. And falsified. We have participated unknowingly in the creation of a spurious reality, and then we have obligingly fed it to ourselves. We have colluded in our own doom.[/QUOTE]

http://dialogic.blogspot.com/2009/12/philip-k-dick-if-you-can-control.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='militantatheistaphob']Speaking of controlling words Canada bans song over "fa*got"[/QUOTE]
Or, more specifically, a non-governmental organization (the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) has said that they don't want a non-edited version of the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" playing on the radio. They have no real power; they're not backed by the government, and they can't impose fines. Compliance with the CBSC's rules is voluntary.

But, hey, y'know, that's the same thing, right? Right? Yeah! Yeah, right! Right! Right, ya scumbag, ya maggot, ya cheap, lousy $$$$$$?

EDIT: God damn. If militant were more active I'd be more than half-way tempted to get an IP check 'tween him and rumble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='rumblebear']The attack was politically motivated because he was brainwashed by Sarah Palin into carrying out her hit list; there's no disputing this fact. Sarah Palin is an evil, racist, bigoted, despicable, stupid women who knowingly planned out this massacre in every step of the way; her map with crosshairs is an indisputable proof. All and all, the shooter was simply an innocent, unsuspecting victim of Sarah Palin. Hopefully his curing process go through quickly so he can testify against her.[/QUOTE]

Well I thought this post was entertaining
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You would have loved every moment of it if nobody applauded.[/QUOTE]

I do so hope this doesn't take away my "R" badge, but, personally, I had no problem with the atmosphere of the "memorial service". The idea was to honor those whose lives were lost or who were wounded in the attack, while providing comfort to our nation. You don't have to be silent and dressed in black to honor someone's passing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I do so hope this doesn't take away my "R" badge, but, personally, I had no problem with the atmosphere of the "memorial service". The idea was to honor those whose lives were lost or who were wounded in the attack, while providing comfort to our nation. You don't have to be silent and dressed in black to honor someone's passing.[/QUOTE]

I agree, honoring someone who passed or mourning does not always have to be done with a cold weather blowing and people huddled in black clothes crying.
 
It was just a point that partisanship leads to dumb conversations, but I'm glad that was posted anyway. I think he's a terrible legislator, but I have nothin personal against the guy.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Or, more specifically, a non-governmental organization (the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) has said that they don't want a non-edited version of the Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" playing on the radio. They have no real power; they're not backed by the government, and they can't impose fines. Compliance with the CBSC's rules is voluntary.

But, hey, y'know, that's the same thing, right? Right? Yeah! Yeah, right! Right! Right, ya scumbag, ya maggot, ya cheap, lousy $$$$$$?

EDIT: God damn. If militant were more active I'd be more than half-way tempted to get an IP check 'tween him and rumble.[/QUOTE]

that little maggot got his own jet airplane, that little maggot is a millionaire.

changes the meaning completely.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I seriously don't get and am feeling pretty stupid. I feel like I can channel crazy right wingers pretty easily but I have no idea what the beef with the shirt is.[/QUOTE]
It just surprised a few people the political pep-rally like tone the memorial took (and the shirt seemed to feed into that), which it shouldn't.

I really don't think the WH had anything to do with the shirts, and probably would have squashed the idea had they had the opportunity. If you read the ap news wire story linked above the pic you can see more through the lens of those who had a problem with it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I do so hope this doesn't take away my "R" badge, but, personally, I had no problem with the atmosphere of the "memorial service". The idea was to honor those whose lives were lost or who were wounded in the attack, while providing comfort to our nation. You don't have to be silent and dressed in black to honor someone's passing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah you might get your R jersey taken away. From everything I've seen, it seems that R's that respond to the event have to find something to criticize. Since the speech was really good you end up seeing a lot of 'derp why didnt the crowd mourn the way I see other people mourn? weird'

Glad to see we can agree on something finally ;)
 
[quote name='IRHari'] Since the speech was really good you end up seeing a lot of 'derp why didnt the crowd mourn the way I see other people mourn? weird'
[/QUOTE]

Yep. It was one of Obama's best speeches, while Palin is getting heat over being defensive in hers and for the stupid "blood libel" comment, so that's about all they have to bitch about for the moment.

There was a decent column commenting on the two speeches in the NY times yesterday.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...peeches/?scp=1&sq=obama palin speeches&st=cse
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/modest-proposal-what-if-we-required-m[/QUOTE]

It's not a bad idea. Especially if the insurance payments went to things like victim's funds, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs etc.

But it would never get enough support since the NRA and rest of the gun lobby is opposed to anything that restricts/makes it more difficult, for normal people (i.e. non-felons) to get guns.

Maybe take away the fee/insurance part and just have stricter gun licenses that can be suspended for the same reasons in the article would have a better chance of getting support. But it would still be a super long shot.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. It was one of Obama's best speeches, while Palin is getting heat over being defensive in hers and for the stupid "blood libel" comment, so that's about all they have to bitch about for the moment.[/QUOTE]

I would expect her to be defensive, considering she feels like she has to deflect charges that she's an accomplice to murder and shit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And W was called W by friends and family. Point is it's just a quick and silly way to act familiar (and thus not respectful) to a president you don't support.[/QUOTE]

"Barry" is absolutely meant as an insult towards Obama. Same with Rush and Company saying "Democrat Party". No, it's the Democratic Party and you had better believe this is not a slip of the tongue.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not a bad idea. Especially if the insurance payments went to things like victim's funds, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs etc.

But it would never get enough support since the NRA and rest of the gun lobby is opposed to anything that restricts/makes it more difficult, for normal people (i.e. non-felons) to get guns.

Maybe take away the fee/insurance part and just have stricter gun licenses that can be suspended for the same reasons in the article would have a better chance of getting support. But it would still be a super long shot.[/QUOTE]
That won't stop the Jared Loughners of the world. They don't care to follow the law that says you're not allowed to kill people so why would they obey this law? All more gun control would do is hurt the citizen, and help the criminal.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']That won't stop the Jared Loughners of the world. They don't care to follow the law that says you're not allowed to kill people so why would they obey this law? All more gun control would do is hurt the citizen, and help the criminal.[/QUOTE]

Jared bought his gun legally at a sporting goods store. If he had the means to buy a gun illegally, why didn't he?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']That won't stop the Jared Loughners of the world. They don't care to follow the law that says you're not allowed to kill people so why would they obey this law? All more gun control would do is hurt the citizen, and help the criminal.[/QUOTE]

Anything that makes guns a little harder to get into the hands of criminals, get picked up by kids etc. by making people be more careful with them (lose license if kid is found with them, or if stolen and not reported) is a good thing. Plus, if you make it not a paid insurance but just a license, it's not really a burden on citizens. Take care of your guns and be responsible and you'll never have anything to worry about and can own and use guns as always.

Gun nuts have such a crazy idea of what the gun black market is like. It's mostly people selling shitty, beat up old revolvers and other hand guns out of car trunks etc.

Guns that are banned like assault rifles etc. are very hard to get and are very expensive since they are illegal. So your average robber etc. isn't using banned guns, but some old beat up gun they bought for cheap on the straw market, or some crummy old gun they stole from a family member etc.

People forget that the average street criminal is dirt poor, and not someone buying expensive items on the black market. Banned guns only tend to be used by organized crime, drug cartels etc. which are very rare relative to the average crime.

So banning certain types of guns etc. does make the much harder for average criminals to get in use. It's supply and demand. Ban an assault rifle or whatever, and supply is way down, and the gun is now much more expensive on the black market and the average criminal can't afford it. Most of them can't afford to go buy a new legal gun, so they're doing the same as always. Buying old, used guns cheap on the straw market.

People like Loughner that have money will just keep buying legal guns as most aren't going to spend the extra time and money to buy some banned weapon on the black market.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Anything that makes guns a little harder to get into the hands of criminals.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Target hardening FTW.

Let's not fall into the false dichotomy of criminal v non-criminal. We're all potentially criminal in a number of ways. People's willingness to victimize varies categorically, and it's not on a spectrum where people are willing to do anything "lesser" than the crime they committed (e.g., saying Loughner was willing to commit murder, therefore he was willing to purchase guns illegally is a logical fallacy). That's the fallacy unluckynumber presents. It's not something that holds water as an argument.
 
You guys all lose credibility when you push for giving more money to insurance companies. What a joke. So I have to pay money because other people are insane/irresponsible? Give me a break.

Face it, you just hate guns and want them banished, but you know it won't happen so you'll take what you can get. You won't be happy until only the military and police have guns.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']You guys all lose credibility when you push for giving more money to insurance companies. What a joke. So I have to pay money because other people are insane/irresponsible? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, psshhhh, what a joke :roll: I have to have insurance to drive my car around?!? fuck you Barry, I'm a responsible driver and I'll be damned if I give any money to your communist commune. Don't punish me because other people suck at driving!!! :bomb:
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Yeah, psshhhh, what a joke :roll: I have to have insurance to drive my car around?!? fuck you Barry, I'm a responsible driver and I'll be damned if I give any money to your communist commune. Don't punish me because other people suck at driving!!! :bomb:[/QUOTE]

Owning a gun is a right. Driving is a privilege. You know the difference right? Should you have to pay language insurance for the stupid bullshit you say?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Anything that makes guns a little harder to get into the hands of criminals, get picked up by kids etc. by making people be more careful with them (lose license if kid is found with them, or if stolen and not reported) is a good thing. Plus, if you make it not a paid insurance but just a license, it's not really a burden on citizens. Take care of your guns and be responsible and you'll never have anything to worry about and can own and use guns as always.

Gun nuts have such a crazy idea of what the gun black market is like. It's mostly people selling shitty, beat up old revolvers and other hand guns out of car trunks etc.

Guns that are banned like assault rifles etc. are very hard to get and are very expensive since they are illegal. So your average robber etc. isn't using banned guns, but some old beat up gun they bought for cheap on the straw market, or some crummy old gun they stole from a family member etc.

People forget that the average street criminal is dirt poor, and not someone buying expensive items on the black market. Banned guns only tend to be used by organized crime, drug cartels etc. which are very rare relative to the average crime.

So banning certain types of guns etc. does make the much harder for average criminals to get in use. It's supply and demand. Ban an assault rifle or whatever, and supply is way down, and the gun is now much more expensive on the black market and the average criminal can't afford it. Most of them can't afford to go buy a new legal gun, so they're doing the same as always. Buying old, used guns cheap on the straw market.

People like Loughner that have money will just keep buying legal guns as most aren't going to spend the extra time and money to buy some banned weapon on the black market.[/QUOTE]

I gotta say, you make some really good points here. Too bad we never have meaningful debates like this in the MSM.
 
[quote name='camoor']I gotta say, you make some really good points here. Too bad we never have meaningful debates like this in the MSM.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that he's wrong.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/syracuse_police_taser_arrest_m.html

Police said he had no weapons on him. They searched the outside of the residence and found a loaded 9mm Magnum Research Desert Eagle handgun near where the man was first seen. A spent shell casing was located nearby.
Click to expand...
 
There are exceptions to everything. Go read some academic research on illegal firearm markets or STFU.

No one cares about anecdotes and single case examples. Actually, nevermind, I won't make the mistake of clicking view post again. Or this thread again, I need to stay in my ivory tower and quit wasting time debating shit with simpletons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top