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

Gawker seems to have some accurate accounts of the event. Half an hour for an ambulance to arrive? What the hell?
 
Some of the more rural areas in the US don't have local police or even local trash pickup. That some areas might not be close to a hospital or ERT doesn't surprise me but it's something that needs to be fixed.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You do know that quote refers to an event on June 12th of last year, right?

Also, the gun was a 9mm glock apparently.[/QUOTE]

The shooter's weapon or are you referring to Giffords' own personal pistol?


Twitter has been absolutely vile from both ends of the spectrum since it happened.
 
As long as we're posting irresponsible shit that people did:

original.png
 
Sarah Palin calls for the (shooting) death of political rivals? The young turks now have weeks worth of fodder.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']The shooter's weapon or are you referring to Giffords' own personal pistol?


Twitter has been absolutely vile from both ends of the spectrum since it happened.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it was the weapon in question. Could be wrong though. Reports are still sketchy.

And IHari, again, that's from last year. Doesn't make it any less stupid and irresponsible though.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I'm pretty sure it was the weapon in question. Could be wrong though. Reports are still sketchy.

And IHari, again, that's from last year. Doesn't make it any less stupid and irresponsible though.[/QUOTE]

I think people are confusing/ mistakenly conflating some of the reports about her owning a 9mm glock and the shooter's weapon, which I've yet to read anything on (I could be wrong).

Also, yea the ad from her (Palin's) PAC listing conservative leaning districts as targets over the healthcare vote was a terrible choice but it's being hyperbolized into something it wasn't (which is easy to do with the rhetoric being at the level it's been).
 
Does anybody honestly think that political metaphors involving firearms lead to tragic events such as this? They may be in bad taste, but this?
 
I severely dislike Palin as well (ironically most libertarians and conservatives I know do too) but you should read the rancor on twitter.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Does anybody honestly think that political metaphors involving firearms lead to tragic events such as this? They may be in bad taste, but this?[/QUOTE]

Occam's Razor would say yes.

Sharon Angle said more than once it is to resort to "2nd amendment remedies", he was far from the only one.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Occam's Razor would say yes.

Sharon Angle said more than once it is to resort to "2nd amendment remedies", he was far from the only one.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but Occam's razor isn't about superficial analysis . . . and Sharron Angle is a she (not personally confirmed but I think it's generally accepted that she is indeed, equipped with a vagina).
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Does anybody honestly think that political metaphors involving firearms lead to tragic events such as this? They may be in bad taste, but this?[/QUOTE]

No. I just dislike violent imagery and violent rhetoric in response to shitty bills.

Don't worry though, I'm pretty sure it's been whitewashed from her website.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Does anybody honestly think that political metaphors involving firearms lead to tragic events such as this? They may be in bad taste, but this?[/QUOTE]

In and of themselves, no.

But the violent rhetoric of the right, simultaneously promoted and denied by people like Glenn Beck, certainly influences people to do violent things. Think about that influence: the shooter is being lionized as a hero by *some* on the right.

Instead of being a moment of national solidarity, it's a moment where we continue to tear at our fresh political wounds. The inability to come together in sadness and out of respect for a public servant (much like was the case when Ted Kennedy died a year ago) shows that we live in a winner-takes-all society, and winners never back down. Winners never apologize, and winners are okay with bad things happening if it leads to good results for them.

The talking heads will deny it, but Beck is certainly partially a cause of the fact that a national politician can be the victim of an assassination attempt (for now), and people aren't universally appalled. I don't think he wants politicians to die, but I think he doesn't care, either. He's a whore. He's an entertainer. He'll say whatever it is you want him to that will make him a buck. He hypes products predicting the impending apocalypse on his program (you can't trust the US Dollar, buy gold; you can buy food storage BY THE YEAR for your bomb shelter from an advertiser on his show - not just a commercial advertiser, but an on-program advertiser that he does the voice work for). He screams about how our freedoms and liberties are being taken away from us by Obama and leftists. He promotes the looming apocalypse without saying the "a" word itself. An easily influenced person who listens to his show certainly fears the government, fears what the government is doing, hears the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" quote, and thinks of themselves as a martyr. He's not being vindictive, he's saving the United States from certain doom. In his mind.

People are afraid that Obama will "take their guns," and then people who share their political perspective kill half a dozen people and almost assassinate a Congresswoman. Yet that, if it leads to the introduction of some kind of weapons ban, the blame will be placed on Obama, not the person who tried to kill Gifford - and the ease/speed in which they were able to fire off 15-20 rounds of ammunition.

I can guarantee you that Congresspersons will now have Secret Service on them everywhere from probably-next-week forward through forever. At what cost to the taxpayer?

But I digress. Of course violence on the right is promoted. You can't say "Glenn Beck made this happen" and you can't say "Sarah Palin made this happen." But you can say that the fearmongering, apocalyptic foreshadowing, and violent/revolutionary rhetoric and see how the *culture* of the right in a winner-takes-all society promotes these kinds of violent acts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In and of themselves, no.

But the violent rhetoric of the right, simultaneously promoted and denied by people like Glenn Beck, certainly influences people to do violent things. Think about that influence: the shooter is being lionized as a hero by *some* on the right.

Instead of being a moment of national solidarity, it's a moment where we continue to tear at our fresh political wounds. The inability to come together in sadness and out of respect for a public servant (much like was the case when Ted Kennedy died a year ago) shows that we live in a winner-takes-all society, and winners never back down. Winners never apologize, and winners are okay with bad things happening if it leads to good results for them.

The talking heads will deny it, but Beck is certainly partially a cause of the fact that a national politician can be the victim of an assassination attempt (for now), and people aren't universally appalled. I don't think he wants politicians to die, but I think he doesn't care, either. He's a whore. He's an entertainer. He'll say whatever it is you want him to that will make him a buck. He hypes products predicting the impending apocalypse on his program (you can't trust the US Dollar, buy gold; you can buy food storage BY THE YEAR for your bomb shelter from an advertiser on his show - not just a commercial advertiser, but an on-program advertiser that he does the voice work for). He screams about how our freedoms and liberties are being taken away from us by Obama and leftists. He promotes the looming apocalypse without saying the "a" word itself. An easily influenced person who listens to his show certainly fears the government, fears what the government is doing, hears the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" quote, and thinks of themselves as a martyr. He's not being vindictive, he's saving the United States from certain doom. In his mind.

People are afraid that Obama will "take their guns," and then people who share their political perspective kill half a dozen people and almost assassinate a Congresswoman. Yet that, if it leads to the introduction of some kind of weapons ban, the blame will be placed on Obama, not the person who tried to kill Gifford - and the ease/speed in which they were able to fire off 15-20 rounds of ammunition.

I can guarantee you that Congresspersons will now have Secret Service on them everywhere from probably-next-week forward through forever. At what cost to the taxpayer?

But I digress. Of course violence on the right is promoted. You can't say "Glenn Beck made this happen" and you can't say "Sarah Palin made this happen." But you can say that the fearmongering, apocalyptic foreshadowing, and violent/revolutionary rhetoric and see how the *culture* of the right in a winner-takes-all society promotes these kinds of violent acts.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but should asshats like Beck, Palin and (I know she wasn't mentioned, but I just have to throw her in there because I hate her most of all) Coulter be prevented from saying the retarded things that they say just because there are always going to be crazies out in the world who act on these things? That's a mighty steep slippery slope.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In and of themselves, no.

But the violent rhetoric of the right, simultaneously promoted and denied by people like Glenn Beck, certainly influences people to do violent things. Think about that influence: the shooter is being lionized as a hero by *some* on the right.

Instead of being a moment of national solidarity, it's a moment where we continue to tear at our fresh political wounds. The inability to come together in sadness and out of respect for a public servant (much like was the case when Ted Kennedy died a year ago) shows that we live in a winner-takes-all society, and winners never back down. Winners never apologize, and winners are okay with bad things happening if it leads to good results for them.

The talking heads will deny it, but Beck is certainly partially a cause of the fact that a national politician can be the victim of an assassination attempt (for now), and people aren't universally appalled. I don't think he wants politicians to die, but I think he doesn't care, either. He's a whore. He's an entertainer. He'll say whatever it is you want him to that will make him a buck. He hypes products predicting the impending apocalypse on his program (you can't trust the US Dollar, buy gold; you can buy food storage BY THE YEAR for your bomb shelter from an advertiser on his show - not just a commercial advertiser, but an on-program advertiser that he does the voice work for). He screams about how our freedoms and liberties are being taken away from us by Obama and leftists. He promotes the looming apocalypse without saying the "a" word itself. An easily influenced person who listens to his show certainly fears the government, fears what the government is doing, hears the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" quote, and thinks of themselves as a martyr. He's not being vindictive, he's saving the United States from certain doom. In his mind.

People are afraid that Obama will "take their guns," and then people who share their political perspective kill half a dozen people and almost assassinate a Congresswoman. Yet that, if it leads to the introduction of some kind of weapons ban, the blame will be placed on Obama, not the person who tried to kill Gifford - and the ease/speed in which they were able to fire off 15-20 rounds of ammunition.

I can guarantee you that Congresspersons will now have Secret Service on them everywhere from probably-next-week forward through forever. At what cost to the taxpayer?

But I digress. Of course violence on the right is promoted. You can't say "Glenn Beck made this happen" and you can't say "Sarah Palin made this happen." But you can say that the fearmongering, apocalyptic foreshadowing, and violent/revolutionary rhetoric and see how the *culture* of the right in a winner-takes-all society promotes these kinds of violent acts.[/QUOTE]

**Sigh** This is why I avoid the vs. section here.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes, but should asshats like Beck, Palin and (I know she wasn't mentioned, but I just have to throw her in there because I hate her most of all) Coulter be prevented from saying the retarded things that they say just because there are always going to be crazies out in the world who act on these things? That's a mighty steep slippery slope.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if it directly answers your question, but I do support the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

I don't support censorship, if that's what you're asking. But that doesn't mean I will ignore its consequences (unless you want to think, absent such a culture and such rhetoric, this assassination attempt would still have happened as it did today).

Then again, it's hard to imagine a culture absent all of our rhetoric, isn't it?

I'm trying to find info on the other victims - all I have heard is 5 confirmed dead, including one federal judge and one child. No other info I've come across yet.
 
I don't always agree with myke. But he (and a few others here) at least motivate me to consider other points of view.

edit: myke, I am a little surprised by your position on the fairness doctrine. care to expound?

edit 2: Daddy just wrote the headline for all the news outlets.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I don't always agree with myke. But he (and a few others here) at least motivate me to consider other points of view.[/quote]

delightful.

edit: myke, I am a little surprised by your position on the fairness doctrine. care to expound?

eh, that's another topic altogether.

As for the YouTube videos, I watched 12 Monkeys for the first time around late last night. After watching those videos, I picture the shooter looking like Brad Pitt.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Wow Sarah Palin just gets more despicable everyday. No doubt the gunmen is a racist palin fanatic/teabagger.[/QUOTE]

made my day.

RB, just like the great late James Brown knows how to "hit it and quit"
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes, but should asshats like Beck, Palin and (I know she wasn't mentioned, but I just have to throw her in there because I hate her most of all) Coulter be prevented from saying the retarded things that they say just because there are always going to be crazies out in the world who act on these things? That's a mighty steep slippery slope.[/QUOTE]
The idea of preventing them from saying anything should never even come up, or rather it shouldn't have to. These people should act responsibly enough ( and lets face it, just be decent human beings) to never even say or do the shit they say and do. Responsibility (and civility) is not creating a poster with gun sights on it, it is not calling for "2nd amendment remedies", it's not using fear to whip your already pissed off audience into a frenzy.

None of the people mentioned responsible for this, but they're responsible for creating an environment in which people who do things like this can flourish.
 
You're right if those mentioned know what they're saying so garbage, but what if they believe it to be the absolute truth? In that case, they are doing what they feel is the responsible thing.

Obama is about to speak on this even. You can watch it live on CNN if interested.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']**Sigh** This is why I avoid the vs. section here.[/QUOTE]

We were also happier. People who can't draw a straight line between two dots are never fun to argue with.
 
Sorry, this isn't the 1700s, calling for people to take up arms against their government is ridiculous, at least here in the U.S.. You want to change things, fine, but do it through the political process. A lot of these folks like to think of themselves as some sort of revolutionary era style heroes, they're just delusional.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']No doubt the gunmen is a racist palin fanatic/teabagger.[/QUOTE]

What's scary is that this isn't too far off from the quote from her father provided by Myke above.
 
[quote name='Clak']Sorry, this isn't the 1700s, calling for people to take up arms against their government is ridiculous, at l;east here in the U.S.. You want to change things, fine, but do it through the political process. A lot of these folks like to think of themselves as some sort of revolutionary era style heroes, they're just delusional.[/QUOTE]

Why is it ridiculous? Sure, right now wouldn't be the time for it as things haven't gotten that bad, but to rule it out completely? That's madness.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's scary is that this isn't too far off from the quote from her father provided by Myke above.[/QUOTE]Is she or is she not an enemy of the tea party? It's a fact that I don't think anyone can dispute.
 
Qualify it with "currently" if it make you feel better. We don't even know what "bad": is in this country.
 
Those youtube ramblings are not the rhetoric of the tea party in any way, people pointing the finger at the right shouldn't be so quick to speculate. Also, the murdered federal judge was a Bush appointee. Giffords is also a pretty conservative blue dog democrat.
 
[quote name='caltab']Those youtube ramblings are not the rhetoric of the tea party in any way, people pointing the finger at the right shouldn't be so quick to speculate. Also, the murdered federal judge was a Bush appointee. Giffords is also a pretty conservative blue dog democrat.[/QUOTE]

He's just a crazy nutcase. No one is blaming 'the right' for this.
 
[quote name='IRHari'] No one is blaming 'the right' for this.[/QUOTE]
Actually, that is all I've read and seen thus far.

[quote name='IRHari']Is she or is she not an enemy of the tea party? It's a fact that I don't think anyone can dispute.[/QUOTE]

You tell me? She was primarily "targeted" as a candidate because she was in a moderate/ weak district but from a political standpoint she is more ideologically alike the AZ tea partiers than the DNC's party platforms (votes on HC and opinions on DADT being some of the few but strong exceptions). Read her old twitter feed, Newsweek's coverage, personal statements, see her recent political stances and activities with the new congress.

Alternatively, watch this guy's videos, read his rants, read his favorite books . . . tell me again this is connected to the tea party . . .

Grammer Nazi's seem more to blame than they do.


Most importantly- It's very early to reflect on this event but the assumptions, soapboxes and hyperbole are on 11.
 
[quote name='IRHari']He's just a crazy nutcase. No one is blaming 'the right' for this.[/QUOTE]

You may not be, but there certainly are others, including in this thread, who are. The good news is the latest reports are optimistic of the Congresswomen's recovery.
 
[quote name='caltab']Those youtube ramblings are not the rhetoric of the tea party in any way, people pointing the finger at the right shouldn't be so quick to speculate. Also, the murdered federal judge was a Bush appointee. Giffords is also a pretty conservative blue dog democrat.[/QUOTE]

You post that as if the guy knew anything more than Giffords = democrat/liberal destroying this country. Considering the people he killed, including a child, I doubt he knew or cared that the judge was appointed by Bush.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is she or is she not an enemy of the tea party? It's a fact that I don't think anyone can dispute.[/QUOTE]

I'm not disputing anything - just find it... odd that both rumblebear (which... you know...) and the father seem to have about the same default viewpoint.
 
Very off topic, but a Republican just needs to look like they're compromising with Democrats to be considered an 'enemy' of the tea party. Dick Lugar, Bob Bennett come to mind.

It doesn't take much to be considered an enemy, and the list of 'exceptions' you listed make them furious.

. . tell me again this is connected to the tea party . . .

Never said it was ever connected to them, so it'd be hard to 'tell you again'.
 
bread's done
Back
Top