The political discussion about the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

[Hydrant]

It's all good.

[Disclaimer]

Aside from the fact that you clearly have a problem with Sarah Palin who as best I can figure stands for everything you hate. What I was referring to was who the shooter was. Were they in fact influenced, motivated by, or even hired by Palin?

We don't know, that's why I said it was interesting...and in poor taste then as it is now.

The crass comment is directed at you going all political before the bodies are even cold.

A 9 year old is dead and your going off about political web sites.

That's cold.

I dunno how that's crass? This is what the media and interwebz are reporting -- I'm just stuffing all that information I'm collecting into this thread.

It's a tragedy, but how is not discussing the incident and it's context going to benefit the victims? Their lives were taken, we need to talk about it, in context, to see what unfortunate circumstances led up to this event so we can learn from it - lest they lost their lives vain.

[Kam]

White on white crime has to stop!!!

[Earache]

Justin: I think you went too far this time.

.

Gee, ya think?

[Fonzie]

Who knows if it's really politically motivated... but

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010

Interesting coincidence eh?

Ever the democrat troll, ehhh Justin

Yea, because there's Democrats running around implying the "guns" and "do something about it" message. It's not OK period, but there are consequences when you're politicking and preaching certain messages to people. If there wasn't, why'd Palin take down that pic off her website? She's got no reason to take it down if that's a message she can stand behind.

Get a grip.

The reason would be called "tact" & "common decency" under the current situation of today's events.

They were on a union mandated break. But seriously how long should it of really taken them.

I'm kinda confuzzled some weren't already on site, as there was a congressperson at a public function

[Fonzie]

I dunno how that's crass? This is what the media and interwebz are reporting -- I'm just stuffing all that information I'm collecting into this thread.

It's a tragedy, but how is not discussing the incident and it's context going to benefit the victims? Their lives were taken, we need to talk about it, in context, to see what unfortunate circumstances led up to this event so we can learn from it - lest they lost their lives vain.

Because you're not simply discussing the media reports Justin... You seem to be trying to use this as a platform to once again voice your disdain of Palin, & somehow lay this at her feet

The irony here is that, with your new CCW, & Palin being such an advocate of citizens having the right to bear arms... It seems you're contradicting your own beliefs. I would think with her being such a spokesperson on that front for all of us, that you would want to keep this as far away from her as possible, rather than giving Obama even more "ammunition" to try & force that right from us

[Disclaimer]

Because you're not simply discussing the media reports Justin... You seem to be trying to use this as a platform to once again voice your disdain of Palin, & somehow lay this at her feet

The irony here is that, with your new CCW, & Palin being such an advocate of citizens having the right to bear arms... It seems you're contradicting your own beliefs. I would think with her being such a spokesperson on that front for all of us, that you would want to keep this as far away from her as possible, rather than giving Obama even more "ammunition" to try & force that right from us

I'm waiting for a reply from Casper, but since you guys want to publicly call me out... I'll post a rebuttal.

I was posting exactly what I parsed from Twitter as these events unfolded. Sure there were a couple opinion posts where I was rebutting Street, but I was just pulling links from Twitter for the most part. I don't need this thread as a platform to announce my disdain for Palin - that's already been well established. And for you to espouse this as a CCW/gun rights issue is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with the messages people send when they're in a position of power. Palin's message was uncouth back in March as it was today. Not illegal, just lacking taste. Which is why I find it ironic that I'm the one that has "gone too far" and I'm the "crass" one as some peon on the Internet who has done nothing more than basically retweet information relevant to this thread.

So, I'll politely inquire as to where I've gone too far in my postings? I've not said anything inflammatory or derogatory about the victims or the events that they've had to suffer through. I said it was a tragedy. And again, I don't need this thread as a platform to bash Palin, I had tons of other threads I can do that in. If you watched the msn video link I posted, even Gifford herself said that, and I'm paraphrasing, "Palin has put a target on our district and there are consequences for that kind of speech". That's what it's about - the messages, not just Palin, she's just the easy and immediate target since her exploits are so readily available, but all politicians need to quit these senseless propaganda games to deliver their messages. Not because there are nut jobs out there, those will always exist, but because it's unprofessional and in poor taste, which turns tragic events like this into the political fodder everyone is salivating to use as a way to divide and make their own political statement.

So I still don't understand how I've gone too far, or what the appropriate response to this thread is that I should have had.... Guess that's the 'Spock' in me, eh Fonz? But please enlighten me.

Edited January 9, 2011 by JRMMiii

[Disclaimer]

IPad double post, sry

[Fonzie]

I'm waiting for a reply from Casper, but since you guys want to publicly call me out... I'll post a rebuttal.

I was posting exactly what I parsed from Twitter as these events unfolded. Sure there were a couple opinion posts where I was rebutting Street, but I was just pulling links from Twitter for the most part. I don't need this thread as a platform to announce my disdain for Palin - that's already been well established. And for you to espouse this as a CCW/gun rights issue is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with gun rights and everything to do with the messages people send when they're in a position of power. Palin's message was uncouth back in March as it was today. Not illegal, just lacking taste. Which is why I find it ironic that I'm the one that has "gone too far" and I'm the "crass" one as some peon on the Internet who has done nothing more than basically retweet information relevant to this thread.

So, I'll politely inquire as to where I've gone too far in my postings? I've not said anything inflammatory or derogatory about the victims or the events that they've had to suffer through. I said it was a tragedy. And again, I don't need this thread as a platform to bash Palin, I had tons of other threads I can do that in. If you watched the msn video link I posted, even Gifford herself said that, and I'm paraphrasing, "Palin has put a target on our district and there are consequences for that kind of speech". That's what it's about - the messages, not just Palin, she's just the easy and immediate target since her exploits are so readily available, but all politicians need to quit these senseless propaganda games to deliver their messages. Not because there are nut jobs out there, those will always exist, but because it's unprofessional and in poor taste, which turns tragic events like this into the political fodder everyone is salivating to use as a way to divide and make their own political statement.

So I still don't understand how I've gone too far, or what the appropriate response to this thread is that I should have had.... Guess that's the 'Spock' in me, eh Fonz? But please enlighten me.

Couple things spring to mind Justin

Your distaste of Palin may well be documented on here... But you saw fit to bring her up again in this thread & draw the dotted line linking her website to this incident. Her website's no more to blame for this incident than "Catcher in the Rye" is for the shooting of John Lennon, or Jodi Foster is for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan

And I maintain it is NOT ludicrous that the anti guns rights groups/Obama will try to use this as a major fulcrum to finally get the restrictions they've been seeking for so long... a'la the Brady bill after Dutch got shot... Especially since AZ has been so liberal/lenient in their CCW & open carry laws. And also especially because it's being reported Gifford & Obama have been friends for some time... So I'm sure he's going to take more than just a presidential interest in this

Edited January 9, 2011 by Fonzie

[kawi kid]

^^^ im with him. This is just more ammo for the gun haters. Who wants to take bets on the guns used.. extended mags, im thinking glock.

[Disclaimer]

Your distaste of Palin may well be documented on here... But you saw fit to bring her up again in this thread & draw the dotted line linking her website to this incident. Her website's no more to blame for this incident than "Catcher in the Rye" is for the shooting of John Lennon, or Jodi Foster is for the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan

That was what was on Twitter. No where did I say she was responsible or even to blame. I've maintained the entire time it was just poor taste. You're putting words in my mouth and drawing conclusions I never made

And I maintain it is NOT ludicrous that the anti guns rights groups/Obama will try to use this as a major fulcrum to finally get the restrictions they've been seeking for so long... a'la the Brady bill after Dutch got shot... Especially since AZ has been so liberal/lenient in their CCW & open carry laws. And also especially because it's being reported Gifford & Obama have been friends for some time

You specifically mentioned me and my CCW in the previous post, and said that I was contradicting my own beliefs which simply isn't true. Just because Palin is pro 2nd Amendment and because I am too, that I need to support her. Just like even if I do support Obama, it doesn't mean I agree with EVERYTHING on his agenda. So while I agree that antigun folks may politicize this senseless event for their own agenda, to say that I'm contradicting my own beliefs is the ludicrous part.

I still don't see where I've gone too far though, holding for a response on that.

Edited January 9, 2011 by JRMMiii

[fusion]

Because you're not simply discussing the media reports Justin... You seem to be trying to use this as a platform to once again voice your disdain of Palin, & somehow lay this at her feet

The irony here is that, with your new CCW, & Palin being such an advocate of citizens having the right to bear arms... It seems you're contradicting your own beliefs. I would think with her being such a spokesperson on that front for all of us, that you would want to keep this as far away from her as possible, rather than giving Obama even more "ammunition" to try & force that right from us

That's unfair. The media was quick to point out this was one of the districts Sarah Palin had crosshairs on; it wasn't just Justin. Also, it's a fair enough comment to make not knowing what this whackjob's motivation is for doing what he did early in the discussion. People don't realize just how damaging rhetoric can be and it's been used a means to rile up a base (cult, terrorist group, religion, OR ride,...) since the dawn of time.

That second part is kind of ridiculous. Palin isn't 2nd Amendment spokesperson, does she support it, of course. Spokesperson is a bit much she just isn't educated enough on any issue to be any kind of spokesperson. She's nothing more than a marketing catch phrase, talking point repeating money machine and she's pretty good at it. Outside of that just supporting Palin because of a single issue is kind of dumb.

Every side of issues uses events like this as a means to sway to their view point. While I admire Arizona's gun stance, the shooter apparently had previous run-ins with police and is listed as some kind of criminal, but it doesn't seem there are a lot of details. That will be the major issue raised by groups I think. It's easier to use that as ammunition as opposed to just yelling that guns are bad because of this.

Edited January 9, 2011 by fusion

[kawi kid]

If you search recent news articles, many of Gifford's constituents in her congressional district, were very upset with her when she was one of a small group that voted against Pelosi for minority speaker of the house, on last Wednesday, the 5th of January, 2011. Enough so to easily find various threats posted on line. Most all of those have suddenly vanished. Including the radical liberal "bullseye" target map list of moderate Democrats (which also included Giffords) posted on a very left wing website. It looks just like the Palin map.

I don't like politics. It's a sickness of the weak...

Or a weakness of the sick, take your pick.

Like fusion said the the media was quick to point out palin's map the liberal map has yet to be mentioned. I get really discouraged with th media bias some times.

[scottb]

^^^ im with him. This is just more ammo for the gun haters. Who wants to take bets on the guns used.. extended mags, im thinking glock.

I am thinking Glock as well, possibly 33 round mag?

The end result will be that the media will draw the conclusion that guns are bad in the hands of people.

Whatever issues or state of mind of the shooter was in at the time will get overlooked.

[Fonzie]

That second part is kind of ridiculous. Palin isn't 2nd Amendment spokesperson, does she support it, of course. Spokesperson is a bit much she just isn't educated enough on any issue to be any kind of spokesperson. She's nothing more than a marketing catch phrase, talking point repeating money machine and she's pretty good at it. Outside of that just supporting Palin because of a single issue is kind of dumb.

How is she NOT a spokesperson for our right to bear arms Jeremi?? She talks about it constantly, & features them on her show every episode.

Does she need some "entity" to formally appoint her "spokesperson"... Or is she already one because she's leading by example

And just because you may agree with her & her firearms stance, doesn't mean you have to agree with her entire package/politics. However... It's not in any of our best interest who believe in our inalienable right to bear arms, that this get laid at her feet. We all only lose ground if they go after Palin on a witch hunt because of this

I can hear it now... The anti gun lobby/Obama are going to portray Arizona as the wild, wild west still, & Palin as Billy the Kid

Just like the pro gun lobby would've been screaming from the rooftops had this happened in Chicago, NY or California. This couldn't have happened in a worse state, for our cause, other than maybe Texas.

What really needs to be focused on, but will probably get lost in the much sexier gun argument... Is why weren't law enforcement already on site to stop this before so many people were shot... And why did it take Sheriff's so long to respond??

Edited January 9, 2011 by Fonzie

[ReconRat]

Like fusion said the the media was quick to point out palin's map the liberal map has yet to be mentioned. I get really discouraged with the media bias some times.

The LA Times found them, and researched the authenticity. That impressed me. One other media source did also, but I don't remember which one. It was late last night. Mostly it's just right wing websites that speak about it. Most of the traditional media has not clued in yet. Neither have most media connected the concept of the shooter being a radical left wing malcontent.

There are three different maps, which is confusing people. Palin map, DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) map, and radical left wing website target list.

Although there is a "bullseye" map from the DLC, that targets swing states, it did not list Gabrielle Giffords or Arizona on the copy I saw. I suspect both the Palin and the DLC political maps came out around the same time, recently. I just searched again, the DLC map is now disappearing from the media and internet. edit: Oops! The DLC target map is from 2004, during the campaign against Bush.

The original target list, was from a blog on a radical left wing website, and did not utilize a map, just a list and a target bullseye. It was originally posted up in 2008. It was a target list of moderate Democrats, posted by an angry Democrat. It is gone, with hardly a trace anywhere to be found. I was unable to even retrieve it with the Internet Archive. Google images didn't work either. Oddly, the link for it now points at something entirely different and immaterial.

If it looks like the media (including the internet) is being manipulated, then it is probably true beyond our wildest imagination.

edit: Oops! I found another target list/map of Republicans that voted against whatever created the hatred, etc. It's on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website, dated February 2010. It has also been removed, and the link points to a whine about Health Care.

Edited January 9, 2011 by ReconRat
moar

[Disclaimer]

Tom... you don't really subscribe to an Occam's Razor-type philosophy do you?

[Fonzie]

I better catch up on my back episodes of "Alaska" before Time Warner starts erasing them off my DVR next

[Disclaimer]

A Former Congressional Aide on The Shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the Consequences of the Politics of Hate

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/yaki/detail?entry_id=80606

^--- That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole thread.

[ReconRat]

Tom... you don't really subscribe to an Occam's Razor-type philosophy do you?

It's an option in Methodology.

[TSB67]

I better catch up on my back episodes of "Alaska" before Time Warner starts erasing them off my DVR next

Best post of thread.

[fusion]

How is she NOT a spokesperson for our right to bear arms Jeremi?? She talks about it constantly, & features them on her show every episode.

Because she doesn't know shit about firearms. It was even a point of contention on her show when she couldn't hit shit and apparently didn't know anything about the guns she was handling.

She's towing a line to keep herself popular with her base. A spokes person needs to actually be educated about what they are supposed to be a spokes person about.

And if you think she's knows shit all about anything in the constitution beyond some talking points she's fed your only fooling yourself. These type of people are no help to those of us who want reasonable discussion and action in support of gun ownership rights.

[John]

And if you think she's knows shit all about anything in the constitution beyond some talking points she's fed your only fooling yourself. These type of people are no help to those of us who want reasonable discussion and action in support of gun ownership rights.

hey now, she is pretty smart. don't forget, she reads ALL the newspapers.

[Disclaimer]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d2a184ab5978e87%2C0

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_York]Byron York - Wikipedia' date=' the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Byron_York.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Byron York.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c8/Byron_York.jpg/200px-Byron_York.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/c/c8/Byron_York.jpg/200px-Byron_York.jpg[/ame']

[John]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d2a184ab5978e87%2C0

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but you say that Obama, Holder, and the FBI urged caution after the Fort Hood shootings. You also say CNN covered that people should be cautious in not jumping to conclusions. Then, you say that a local sheriff in this case said it was political vitriol, but that CNN is reporting there are no political connections that the shooter cites. Now, despite what CNN reported, the only quotes from Obama are expressions of condolences.

The headline here is "Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin." However, the text of your editorial is that different people are now blaming Palin, and the journalists are saying there is no evidence of that connection. Wouldn't the more appropriate headline from the same analysis you give be, "Mainstream Media Resists Turning Shooting Political?"

You never mention any instances of other media outlets. You never mention how exactly CNN was linking the shooter with right wing causes. You just assert without evidence. The only evidence you present refutes your very points.