Arizona Shooting Spree, Congresswoman, judge, among victims...

I'm quite sure this kind of debate did not cause anyone murderous rage. But the actual debate was more like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How one interprets the Constitution is now a moot point. The Supreme Court has just recently ruled the Constitution null and void. We now officially live in an Oligarchic corporatocracy with no protections for the people. If this wack job had only known that he had no rights to be losing . . . there would have been no reason to get so bent out of shape and get his panties in such a bunch. :shrug:

All I can say is, if you agree to be a politician or representative of a corrupt government, it is the same as signing up for military duty. You take your chances. Those people died for their cause. It's one I don't believe in. We are in a state of "cold civil-war" or defacto civil war. Just because you T.V. watchers and consumers of mainstream media are either to brain washed or hypnotized to realize it, doesn't mean it isn't going down all around you.

I don't think violence is the answer. I believe non-compliance is. If you take out those who cause the problems, more will just step in to take their place. Power, money and influence are powerful motivators. Change starts at the individual level. We must have a local, national, and international shift in consciousness to a new paradigm of thought and behavior.

But for those who do believe violence is the answer, more power to you. Were our founding fathers "wack jobs?" I don't think so. They believed in violence to solve problems when things became untenable. I'm not sure I agree with their methods, but I am not willing to go so far as to call them unhinged. The elites and pols have thrown out the only protection the people of this once great nation had, now what? Some people are bound to feel powerless, and guess who they are going to take it out on? Yep, the political leaders and the judicial leaders. Next will be the corporate leaders and the financial leaders. You wait and see. . . . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where are the moderators? Can't this be split and pegged onto the health care reform thread? . . . .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one is stupid enough to believe this, so the question remains, why did you take the time to post this pile of total BS?

Arthur

 

You know, I love how these three women can be called on the carpet for making comments that elected officials that do not listen to the public could be seen as treasonous, meanwhile President Obama openly proclaims that everyone that does not fully support his healthcare bil is unamerican.

Both sides stir up rhetoric, that's a given in any power stuggle.

 

More of the same

A little late to the party with that huffing and whining, Scott.

To the one, you're welcome to assert that the American dream is about oligarchic consolidation of wealth. Go for it; we need a laugh.

To the other, such an insensate outlook is hardly reliable.

 

Please provide some evidence that President Obama is openly proclaiming anyone who opposes him on anything unAmerican. I look forward to seeing some verifiable evidence - none of this esp nonsense.

 

The Perfect Circle

Joe, you're not going to get anywhere with that. I mean, take a look at how this discussion has shaped up. First conservatives abandoned their own longstanding (e.g., multigenerational) rhetoric in order to dodge questions about their own conduct. Now they're trying to justify the shooting by complaining about health care.

These aren't honest people.

No amount of reason or reality is going to affect them.

I mean, we've come full-circle; we're back to the evils of the health-care bill, which is what moved Sarah Palin to take out hits on Democratic lawmakers in the first place.

 

You are absoutely correct Tiassa, unfortunate but true.

 

This link contains a quote from Obama:
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/arti...YOU_EXTREMIST_UNAMERICAN_AND_TEABAGGERS/25691

The quote attributed to the NY Times (November, 2009) is:
“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit Democratic voters and it will encourage the extremists.”

In the quote, Obama never used the word "unamerican". The Cypress Times used it.

I wasn't able to find this quote in the NY Times archive and I wasn't able to find any quote where Obama used the word "unamerican".

 

Actually I was just pointing out that both sides of the equation use the exact same tactics. Neither is all that upright and moral. Both parties are just playing to the masses for votes. If you are not wise enough to see that than perhaps it it not I who is insensate.

And I apologize, there was a misquote, he claimed that special interest opposition to his Health care bill was Un American. Of course I will point out that 41 percent of the public was vehemently against his particular bill and not many more supported it.

I would like to see government regulated health care, but we're looking at the wrong culprit. Insurance profits have been kept at the same percentage despite massive premium hikes for one reason: the sky rocketing cost of medicinal drugs. other countries do not have this problem as they MAKE the manufacturers allow the production of Generics IMMEDIATELY.

However this is off the point, blaming a political party for the actions of asingle, troubled individual is assinine. It is not like Republicans bought them the gun, gave them the ammo, and told them what to do. That individual is solely to blame for their actions.

 

False ... well, everything

No they do not.

This is a common excuse put forward by those who want to license their own dishonesty. It is transparent, being observably false, and all.

Show me the history that makes that false equivalence true.

Proposition: Two cars leave Seattle, headed for Portland. As their destinations are the same, they must be otherwise similar.

Do you agree with that proposition, or not?

Proposition: You arrive at a crossroads. The person in the passenger seat says go left. The person in the backseat says go right. You go forward. Neither are happy. Therefore, we may conclude that they both want you to do the same thing.

Do you agree with that proposition, or not?

I think we've found something we can agree on, re: big pharma.

For generations, conservatives have argued that one can influence the actions of another by their free speech. This argument goes on today.

As soon as the question arose in the wake of the Tuscon shooting, conservatives not only abandoned their own rhetoric of at least the last sixty years, but also pretended horror and outrage at the mere suggestion. Well? What of it, then? Have the last sixty years, seeing people prosecuted, sued, and vilified been a hoax that we all just missed? Are conservatives just pulling our leg when they make the influence argument as a reason to withhold civil rights for gays?

The problem liberals face is that they rejected this argument. No, listening to an anti-drug song is not going to make a good little Christian boy suddenly turn into a Satanist. No, failing to be mean enough to gays is not going to turn a virtuous little Christian boy into a raging homosexual slut.

But there is also a question of circumstance. That is: You speak, and someone in a very general audience might take you wrongly. Compare that to: You pick a group that is already given to suspicion, already armed. You invoke revolution. You tell people to shoot one another in the head. You tell them to reload. You tell them that if ballots don't work, bullets will—e.g., if you don't win on election day, start shooting.

Now here's where the question becomes vital. Historically, we have denounced such talk, refused it a place in civil discourse. As anyone who is aware of the 1960s and '70s should recall, leftists were not given a respected place in the public discourse with their violent talk.

What has changed? Why is it acceptable this time?

Is it because it's good, right-wing, Christian, "real" Americans? Really, is that it? Why is this sort of talk acceptable now? Is it because there's a black man in the White House? What gives? Why should we suddenly reverse course and decide that this sort of talk is acceptable?

The answer, of course, is largely academic. However, the fact of this inclusion is vital. We have redrawn the boundaries of acceptability.

Loughner, as has been pointed out, had a longer grudge against Giffords than just the last election. And while this is held up as an argument that there could be no influence from the violent rhetoric, one does wonder, Why now?

The question, then, is whether the redrawn boundaries affected whatever decision Loughner made.

We have seen in this thread the assertion that without direct participation, there can be no influence. This is observably false, as people every day make decisions influenced by factors, people, and ideas to which they do not subscribe. Indeed, we see here in our own community that people are perfectly willing to redraw their boundaries of acceptability according to immediate need, and in response to someone or something they disagree with.

So tell us, Scott: What makes the violent rhetoric acceptable this time? Why was it given such a prominent place in the public discourse? Is it race and religion? Is it capitalism? What changed?

 

Really?

Like you are being dishonest now?

It was Joe, the OP, who brought up health care in this debate.

Since then I've only responded to posts about health care from him, Spider, Quad etc.

Finally, you are a complete liar and there is obviously no lie you won't make trying to make your point as no one on the Right of this debate has tried to JUSTIFY the shooting in any form or fashion.

Arthur

 

Poor you

Yes, Arthur, your assessment of anything is automatically reliable.

We know.

 

If you wrote that anywhere other than a website, you could rightfully be sued for libel.

See your above comment, where you clearly libeled someone.

 

You obviously don't know shit from shinola Tiassa.

Nothing I've posted about health care could possibly be misconstrued as trying to justify the Tuscon shootings, and even beyond the recent posts about heatlhcare, no one has suggested that the shootings were in any way justified.

Arthur

 

You don't need to buy a clue when they're just laying around for you to find

Coming from you, that makes me a genius.

The world is bigger than just you, Arthur. Learn that.

 

Libel only your in your fantasy world in no such way could T's comment be construed as false let alone with the maliciousness required by US law.



maybe under british law you have a point

 

head vs. wall

Let it go, PJ. In the first place, he's incorrigibly corrupt. To the other, I'm kind of interested if he's now going to claim to be a lawyer, like he used to say he was a journalist, and then go on to similarly demonstrate his profound ignorance.

That would be at least slightly amusing.

 

it is my nature to throw my self into unwinnable situations. the harder the challenge the more implacable the foe the more entertaining it is for me.