Arizona Congresswoman Gunned Down

There is no official office of congressman either. One is either a senator or representative. Congressman and congresswoman are just descriptive titles, not offices. Congresswoman has been in use since 1915.

 

She has not acted irresponsibly. You're perverting her words.

The response of the right to this vomitus should be to step up the targeting, gun and war metaphors, because we are in a war. It is a war for our freedoms, and British SUBJECTS can't understand that.

 

How does the death of the 9-year-old further the agenda of the Left?

 

None of what happened furthered the agenda of anyone. The gunman was a wacko... But he was a leftist wacko, which is important for one reason only -- blame for gunning down people so often gets pushed to persons on the right.

 

Along the lines of what others have mentioned, I liked Investors Business Daily's article this morning concerning the politics of this tragic shooting.

Not Letting Another Crisis Go To Waste

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...12/Not-Letting-Another-Crisis-Go-To-Waste.htm

 

Responsibly by what standard?

Any sane person knows that the metaphor of targetting a candidate means to unseat them through the election process.

The fact that liberal left wingers have jumped on this one ad and ignored several democrat ads that said the same thing.

One, which was on the KOS Blog and has since been scrubbed!

Responsible sane people would have connected the dots and intervened long ago as this troubled person progressed further and further downhill into santa ria and other sociopathic pursuits...

Yes, in my opinion, in the venue and context of the events Sarah Palin acted responsibly.

 

Regarding the use of vitriolic words/phrases: Pardon my stupidity, but where does it say that the shooter was attributing anything he did to Sarah Palin, talk radio shows, or any of that drivel?

I seem to be missing that part somewhere.

Until shown to me, I go with the position that these things have not been proven to have encouraged the shooter; thus, the outcry against the "vitriol" being purported as a cause for this heinous crime is more of a smoke screen to further an agenda to silence people, rather than focusing on the actual cause and perpetrator of the crime.

Again, if someone can show the article(s) that indicate the shooter was a fan of, much less implementing anything said by, Sarah Palin or the right (or left) wing talk show hosts, then I'll retract my statement above.

 

Let us remember...this "climate of vitriol" is supposedly the cause of these acts, and apparently it is a recent phenomenon. And let's be honest: Almost universally, the blame is cast at "the right," whatever the heck that even means.

That argument sure falls apart when you go back to the late 1960's. Sarah Palin was about two. Wonder what she said to get MLK and Robert Kennedy shot? "Goo-goo ga-ga?"

This argument has gotten beyond stupid. Crazy people will do crazy things. Sociopaths will commit sociopathic acts. They'll use a radio broadcast, Sesame street, or Emeril's cooking show to light their own brushfire of evil.

I'm tired of these stupid comparisons. Somehow harsh political tones is now the "cause" for someone killing someone else. Even saying stupid, unwise things, "causes" no one to pull the trigger.

If I'm wrong, then this cretin should walk, because he's innocent; the "guilty party" would be whichever talk radio personality or political figure you dislike the most.

Absolute lunacy. And those who wish to score political points off this tragedy are beneath contempt in my book.

 

And now I read where Westboro Baptist [?] Church is planning to picket the funeral of the 9 YO girl that was killed during this tragedy!

How thoughtless.

 

Well then I'm sure you would condemn the following comments:

"Get in their faces!"

"They bring a knife, we bring a gun!"

"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry"

"Republican victory would mean hand-to-hand combat"

All made by the president.

Innocent symbolic language you might say. But wait, some weak minded person could take them the wrong way and act literally on them.

 

Yes, these are bad comments. There is no need for such rhetoric by politicians of either party or by talking heads.

Corporations do not seem to care as, sadly, such talk brings viewers and listeners and thus profits.

Everyone needs to tone down their rhetoric.

Yes the mentally off balanced may take such words and act on them. That is true.

However, such inflammatory language is wrong simply because it is wrong!

 

Alright, a fair comment CTB. The problem of course is that some folks, such as Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, only know how to point the finger in one direction. As if there is some malfunction with their knuckles or something.

 

Sadly this problem is wide spread on both sides of the political asile in our country. Same with media outlets.

I did find it interesting that the president of Fox News told his people to tone down their inflammatory comments.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ews_will_tone_down_fiery_rhetoric_defend.html

I am not surprised he defended S. Palin. After all she is a Fox employee and I would not expect him to actually criticize his employees.

To me it is a hopeful sign that he told his people to tone down their comments. Other media chiefs should do the same.

 

I still don't see what any of this has to do with Sarah Palin. The killer had issues with Congresswoman Giffords dating back to 2007, before most people had ever even heard of Palin.

Loughner had attended a Giffords event in 2007 and asked her, "What is government if words have no meaning?", and of course she had no answer to an insane question like that. According to a friend, from that point on he considered Giffords to be "fake".

 

In this individual case we do not know if Palin's words and graphics had anything to do with his actions. That is not my point. She has engaged in vitriol comments and graphics. She should tone these down, just as all others who have engaged in such words should.

We may never know what pushed him over the edge and whether or not inflammatory charges played a part.

But, as I said in other posts, that is not the main point. The use of such words, charges and graphics is wrong simply because they are wrong ... especially for a person who claims to be a Christian.

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

 

Another thread should be started for those who say the rhetoric needs to be toned down. This thread was supposed to be about a shooting, Rhetoric had nothing to do with this. We already know which way this will go. Take the mask off, stop throwing Christ's name around. This is about silencing people, pure & simple. It's ridiculous, disrepectful to bring that conversation into a thread about a mass murder. Marxists will use any tragedy to push their agenda. It is absolutely shameful.

 

Agreed. That about says it all.

 

Because we all know, none of the great men of God EVER used violent rhetoric. There isn't a nasty word in all of scripture, is there ? No war metaphors used. No objectionable imagery, at all.

People have crossed way over the silly line on this one.

 

I haven't seen one shred of evidence to suggest that rhetoric on either side of the aisle was the motivation for the shooter's actions. In fact, some information I've read this morning seems to indicate that the shooter didn't believe anything was real outside of his own dreams and imagination.

And for examples of Democrats using target imagery, you can look here:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647