Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I've said it before, but: Even if external influences had nothing at all to do with the shooting (which is laughably unlikely, but even then), it still highlights how shameful and horrendous it is that we (or at least some of us) take hateful, violent, revolutionary-sounding political rhetoric lightly, and use it as a cheap tool for politicking and riling the masses. People like Sarah Palin deserve to be chastised for doing this even if it had no relation to this specific event. In fact, they deserved it before; it's just more obvious and emotionally relevant now, as an event  like this brings things into perspective.

[Grakelin]

If external influences had nothing at all to do with the shooting, then it doesn't highlight any of that at all.

[G-Flex]

Yes, it does, because it makes it all the more obvious how serious violent insurrection against perceived government threats actually is, as opposed to insinuating that shit all the time for cheap political gain.

[Nikov]

"He did not watch TV, he disliked the news," Zach Osler said. "He didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the left, he wasn't on the right."

Your claim that political rhetoric influenced him directly has no evidence. He was as 'susceptible to vitrol' coming from an AM radio as he was able to hear Adolf Hitler speaking from the grave. Now doing salvia and smoking pot every day? You really want to say that had no bearing on the mental health of a person? Mind altering drugs had no effect on his mind?

Gotta agree with Grakelin though.

[mainiac]

You are substituting nitpicking for actually taking on the larger part of the argument.  Answer the heart of the question or shut the hell up:

Does this attack show or not show that the violent rhetoric of mainstream, high profile republicans was irresponsible?

They have called for political violence.  Well this is what political violence looks like.  We don't like it.  You can dance and dance and dance around the issue all you want.  But at the end of the day you've got people using language that anybody with a pulse knows the meaning of and then being a bunch of cowards hiding behind ambiguity.

Nikov, I find your signature very puzzling.  You seem to take pride in being an open-minded debater.  But in every single debate I've ever seen you in you seek to do nothing other then derail to the debate into technicality and obscure the truth.  You wear out the patience of people who try to answer questions directly.  You are in the end nothing more then a very sophisticated troll.

It's a wonderful way to win a debate but a horrible way to be a decent person.

[Nikov]

Does this attack show or not show that the violent rhetoric of mainstream, high profile republicans was irresponsible?

Why address a flawed premise? This attack had nothing to do with republican rhetoric. Thus it does not show anything about the responsibility of that rhetoric. Yes, I'll nitpick instead of take part of the 'larger argument'. Because this particular little point, that the whole discussion is flawed, makes the larger argument nothing but fairy-tales and wishful thinking by people who really really really wish they could have a way to use a tragic event to make a political point

That is a horrible way to win a debate, Mainiac, because all I can do is defend the lie you've presented or be told to 'shut up' for 'derailing into technicality'. Now do you want to provide some evidence he actually was influenced by the rhetoric, or can we rebuild this discussion with the rotten parts cut away?

[Aqizzar]

And, once again, if you were any kind of honest with yourself, and less concerned with sticking to your principles (defending Republicans at all cost, or pissing people off by taking the ridiculous side of the argument, I haven't figured out which yet), you'd understand that whether Loughner was actually influenced by anyone's stump speeches is irrelevant.

Sharon Angle talked at length about ammunition shortages, and praised people for what she imagined was stockpiling for "Second Amendment Remedies" to a government they didn't like.  Loughner never mentions Angle or had any sign of listening to stuff like that parroted by rightwing talking heads.  That is irrelevant to that fact that what he did, shooting a Congresswoman he didn't like, is exactly what that kind of lunacy is talking about.  And now all those same talking heads are doing pirouettes to prove their empty windbag rhetoric, designed to get people who already listen to them angry enough to vote, wasn't responsible for Loughner's attack.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is, this is what that kind of talk looks like when it actually happens.

It says a lot that you refuse to criticize that, and change the subject at every opportunity.  Mostly by throwing a big hissy fit over any suggestion of such influence and saying he shouldn't be linked to anyone, while every other post coming up with increasingly thin attempts to prove he was a "liberal" (because no conservative has ever done drugs or something).

[Nikov]

It's 2:03 AM and I'm trying to break this down so let me paraphrase.

And, once again, if you were any kind of honest with yourself, and less concerned with sticking to your principles (defending Republicans at all cost, or pissing people off by taking the ridiculous side of the argument, I haven't figured out which yet), you'd understand that whether Loughner was actually influenced by anyone's stump speeches is irrelevant.

Somewhere in this string of insults you're saying something, but I can't see through the haze of cordite. Something about if I didn't lie to myself, and weren't such a Republican, and being a Republican wasn't so ridiculous, I'd realize this discussion was much to do about nothing. We might be agreeing if it weren't for the next paragraph.

Sharon Angle talked at length about ammunition shortages, and praised people for what she imagined was stockpiling for "Second Amendment Remedies" to a government they didn't like.  Loughner never mentions Angle or had any sign of listening to stuff like that parroted by rightwing talking heads.  That is irrelevant to that fact that what he did, shooting a Congresswoman he didn't like, is exactly what that kind of lunacy is talking about.  And now all those same talking heads are doing pirouettes to prove their empty windbag rhetoric, designed to get people who already listen to them angry enough to vote, wasn't responsible for Loughner's attack.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is, this is what that kind of talk looks like when it actually happens.

So this is what it looks like when an assassination happens and this thread about the shooting isn't actually about the facts of the shooting but how Republican rhetoric is evil and will cause assassinations? But it is being demonstrated that rhetoric didn't cause this shooting. So this thread isn't about the shooting but about the imaginary link between the shooting and rhetoric that has since been disproven and rather than return to discussing things related to the shooting this is now the "I Hate Sarah Palin" thread?

It says a lot that you refuse to criticize that, and change the subject at every opportunity.  Mostly by throwing a big hissy fit over any suggestion of such influence and saying he shouldn't be linked to anyone, while every other post coming up with increasingly thin attempts to prove he was a "liberal" (because no conservative has ever done drugs or something).

I thought turning other people's logic back on them was fair play when disproving it. My bad.

I just don't undestand why we're not discussing the subject of the thread instead of everyone's personal vendetta against conservatives. I mean, even gun control laws have far more to do with the shooting than what programs are on the radio.

[Toady One]

I'd appreciate it if people would modulate their tone a bit.  Telling people to shut up or calling them liars is not a useful part of this discussion.

[G-Flex]

Why address a flawed premise? This attack had nothing to do with republican rhetoric. Thus it does not show anything about the responsibility of that rhetoric.

This is flawed logic in itself. I already described why, but I'll do it again.

This man engaged in political violence. Certain political groups lately have used talk and insinuations of political violence lightly, for the purposes of short-sighted politics. Shouldn't seeing an example of actual, real-world political violence and assassination remind us and show us very directly how irresponsible it is to take such a subject lightly, and to subvert it for the purpose of fearmongering and riling up the polls?

Someone just shot a bunch of people, and attempted a political assassination. Isn't that the perfect scenario to illustrate how terrible it is to use such a subject (and insinuate that such methods might be a good idea) the way you'd use a campaign ad?

[Phmcw]

How does those liberals dare complain about the third death among them in a few year.
If they have been proper pistols packing Americans, they wouldn't have a scratch, as everyone know that guns magically protect you from other guns.
The calls for assassination? The threat of bloody revolt? How do you dare recuperating those good natured sign of healthy antagonism for your filthy liberal agenda.
Anyway, you know the solution? MOAR GUNS!!!!!

[Eugenitor]

Kids have a faster reaction time than adults, if little Christine had been carrying a .38 we'd be having a much different conversation.

[Ochita]

Kids have a faster reaction time than adults, if little Christine had been carrying a .38 we'd be having a much different conversation.

Yes, mainly how does a girl get to carry a loaded gun and how can she shoot so well.

[Leafsnail]

Or how she shot her friend in a playground argument...

[Duke 2.0]

Or how she shot her friend in a playground argument...

It's alright, her friend had a gun too.