Print

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

[Duke 2.0]

So, can we declare the Tea Party terrorists yet? Pretty please?

Yeah, let's stop trying to pose connections to known parties here. I hold no love for them, but it's unfair to stick it on them. This guy is clearly nuttier than them and would be kicked out for this crap. It's jabs like this that are making me angrier than the actual event.

 I await hearing more news on the event that isn't caught in the rush of the moment. There is gonna be a solid week of confusion and jabs like this, so I don't look forward to all the mixups that will happen.

[Phmcw]

I don't exactly understand the surprise at the fact that he is crazy. He shot in a crowd, he is crazy.
I would be surprised if he had a calm, coherent rhetoric.

The guys exciting the crowd are still responsible though.

EDIT: indeed, it's better now

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I don't exactly understand the surprise at the fact that he is crazy. He shot in a crowd, he is crazy.
I would be surprised if he had a calm, coherent rhetoric.

The guys exiting the crowd are still responsible though.

You mean "exciting" the crowd. I can't be the only one who automatically linked the "crowd" in that sentence into the "crowd" from the previous paragraph, and tried to figure out how the hell people leaving a crowd that was being shot into were to blame...

[Tilla]

So, can we declare the Tea Party terrorists yet? Pretty please?

Yeah, let's stop trying to pose connections to known parties here. I hold no love for them, but it's unfair to stick it on them. This guy is clearly nuttier than them and would be kicked out for this crap. It's jabs like this that are making me angrier than the actual event.

 I await hearing more news on the event that isn't caught in the rush of the moment. There is gonna be a solid week of confusion and jabs like this, so I don't look forward to all the mixups that will happen.

The Tea Party actively and publicly stated that they would be seeking 'Second Amendment Remedies'. It is not hard to make the connection to me.

[G-Flex]

So, can we declare the Tea Party terrorists yet? Pretty please?

Yeah, let's stop trying to pose connections to known parties here. I hold no love for them, but it's unfair to stick it on them. This guy is clearly nuttier than them and would be kicked out for this crap. It's jabs like this that are making me angrier than the actual event.

I wish I could believe this, but the Tea Party movement has been full of revolutionary (and occasionally even violent) imagery and rhetoric from the start, even going back to Ron Paul. I still think it's unfair to immediately blame that movement, but I think it's also unfair to say they don't need their practices questioned here. When you and your members go off on tirades about WATERING THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS, passing off your political opponents as unAmerican socialist fascists (whatever the hell that means), putting up violent imagery (see: Sarah Palin), and jabbering like Glenn Beck about how we're on the verge of destruction all the goddamn time as if the Democrats are the second coming of Hitler himself... well, what do you expect to happen?

The Tea Party has been extremely irresponsible when it comes to their rhetoric and attitude, and when you play the fearmongering game that much, you can't be surprised when you stir up the crazies. "Second Amendment Remedies" indeed. Hell, Glenn Beck's ramblings have been borderline seditious.

[RedKing]

While I agree that irresponsible rhetoric is...well, irresponsible, let me ask this:

Does the whole anti-war movement bear the blame for the unknown attacker who tried to blow up the recruiting station in Times Square a year or two ago? After all, it stands to reason that if they're spouting rhetoric about how bad the war is, and how bad the military (especially recruiters) are, that they're partly to blame if someone slightly unhinged takes that to the next level and attacks recruiters and bases, correct?


Bottom line: Crazy people are crazy. They might get a nudge here and there, but ultimately they bear responsibility for their actions. As much as I loathe the teabaggers, I'm not going to pin this on them unless there's material support (they knew this guy and bought him the gun, for instance)

[inteuniso]

The main suspect is Jared Lee Loughner. I think he's a bit off his rocker; I found his youtube channel. It's him, he mentions District 8, which happens to be the Congressman's district.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4

[Duke 2.0]

 I'm pretty sure our understanding of the 'games cause violence' crap should show the flow in that. If somebody is gonna cause an act of terrorism they are either indoctrinated formally or were unstable from the beginning. If that movement was doing trainings or recruitment for these sorts of things Obama would be all over it in an instant, and while their words are harsh and lunacy the only remaining crowd is the guys who are unstable in the first place. They'll find some political party that words things slightly harshly and use that.

 And wanting to have the freedom to use firearms does not mean the want the freedom to shoot whoever they want or disagree with. To make such a connection seems dubious.

 And again, I don't like these groups. But the one thing that they do which pisses me off is use events out of context and for a completely different meaning, like Glenn Beck saying Martin Luther King would support some bullshit or something. To use an event like this to argue againsted something that it has a dubious connection to would be doing the same thing.

[G-Flex]

Does the whole anti-war movement bear the blame for the unknown attacker who tried to blow up the recruiting station in Times Square a year or two ago? After all, it stands to reason that if they're spouting rhetoric about how bad the war is, and how bad the military (especially recruiters) are, that they're partly to blame if someone slightly unhinged takes that to the next level and attacks recruiters and bases, correct?

Was the anti-war movement encouraging violent action? If not, there's your difference. There's a big difference between "this group is bad" and "this group is bad, we need a revolution to stop it, so let's TAKE AIM *wink wink* and use THE SECOND AMENDMENT *wink wink* if necessary".

Bottom line: Crazy people are crazy. They might get a nudge here and there, but ultimately they bear responsibility for their actions. As much as I loathe the teabaggers, I'm not going to pin this on them unless there's material support (they knew this guy and bought him the gun, for instance)

I don't know if I'd "pin it on them", but their violent and revolutionary rhetoric certainly plays a role, especially when it's so goddamn disingenuous.

[Leafsnail]

Does the whole anti-war movement bear the blame for the unknown attacker who tried to blow up the recruiting station in Times Square a year or two ago? After all, it stands to reason that if they're spouting rhetoric about how bad the war is, and how bad the military (especially recruiters) are, that they're partly to blame if someone slightly unhinged takes that to the next level and attacks recruiters and bases, correct?

If they said "We should shoot people to stop the army"?

Yes.

[Phmcw]

Does the whole anti-war movement bear the blame for the unknown attacker who tried to blow up the recruiting station in Times Square a year or two ago? After all, it stands to reason that if they're spouting rhetoric about how bad the war is, and how bad the military (especially recruiters) are, that they're partly to blame if someone slightly unhinged takes that to the next level and attacks recruiters and bases, correct?

I they were saying something alone the line "a solution would be to bomb the recruitment office", then yes, they are. Else no, they aren't.

[Bouchart]

I wonder how the political class will retaliate against the ordinary citizen now.

Maybe two TSA officers on every street corner to grope everyone to see that nothing like this happens again.

[Impending Doom]

I'm just going to express my condolences, because I'm above using the deaths of, among others, a federal judge and a child as ammunition to attack my political opponents.

[Aqizzar]

U.S. District Judge John Roll was among those dead.  Official death count is now at least two and counting.

YouTube videos are now being replayed on TV.  The newsmen are pretty fucking baffled too.

Perhaps the thread title should be changed now, since Giffords herself isn't dead.

[Phmcw]

I'm just going to express my condolences, because I'm above using the deaths of, among others, a federal judge and a child as ammunition to attack my political opponents.

Likewise ,I'm just going to express my condolences to the victims of the flood, because I'm above using the death of, among other, poeple that live near the river as an ammunition to push for the construction of a canal.
 
Two thing where criticized : poorly disguised call to murder and omnipresence of good quality weapon. While the former is subject to debate, objecting the first point or rejecting it as a political argument is ridiculous.
But Palin's condolence are going to be fun.  By fun I mean make me puke.