Print

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

Jodie Foster is not responsible for him shooting Reagan.

11 (47.8%)

Jodie Foster is responsible for him shooting Reagan.

12 (52.2%)

Total Members Voted: 23

[Nikov]

... and thus speculating as to his political affiliations in an attempt to paint one party as responsible for his actions is entirely a cynical exercise in exploiting tradgedy for a fallacious rhetorical argument. There was no more influence upon his man and Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin than upon John Hinckley Jr. by Jodie Foster.

To support the notion he is insane, here is a link to his Youtube manifestos on mind control.

Can we please stop taking cheap shots now?

[Cthulhu]

John Hinckley Junior made Jared kill Ann Counter and her cousin John Hinckley Junior.

I saw it on the news.

[Phmcw]

Even if they aren't part of a political group, insane people can still be affected by that group's messages.
When you put crosshairs on the name of someone, and that person gets shot, expect to be in trouble.
May I remind you of the reason you gave me that Americans have a right to guns?
Yup, so you can eventually revolt! He did.

[Nikov]

Insane poeple can still be affected by the discourse of other.
When you put cross-head on the name of someone, and that person get shot, expect to be in trouble.
May I remind you the reason you gave me for letting you your gun?
Yup, so you can eventually revolt! He did.

Do you allow the United States Government to control your grammar, listener?

[Zrk2]

The guy was over the moon. But, that is the purpose for the right to bear arms; so that when the government fails to represent the people, the people will be able to remove the government. Thomas Jefferson said so.

[Phmcw]

Send me a pm, if possible explaining the errors. As you know, English isn't my first language.

[Servant Corps]

... and thus speculating as to his political affiliations in an attempt to paint one party as responsible for his actions is entirely a cynical exercise in exploiting tradgedy for a fallacious rhetorical argument.

Not exactly. Even if the attack is a Lone Wolf, it still benefits a certain political alignment or faction and thus it's right to speculate on his political affiliations and paint one party responsible. There is no reason to give those that benefit from Jared's actions a "free pass" per se.

EDIT: For example, in a class I took about environmental politics, I have learnt that one ELF agent said that he has committed terrorism to convince polluters to negotiate with 'moderate environmentalists' because the polluters would become afraid of the ELF's actions and want to isolate them by working with moderates. In this case, the 'moderate environmentalists' likely don't like the 'help' of the ELF (or even know about how the ELF is 'helping' them),  but that does not mean we can merely denounce this agent for being "insane" if he is indeed helping out a certain political cause.

[Zrk2]

It's a reference to the video he linked. I think.

If they didn't cause the actions, then why are they responsible?

[Nikov]

... and thus speculating as to his political affiliations in an attempt to paint one party as responsible for his actions is entirely a cynical exercise in exploiting tradgedy for a fallacious rhetorical argument.

Not exactly. Even if the attack is a Lone Wolf, it still benefits a certain political alignment or faction and thus it's right to speculate on his political affiliations and paint one party responsible. There is no reason to give those that benefit from Jared's actions a "free pass" per se.

You're right, it does benefit the left and its right to speculate and paint the right responsible. I agree there is no reason to give the left a free pass.

The right does not gain anything from an act of senseless violence. The country as a whole suffers. Only people trying to work this rampage to their advantage are gaining anything from it, and they should not be allowed to do it.

[Leafsnail]

I wouldn't really blame anyone for this.

But I would call it a wake up call to stop using such violent rhetoric.  I mean, Sarah Palin's already stopped with the crosshairs.

[Nikov]

I agree we must return to civility and not lay blame.

Even subtly at the end of our posts. 

[Phmcw]

You just don't want to take your responsibilities.
The pro gun movement is responsible for giving him a gun, and those who called for violent actions are responsible for his action.
You can struggle all you like, but it's way too clear.
What did you think would happen if you give the right to own a gun to everyone and practically call for the murder of your political opponent? Fluffy bunnies?
 
By the way, pro gun movement has contaminated American left these day. Even the victim was pro gun. I don't know about the six poeple killed.

But please go ahead, call that tragedy a "necessary loss" and a "rare occurrence". I know this won't make you renounce your beloved guns.
The six year old killing a classmate didn't make you renounce to them, the ten year old kid killing his father didn't, the columbine slaughter didn't, the huge body count in America didn't. I don't understand you.

I know you want the best for your country, I know you think those firearm make you safe, I just can't understand why you think that.

Last thing, those condemned aren't the right, or even the pro gun movement, as being pro gun is something far too common. It's just violent rhetoric. There is a huge gap between saying someone is an awful politician, dishonest or even corrupt, and not at all subtlety making reference to gunning him down in your discourses. 

[Leafsnail]

I agree we must return to civility and not lay blame.

Even subtly at the end of our posts. 

An event doesn't have to be someone's fault for them to learn from it.  In this case, that actually, perhaps putting crosshairs on people's heads isn't a great idea.

[Phmcw]

... yes, after all nothing prove that he was influenced : being in a white supremacist movement would provide all the violent invective needed, or he could have done it anyway. But this kind of rhetorics is still a very bad idea and need to stop.

[Bouchart]

His political views were a bunch of unfocused ramblings.  I've heard all sorts of fringe discourse, on some fringe sites, but nobody ever talked about grammar as a way of oppression.

But there was his talk about the use of fiat money versus gold or commodity backed currency.  That just seems too convenient given the heavy criticism of fiscal and monetary policy.  So I think this guy is a plant an agent of the CIA or Powers That Be.