Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The most up to date news on this.

She si still fighting, according to Washington Post

This lady really was just doing her job.

And it's a really sad freaking commentary when within the first few minutes/posts, someone has to chime in with "it was a right wing nut job." Maybe it was. Maybe it was a left wing nut job. Maybe it wes a nutjob with no particular political views. Maybe it was, an independant political nutter. For fuck's sake, you have no idea what happened, and there are other things than spewing your false dichotomy, left vs right BULLSHIT.

Indeed. This harkens back to the whole blaming "right wing militias and the coming "fun" of a very disgruntled and murderous right wing and THEIR solutions" shortly after Gwatney was killed in Arkansas.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3297857#3297857

It's been eleven days since the right wing hate rhetoric was blamed for this incident.

I'm wondering if anybody has any information or reports indicating that right-wing rhetoric was a proximate cause in this. Actually, does anybody have any information showing any link whatsoever between any right-wing rhetoric and this incident?

If there's any fact out there, I'd like to see it.

If there's any rumor out there, I'd like to see it.

Or is this going to be another example of the incidents we see on both sides of wicked rhetoric against wicked rhetoric - again, like we saw with the Gwatney killing?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Actually, does anybody have any information showing any link whatsoever between
>any right-wing rhetoric and this incident?

>If there's any rumor out there, I'd like to see it.

Well, a well-known political figure recently claimed that violent rhetoric "serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." So clearly right wing politicians feel that there's a link between rhetoric and violence.

[Kennedy 0]

I think he specifically asked about right-wing rhetoric and this incident. Got anything on that?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think he specifically asked about right-wing rhetoric and this incident. Got anything on that?

Correct. I specifically cited this incident. There was a lot of blame being put on the right wing and thus far, I've got nothing factual.

Anything linking this incident, Bill? I note - I don't believe you are one of those who blamed Palin or anybody other than the shooter in this. But there were plenty of others, including national figures.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>I think he specifically asked about right-wing rhetoric and this incident.

Well, the claim "left wing rhetoric incites hatred and violence but right wing rhetoric is harmless" is a bit of a tough sell.

Rhetoric alone is insufficient to force anyone to do anything. It does, however, create an atmosphere in which such acts are more acceptable to some people. In this case, Sarah Palin put crosshairs on a candidate's district, and encouraged people to "reload." Giffords herself warned Palin that such rhetoric could lead to violence. Sadly violence did occur, and was directed against one of the people warning Palin against such rhetoric.

And yes, both sides are doing it, and both sides should cut it out.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Well, the claim "left wing rhetoric incites hatred and violence but right wing rhetoric is harmless" is a bit of a tough sell.

It's why I'm not selling that bill of goods. I specifically mentioned that both sides do it, but in this incident a larger and powerful group of one side specifically blamed the other side for causing it.

Quote

Rhetoric alone is insufficient to force anyone to do anything. It does, however, create an atmosphere in which such acts are more acceptable to some people. In this case, Sarah Palin put crosshairs on a candidate's district, and encouraged people to "reload." Giffords herself warned Palin that such rhetoric could lead to violence. Sadly violence did occur, and was directed against one of the people warning Palin against such rhetoric.

Ah! But here's what I'm getting at. "Rhetoric could lead to violence. Violence occurred. Therefore, rhetoric caused the violence."

Is that is what you are stating occurred in this incident? You find there to be a causal link between the rhetoric and this incident on this basis?

Quote

And yes, both sides are doing it, and both sides should cut it out.

On this we agree. Nevertheless, I do not believe that a good way of discouraging hateful rhetoric is with other hateful rhetoric.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>I specifically mentioned that both sides do it, but in this incident a larger and
>powerful group of one side specifically blamed the other side for causing it.

Both sides actually. "Liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard" - from right here in this thread.

>You find there to be a causal link between the rhetoric and this incident on
>this basis?

No. Like I said, rhetoric alone is insufficient to force anyone to do anything. It can contribute to that, though.

Imagine you have a neighbor whose wife was killed one night, and you spend lots of time telling them things like "often in these cases it's the mailman. Here's an example. Here's another one. Mailmen are evil. They have no conscience. Do you care about finding your wife's killer?"

If he then shoots the mailman, did you cause him to do that? No. Did you contribute to it? Yes.

>Nevertheless, I do not believe that a good way of discouraging hateful rhetoric is
>with other hateful rhetoric.

Agreed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If he then shoots the mailman, did you cause him to do that? No.

Did you contribute to it? No.

nope - he's the one that shot, and he's the one that chose it

ok..that's tongue in cheek, he did contribute or encourage (but he's still 0% responsible for that death), but, do you give that example as a justification for government to control speech? or is it just to add another in a long list of things for people to be judgmental of others for - now it's their words.

((yes, I do have a hard time with 'accessory to the crime' laws - again, it's an indirect set of laws that don't address the real action - it's lazy legislation))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>ok..that's tongue in cheek, he did contribute or encourage (but he's still 0%
>responsible for that death),

Agreed.

>but, do you give that example as a justification for government to control
>speech? or is it just to add another in a long list of things for people to be
>judgmental of others for - now it's their words.

Neither one. But I have no doubt that if you knew that guy, you'd say something like "might want to cut that out." Not because you hated the First Amendment, or wanted to be judgmental, but because you know how that kind of language might affect someone who isn't in the best frame of mind.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Imagine you have a neighbor whose wife was killed one night, and you spend lots of time telling them things like "often in these cases it's the mailman. Here's an example. Here's another one. Mailmen are evil. They have no conscience. Do you care about finding your wife's killer?"

If he then shoots the mailman, did you cause him to do that? No. Did you contribute to it? Yes.

Then one must ask where the blame goes, as well. For then the same rationale is applied. "Mailmen are evil. They have no conscience. Here are examples of conscienceless evil that mailmen have done. Had mailmen not done evil, then a mailman would not have been blamed. Therefore, mailmen are to blame."

Did mailmen cause it? No. Did mailmen's actions contribute to it? Yes.

The causal connection is far too speculative and subjective.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

because you know how that kind of language might affect someone who isn't in the best frame of mind.

True. Who wants to change the guy's sights to himself or herself? Who wants to call the police if a guy is acting dangerous? IT might not only hurt his feelings but it might destroy a friendship.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Neither one. But I have no doubt that if you knew that guy, you'd say something like "might want to cut that out." Not because you hated the First Amendment, or wanted to be judgmental, but because you know how that kind of language might affect someone who isn't in the best frame of mind.

I'm good with that - personal responsibility combined with us 'choosing' (or not) to look out for each other without the government dictating how we do that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>Then one must ask where the blame goes, as well.

In theory? Perhaps.

In practice? I know you to be a reasonable person, and I know that if it were a neighbor of yours, you'd tell him to cut it out - and you would not tell the mailman the same thing.

[DanG 1]

I think that's a dangerous line you're drawing. There needs to be some limit to speech that incites violence, is related to conspiracy to commit crimes, or is commercially fraudulent.

"You should go bash John and Harry in the head tonight. Here's a map to where they live." Is the guy with the bloddy baseball bat the only one that contributed, or is the map drawer also partly to blame?

"Buy my product, it will not harm you in any way." If the product is rat poison and it is being sold as sugar, would you argue that the guy who put it in his coffee made the decision to eat it, and anything anyone else said did not contribute?

We can't say that there is no such thing as illegal speech.

That being said, Sarah Palin's camp putting crosshairs (yes, they were crosshairs) on a map did not lead Loughner to shoot Giffords.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

That being said, Sarah Palin's camp putting crosshairs (yes, they were crosshairs) on a map did not lead Loughner to shoot Giffords.

[billvon 2,400]

>>That being said, Sarah Palin's camp putting crosshairs (yes, they were crosshairs)
>>on a map did not lead Loughner to shoot Giffords.

>Correct

Uh oh. Looks like you've become a lying liberal! The official position is that they were "surveyor's marks" - and people who label them "crosshairs" are all lying liberals trying to profit from a violent crime.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>That being said, Sarah Palin's camp putting crosshairs (yes, they were crosshairs)
>>on a map did not lead Loughner to shoot Giffords.

>Correct

Uh oh. Looks like you've become a lying liberal! The official position is that they were "surveyor's marks" - and people who label them "crosshairs" are all lying liberals trying to profit from a violent crime.

Maybe

If I had typed that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

But Krugman and others are saying it did

Well, then they would be wrong. It is also wrong, however, to claim that only "The Left" makes bullshit, inflammatory statements like that, or that when "The Right" makes bullshit, inflammatory statements, they are only doing it because "The Left" did it first.

In order to figure out who did it first, we'd first have to determine how Cain voted.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

But Krugman and others are saying it did

Well, then they would be wrong. It is also wrong, however, to claim that only "The Left" makes bullshit, inflammatory statements like that, or that when "The Right" makes bullshit, inflammatory statements, they are only doing it because "The Left" did it first.

In order to figure out who did it first, we'd first have to determine how Cain voted.

The tactic is still contiuing today by the left

For the sake of this thread, the topic of the AZ shooting is all I am commenting about

I dont care who did it first
It does not matter

But those that are complaining the loudest about cross hairs and the like are the ones continuing the tactic and the lie today

The blame (as you stated) belongs on one mans shoulders, the one who pulled the trigger period

He was a nut

Being a nut does not make him a lib or a conservative, it makes him a murder and he should be treated a such

Krugman needs to STFU and we need to see his like kind call him on his bs

But that will not happen

there is an agenda to fullfill I guess

Civil discourse be damned

Lies and the ends justify the means is all that counts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think that's a dangerous line you're drawing. There needs to be some limit to speech that incites violence, is related to conspiracy to commit crimes, or is commercially fraudulent.

I have no issue with that either. My position is that when we draw this INCREDIBLY SUBJECTIVE legal line, that error in the direction of allowing speech and trusting individuals.

Are you saying that we need to error to the side of less responsibility and more authority?

Or is it just perception that we're not EXACTLY drawing the line in the exact same place?



You can make a ton of examples that are completely over to one side (and I can make a ton of examples that are completely on the other side) and then we can argue against the false propositions that we disagree with each other - but that's nuts. You're wasting my time with that tactic, and your own time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,623]

Can you PROVE that Hitler's rhetoric led to persecution of the Jews in Europe?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There needs to be some limit to speech that incites violence, is related to conspiracy to commit crimes, or is commercially fraudulent.

With regard to conspiracy, there are laws against that.

Commercial fraud? Yes - there's even non-commercial fraud.

Speech that incites violence? That's a really tricky area because in whom would violence be triggered? You are suggesting a prior restrain on language - banning words. Censorship.

What will incite violence? How does one define it? The way it's dealt with now is that a person is free to say whatever he or she wants. If such a speech causes problems, then that person is held culpable for the damage he or she caused. It is the dishing out of responsibility for one's words that is the disincentive.

Quote

"You should go bash John and Harry in the head tonight. Here's a map to where they live." Is the guy with the bloddy baseball bat the only one that contributed, or is the map drawer also partly to blame?

That's called conspiracy. And the person whom you are speaking about is liable just the same as the person who bashed with the bat,

Quote

"Buy my product, it will not harm you in any way." If the product is rat poison and it is being sold as sugar, would you argue that the guy who put it in his coffee made the decision to eat it, and anything anyone else said did not contribute?

Nope. You are bringing up examples that prove the rule. In this circumstance, marketing rat poison as sugar is objectively disproveable. There is no argument that the sugar is sugar. But what if somebody was marketing rat poison as a life-saving medical treatment? Would you therefore suggest this speech to be banned?

Quote

That being said, Sarah Palin's camp putting crosshairs (yes, they were crosshairs) on a map did not lead Loughner to shoot Giffords.

Thank you. I agree. Do you think that the knee-jerk reactions blaming the Tea Partiers for the shooting contributed to the victim of the shooting who was arrested and put into psychiatric evaluation for making violent threats? (Which is actually an example of how the system works. Tell a person he's "dead" in a threatening manner and now we've moved on past protected speech to a threat.

And should all persons who blamed the Tea Partiers be subject to penalty for recklessly inciting violence? Reckless in both the possible effect from the inflammatory statements, and that the statements of attribution were made with reckless disregard of the truth? (I won't call it outright fraud because the statements were made before anybody had any idea why the guy snapped. That's why I find it reckless...)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The tactic is still contiuing today by the left

I really don't see it, but my glasses are different colored than yours.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Uh oh. Looks like you've become a lying liberal! The official position is that they were "surveyor's marks" - and people who label them "crosshairs" are all lying liberals trying to profit from a violent crime.

Yep. This is where the Right responded to look even MORE ridiculous....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I realize there are already laws on the books about conspiracy, fraud, inciting violence, etc. In fact, I agree that we should error on the side of allowing speech, including potentially dangerous speech. I was commenting on my perception that remwa believed no speech whatsoever should be disallowed. Apparently my perception was in error.

I deeply apologize, for the children.

- Dan G