US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) shot [Archive]

WashingtonBoy

01-08-2011, 11:36 AM

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was killed after being shot in the head in Tucson while holding a public event, the National Public Radio reported Saturday.

A gunman ran up to Giffords outside a Safeway and started firing, NPR reported. The Democrat was holding a constituent meeting at the grocery store.

Fox News said three of her staff members were also shot. Other reports said as many as 12 other people, including members of her staff, were hurt.

Giffords was rushed to University Medical Center in Tucson.

NPR reported the suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/08/giffords-arizona-shooting.html#ixzz1ATSeZnVC

Damn.

Horserider

01-08-2011, 11:38 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-giffords-20110109,0,2644556.story

U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona died after being shot in the head while meeting constituents at a grocery store in Tucson, NPR reported on Saturday.

Giffords, a 40-year-old Democrat in her third term in Congress, was shot point blank by an unidentified gunman who fired indiscriminately into the crowd, NPR and other U.S. media said.

About a dozen others at the meeting were shot, and the gunman was wrestled to the ground and taken into custody, Fox said, citing an eyewitness.

Giffords was airlifted to a hospital after the shooting.

Reelected in the Nov. 2 election, Giffords focused on immigration reform, military issues, stem-cell research and alternative energy while serving in Congress. Giffords' husband was U.S. astronaut Mark Kelly.

natisha

01-08-2011, 11:41 AM

I just heard this. How terrible. This was no random act. This will change public events by politicians.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-08-2011, 11:42 AM

Yah. Just Damn. Reports are saying that the perp was tackled and is in custody. He's described as being in his "late teens or early 20's". That's odd, all by itself. Not sure what to make of all this, yet.

WashingtonBay

01-08-2011, 11:47 AM

Bad event... a lot of people shot.

There's a little bit of internet buzz that it's possible she's not dead.

Fog of breaking news...

WashingtonBay

01-08-2011, 11:47 AM

Yeah - now Fox is saying she's alive and in surgery. Of course, could still be very bad, if she was shot in the head as they say.

natisha

01-08-2011, 11:48 AM

Now they say she is alive but critical? Usually they get it wrong the other way around.

Horserider

01-08-2011, 11:49 AM

Apparently a hospital spokesperson said she's alive and in surgery. Lots of conflicting reports.

Buckpoco

01-08-2011, 12:23 PM

What a horror...let's pray for this woman.

mare

01-08-2011, 12:51 PM

So sad. Prayer for all the victims.

Tiz

01-08-2011, 01:08 PM

Prayers for all.

CaddoCinnamon

01-08-2011, 01:08 PM

Prayers for all involved.

Buckpoco

01-08-2011, 01:32 PM

Whatever statement comes out about who the shooter is, I'm not sure I'll believe it anyway...too much is going on in this country, bad stuff.

WashingtonBay

01-08-2011, 01:44 PM

Horserider

01-08-2011, 01:55 PM

Here's one story on the shooter anyway. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/01/exclusive-giffords-alleged-shooter-may.html

Fork

01-08-2011, 02:15 PM

My thoughts are with the families of the victims. This is horrible.

Remali

01-08-2011, 04:33 PM

Watched the update on the National News.... five people killed.

Tiz

01-08-2011, 05:10 PM

I'm hearing there is more than one killer.

gaited07

01-09-2011, 05:12 AM

We may not like a lot of politicians or certain parties but I don't see how going into a political event and shooting innocent people is the way to make a rational difference in a political disasters that we have.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
I just don't understand shooting a 9 yr old little girl, what's the matter with people?!!!

natisha

01-09-2011, 01:15 PM

I guess the only good news is that the bullet went through the left temple & out the forehead on the same side. While that is bad enough maybe it didn't damage too much.

This guy had it planned. I hope they don't try to just say he is mentally disturbed so he can go to a nice hospital for 'treatment'. He needs prison-forever.

Remali

01-09-2011, 02:37 PM

Yup, like Natisha said, sounds like this guy had it all planned out.... and, now six people are dead....
Apparently he had tried to enlist in the Army in 2008, but had been rejected.... among other things.... read more here about it....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/arizona.shooting.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1

Country Girl 43

01-10-2011, 12:46 PM

You all know I am not into politics.... Heck I don't even know who Gifford is. But what really pissed me off the first few days of the reports here locally, where it happened.... was everything was about Gifford and nothing mentioned about the other innocent victims. :mad:

A human life is a human life regardless of who they are!! And the loss of an innocent life is tragic. The little girl was born on 9/11 and also lost her life on a tragic day. :( I am sorry this Gifford person was shot, but there were others that lost their lives in all this.

I will say, that as of today, they are reporting more about the other victims, but I am still pissed off that Gifford is the main focus. :(

OK... Vent over, I will go back into my own little "happy bubble" :crazy:

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 01:00 PM

Well, you do have to cut them some slack on that, there isn't as much known about the non-public figures, even their names could not be discussed until families were notified and the information was made public. It's hard to report on people no one knows anything about, including the media. Public figures have all kinds of reportable information instantly available on the web. Most private people don't until someone in their own family comes forward and wants to share info.

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 01:04 PM

It's apparently a punk kid. Posted really strange youtube videos.... Political forums are currently cherry-picking and spinning what they're finding to fit who they'd like it to be.

That part is at least a little amusing...

Repeating this because it's still a little amusing. Haven't said much because I've just been browsing other talk on the internet about this whole thing.

Speculation, once repeated a hundred times on a forum, becomes fact - and can be verified by the earlier speculation.

It's a remarkable phenomenon to witness...

Remali

01-10-2011, 02:02 PM

I'm feeling the same as Country Girl.... there were so many people who lost their lives, yet they are focusing on one or two of them mainly, because they were in politics, typical reporting though..... The same thing drives me nuts when the media uses the label "cop killer" if a police officer gets killed, a life is a life, no matter what it is you do for a living. Guess we can blame the media for much of that....

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-10-2011, 03:31 PM

[...]
A human life is a human life regardless of who they are!! And the loss of an innocent life is tragic. The little girl was born on 9/11 and also lost her life on a tragic day. :( I am sorry this Gifford person was shot, but there were others that lost their lives in all this.
[...]

We like to say that one human life is the same as another human life... but it isn't really true, at least for each of us personally. We all have varying social and emotional connections to other people. We will always tend to care more about people we know than people we don't know. It's not wrong-- it's just human nature.

With Giffords, it's simply true that more people knew her due to her position, so more people are interested and care. It's not so much that she gets special coverage because she's a legislator. She gets special coverage because more people are interested, because they know her, and they don't necessarily know the others. If any of us find out that someone we know was on a flight that has crashed and many have died... if we get a call from our friend that they're OK, we're going to react with tremendous relief and joy. More than finding out that some other Joe Schmoe survived. Again-- it's not wrong. It's just part of being human.

It's the same for anyone with some amount of "celebrity" whether they're in government, or sports, or hollywood or whatever. The effect of that fame is that more people feel like they have a connection to them, whether they know them personally or not. I wouldn't say it means in any way that their life actually had a higher value than the others. Not really. It just means that more people knew who they are and take note of their passing.

I think.

:)

Tiz

01-10-2011, 03:38 PM

Yes, I think you're right, though I do wish as the news updates the Representative's condition, they would remember to let us know how the other anonymous people are doing too. We care about them, and their families, known or not.

Tiz

01-10-2011, 03:41 PM

http://www.kvia.com/news/26436120/detail.html

Why does our system think that someone like this should be housed and fed for their whole life?

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 04:06 PM

Not sure what you mean Tiz... I don't think it's been ruled out that he'll receive the death penalty. I've heard we should expect he probably will.

Is that what you mean? Has there been some statement?

Tiz

01-10-2011, 04:19 PM

I don't think our system considers the death penalty for certifiable mentally ill people. I mean I think it should.

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 04:33 PM

The truly mentally ill? Probably not ethical to zap them. But they have to be truly so out of it, they don't know where they are or what they're doing, or right from wrong.

This guy doesn't qualify, IMHO. (But I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night)

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-10-2011, 04:34 PM

Well, having taken a couple of days without commenting, I'll make some observations about this case:

Lots of fast-breaking news stories get muddled in the "fog of war" of the moment, and it's understandable most of the time. Details are hard to nail down. I get that. But this story is one for the recordbooks. I don't recall any event that was reported so wrong, for as long, and by as many sources as this one. It's a couple of days later now and still there are "facts" being de-bunked from the previous reports. Every news outlet seemed in a race with the others to get it wrong first, and it hasn't stopped yet.

It's time for the Pima County Sherriff to retire. Long past time, it appears. Anybody who would jump so quickly, in the absence of any facts, to score personal political points from a tragic event like this-- can no longer be trusted in a law enforcement role. The bodies weren't even cold yet, and there he was Saturday morning on CNN naming the Republican party, the Tea party and Sarah Palin as directly responsible for this act. We already know he places politics above enforcement of the law. He is the one sheriff in AZ that's been refusing to enforce the state's new immigration law. He's let his extreme left-wing views get in the way of his willingness to enforce the law, his ability to stay impartial. He must absolutely not be allowed to have any involvement in the investigation whatsoever. He cannot be trusted not to tamper with evidence.

We are owed an apology from the Media for their fawning coverage of Major Hassan and his shooting day. Remember how the first things out of everybody's mouth was that we should not "jump to any conclusions"? God forbid we should come to any realizations about the 7th century cult he got his instructions from.

My, my... how things change.

Horserider

01-10-2011, 04:35 PM

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-10-2011, 04:45 PM

I'm aware of the arguments, and I'm just not all that concerned about the mental capacity as I am the risk they present to society. Someone who truly cannot distinguish between right and wrong shouldn't just be possible to execute, but they ought to be at the head of the line. I would have an exception for people with a diagnosable and treatable physiological problem. But if they can't be fixed, they don't get to play anymore.

Remali

01-10-2011, 04:46 PM

gabhainn

01-10-2011, 04:49 PM

We talked about that in AP Psych today. It's tricky because typically in cases like this the shooter has no perception of right and wrong, .
thats Crap, with a capital C, you dont take 30 rds of ammo and a pistol to a public event and start busting caps without knowing its at the very least out of the ordinary. I spent almost 10 yrs as a correctional officer, and a fair bit of that was working psych wings, and I have seen my share of these dirtbags who were "crazy", and "didnt know right from wrong" living the life of riley on the taxpayers dime, all the while perfectly cognizant of the day to day world. (we also had some that were VFN)......Kevin

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 04:58 PM

The Pima County Sheriff had some very thought-provoking and very good points to ponder IMO.....
And, FYI, he did not state that Palin or the Tea Party or any other party were entirely to blame, rather the entire
political environment as a whole.

There isn't any evidence this guy ever heard of Palin or the Tea Party, let alone agreed or even disagreed with them, let alone was 'inspired' to act by them. There isn't one word found or disclosed that indicates he's ever uttered the name of any 'right wing' personality. In fact, it's entirely probable this person's gripe with Giffords was far more personal than ideological. But the liberal blogosphere hasn't let that get in the way of calling for the heads of every Republican they can think of.

The sheriff was unprofessional and irresponsible to bring it up as even a thought provoking consideration. He's poisoning the jury pool with ideas that are likely his, not Jared Loughner's.

Tiz

01-10-2011, 05:00 PM

The Pima County Sheriff had some very thought-provoking and very good points to ponder IMO.....
And, FYI, he did not state that Palin or the Tea Party or any other party were entirely to blame, rather the entire
political environment as a whole.

The sheriff is a left wing partisan, who began to politicize this horrendous act before the bodies of the slain were cold. His statements are obscene, as well as false.

You will see left wing media, and left wing politicians, who made statements like the sheriffs, before any facts whatsoever were known about this shooting, pay a huge price in credibility for what they've done. They are disgusting, and seemingly only understand life through the the prism of political gains and losses. Shame on them all.

Tiz

01-10-2011, 05:03 PM

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 05:03 PM

We talked about that in AP Psych today. It's tricky because typically in cases like this the shooter has no perception of right and wrong, and doesn't realize what they're doing. I'm not defending what he did or taking sides (I'm on the fence on this one, I don't know enough about both sides), but that's the main argument against death penalty for the mentally unstable.

I don't think what you're saying is "typical" at all. Those who are that insane usually aren't capable of forming a plan to cause harm either.

This guy is broken, certainly anyone who shoots up a public place is. But that's not the same as not knowing what wrong is.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-10-2011, 05:26 PM

The Pima County Sheriff had some very thought-provoking and very good points to ponder IMO.....
And, FYI, he did not state that Palin or the Tea Party or any other party were entirely to blame, rather the entire
political environment as a whole.

Yes, he did. I sure didn't hear him blaming Pelosi and her brand of vitriol for anything. Putting any of this on politics is just a cop-out-- and more than that-- it's wishful thinking on the part of democrat operators. The "political environment as a whole" didn't have anything to do with this Jared nutburger at all-- and Palin and the tea party that much less. By all his writings and ramblings on youtube and such-- Jared couldn't string two coherent ideas together if they were shaped like donuts.

I think alot of this now may be just the Sheriff covering his butt. Reportedly (FWIW) there were several reports to the Sheriff's office about this Jared being threatening in the past. He was even kicked out of his college for being "dangerous". Perhaps if this Sheriff had done his job, the kid would've been picked up before he killed somebody.

WashingtonBay

01-10-2011, 05:43 PM

And, FYI, he did not state that Palin or the Tea Party or any other party were entirely to blame, rather the entire political environment as a whole...I would argue there's nothing at all wrong with "the entire political environment as a whole". And your use of the word "entirely" in reference to blame is the problem. They aren't responsible at all for this twerp's actions. They wouldn't be if he was a follower of either one. That there's zero evidence he was makes the assertion just even more bizarre.

What he's done is poured gasoline, in the form of a reckless and unsubstantiated accusation, on the very environment he claims to think was too inflammatory before. If you don't believe that, read DU.

Remali

01-10-2011, 05:48 PM

In the case of the shooter being kicked out of college, what was it that they wanted the sheriff to do in that case? I must have missed that, altho I did hear that he was kicked out of college.

Tiz

01-10-2011, 06:00 PM

He scared the crap out of the people he was in school with. His classmates reportedly worried that he would go on a shooting spree there, and reported him to the school.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-10-2011, 06:20 PM

It wasn't just that. Getting kicked out of college isn't illegal, but it was a signal, along with the other compliants that the sheriff's office *did* reportedly get, about this kid being delusional and dangerous. They could have been more attentive. I don't have any confidence that this sherrif is interested in actually enforcing the law. He seems to be much more interested lately in being a political operator.

The problems with this kid, and the threats and stalking of the congresswoman, started over three years ago. Long before Palin or the tea party was around. Politics is just not part of this guy's makeup. Right, left or otherwise. He's from outer space.

One of Jared's lifelong "friends" was interviewed today... the guy that Jared made his last phonecall to Friday night (left a VM). The friend said that Jared was really unstable. He always said lots of nutty things that never made much sense. One time, three or so years ago at a communuty meeting with the congresswoman, he was really angry at an answer that Giffords has given to his question. He stood in line to ask a question and when he finally got up to the mic, his question for his congresswoman was: (IIRC) "How can you explain government when there is no language?".

I kid you not. I may have gotten that quote a little wrong, but it was exactly as nonsensical and obtuse as that. Jared was yelling at his friend afterward saying "can you believe she wouldn't answer my question!" and this friend just said "dude... nobody is going to answer that. Nobody knows what it means..."

This kid is broken. I don't know if it was drug-induced (my current theory) or the result of too much electroshock therapy in a chinese prison. But his connections don't connect anymore. His brain is like one of those old-fashioned telephone operator boards... and somebody just started pulling plugs and plugging them back into the wrong hole.

His wheel is a-turnin' but his hamster has died.

Tiz

01-11-2011, 05:11 AM

In November, Clintonista Mark Penn, said this. How do you respond, left wing?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-penn-says-obama-needs-similar-event-to-oklahoma-city-to-reconnect-with-voters/

natisha

01-11-2011, 01:33 PM

What sober person smiles for a mug shot?

How about this? He was hired to do it by Mark Penn:p
Or this, he's a nut job who wasn't breast fed, has enablers who looked the other way & he finally went off the deep end.
He's not criminally/mentally insane. Sure, he's not right but he knows right from wrong. He was able to plan, execute (literally) & he tried to get away.
To use the not guilty by reason of insanity excuse he should have just stood there after the deed & said, "What?"

Tiz

01-11-2011, 01:38 PM

He won't be found not guilty because he's insane. He'll be deemed incompetent to stand trial, and since he can't put a coherent sentence together, I would agree, and sent to a federal nuthouse.

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 02:23 PM

WashingtonBoy

01-11-2011, 02:43 PM

I just think (and hope) the bar for that is pretty high... or low... depending on the right perspective for the figure of speech to work.

Depends on whether you're pole vaulting or doing the limbo. :cool:

Tiz

01-11-2011, 03:10 PM

Don't know the guy and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I don't think he'll be found incompetent to stand trial. I just think (and hope) the bar for that is pretty high... or low... depending on the right perspective for the figure of speech to work.

He'll likely plead guilty if he can avoid the death penalty though.

You may have a different perspective when you have the time to read, or decipher, his writings.

Did John Hinckley ever go to trial, or was it straight to the nuthouse for him?

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 03:41 PM

Oh I have - I saw the youtubes... I've read his discussions on that conspiracy forum.

It's enough to make me think I was crazy after reading it awhile.

But it takes more than being crazy to not be criminally liable for your actions. It takes more than just being a little strange.

We'll see in time, you and I don't have to decide... We just get to have an opinion. :)

Tiz

01-11-2011, 03:51 PM

Do you know the answer to the John Hinckley question? Emphasis on question.

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 04:09 PM

Yeah - he did go to trial... and his trial changed a lot of law about how insanity defenses are handled.
Pick a link :)

john hinckley insanity defense - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=john+hinckley+insanity+defense&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Since the current charges here are federal... We'd need to know how the federal law reads now, and I don't know off hand.

Tiz

01-11-2011, 04:41 PM

"Due process requires that a defendant be competent to stand trial, which includes capacity to assist counsel and to understand the nature of the proceeding sufficiently to participate in and make decisions about rights afforded to defendants."

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 05:15 PM

We'll find out... if this guy can get serious enough to stand trial or not.

I certainly don't know.

Tiz

01-11-2011, 06:22 PM

And I certainly don't care. Anything that assures that he never sees the light of day again is good enough for me.

I continue to be, increasingly so, APPALLED by the rabid politics being played by the left over this event. There's barely a mention of the victims and their condition, or their families, or their lives previous to this terrible act. I'M SICK OF IT! I want conservatives to just stop, and quit trying to answer all of these absurd, repulsive accusations and just start reporting on what matters. It's enough. If a citizen has any cognitive ability at all, they understand by now what is being done. If they don't, what difference does it make?

Tiz

01-11-2011, 06:25 PM

It's Paul Wellstone's funeral, times a trillion.

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 06:30 PM

Agreed!

Remali

01-11-2011, 06:58 PM

Just the left? lmao..... the left, the right, and everyone in between..... ;)

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 07:07 PM

While I can often accept a 'both sides' point of view if it's fair... I think given that the left is blaming and naming specific people on the right as personally responsible for the actions of this twerp, absent any evidence at all that the twerp ever heard a word outside his own head, yes, the left is the problem here.

And now... they know there's no evidence, but they don't care. "Well, true, we don't know Loughner ever listened to Palin.... but isn't it enough that she's scary to us???" "I mean.... a crazy person could have heard her, and acted on it, right?"

Well yes, a crazy person might have thought killing Reagan would impress Jodie Foster. That's what makes them crazy.

Arrow

01-11-2011, 07:10 PM

Here's some info for you, Tiz--

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/09/us/20110109-arizona-shooting-victims.html?ref=us#/gabriel_zimmerman_30-6/
The feature lets you cycle through all of those who were killed

Relatives of the victims speak here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/11/132836388/emotions-show-as-relatives-speak-of-arizona-shooting-victims-ordeals

Other stories:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10staff.html?scp=2&sq=gabriel%20zimmerman&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10green.html?scp=2&sq=christina%20green&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11schools.html?scp=4&sq=christina%20green&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10judge.html?scp=2&sq=john%20m.%20roll&st=cse
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-phyllis-schneck-20110110,0,6777934.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/dorwan-stoddard-died-saving-wife_n_806813.html
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/01/11/gabe-zimmerman-he-helped-people-for-a-living
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/09/arizona-casualties-zimmerman-stoddard-known-for-helping-others/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-victims-sweethearts_n_806899.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132791145

As for editorials about the event, the New York Times runs columns written by dems, republicans, and independents--men and women of all political opinions. They've done a good job of showing all sides of the story.

Arrow

01-11-2011, 07:18 PM

I think given that the left is blaming and naming specific people on the right as .

Make that SOME on the left, if you please... And some on the right might be of the same opinion. I don't think it's Palin's fault, or even the fault of politics. I do wish that assault weapons were still banned (that ban expired in 2004)--if they were perhaps fewer would have been shot before the guy was tackled. And considering all the things that some accused the Clintons of, including murder, I don't think that Palin is alone in having to weather such storms. Heck, folks accuse the president of not being an American, of being a communist, or a Muslim, or of hating whites, etc.--if Palin wants to be on the national stage, having to put up with this kind of crap just goes along with the job, unfortunately.

WashingtonBay

01-11-2011, 07:22 PM

OK - some on the left :p

I've been reading DU, and I'll accept they go off the rails easily and often. It's just amazing to me how they have manufactured a connection with absolutely nothing to go on!

No idea what the actual media is saying any more... I've tuned out the last day or two.

JackieB

01-11-2011, 07:45 PM

Make that SOME on the left, if you please... And some on the right might be of the same opinion. I don't think it's Palin's fault, or even the fault of politics. I do wish that assault weapons were still banned (that ban expired in 2004)--if they were perhaps fewer would have been shot before the guy was tackled. And considering all the things that some accused the Clintons of, including murder, I don't think that Palin is alone in having to weather such storms. Heck, folks accuse the president of not being an American, of being a communist, or a Muslim, or of hating whites, etc.--if Palin wants to be on the national stage, having to put up with this kind of crap just goes along with the job, unfortunately.

Good points, Arrow.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-11-2011, 08:01 PM

Make that SOME on the left, if you please... And some on the right might be of the same opinion.

LOL. Yeah, it's just a tiny, tiny minority of leftists jumping on the slander train. Yah. And no... nobody on the right has that opinion. Nobody.

I don't think it's Palin's fault, or even the fault of politics.

The disappointment of the left is palpable. They really, really wanted it.

I do wish that assault weapons were still banned (that ban expired in 2004)--if they were perhaps fewer would have been shot before the guy was tackled.

I don't suppose you are familiar with guns at all (obviously) but the so-called "assault weapon ban" never affected the Glock pistol that this Jared bozo used. He used a completely ordinary 9mm Glock pistol. But anyway... The AWB was a huge mistake. I belatedly celebrated the repeal of AWB just after the election of Obama, by going out and buying a really nice Bushmaster AR-15 M-4 and a dozen or so 30 round magazines, and about 2,000 rounds of ammunition (so far). Schweet. :-)

Some AWB trivia: What was the effect on real crime during the 10 year period of the AWB? Answer: No effect. Why? Well... the weapons described in the AWB simply aren't used in crime in any statistically meaningful way. It was just a meaningless and hollow symbolic gesture, like most of the nonsense that Congress does.

And considering all the things that some accused the Clintons of, including murder, I don't think that Palin is alone in having to weather such storms. Heck, folks accuse the president of not being an American, of being a communist, or a Muslim, or of hating whites, etc.--if Palin wants to be on the national stage, having to put up with this kind of crap just goes along with the job, unfortunately.

Well, come on... most of the stuff the Clintons were accused of... they did in fact do. They're as sleazy as politicians come. Nobody in the mainstream actually has a problem with Obama's citizenship, but since you're OK with slander when it comes to Palin, I guess the rest of the accusations against Obama can stand, too. It just comes with the job.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-11-2011, 08:02 PM

Good points, Arrow.

LOL. Welcome back, Jackie!

Arrow

01-11-2011, 08:03 PM

Here's a story about the guy as a textbook paranoid schizophrenic--
http://www.salon.com/news/jared_loughner/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/01/11/jared_loughner_paranoid_schizophrenia_and_why

The guys says schizophrenics aren't usually dangerous--but with the paranoid ones, all bets are off. I also found this to be an interesting statistic:
The only reason we're talking about this today is that he killed six people rather than one person and that one of the people he shot is a congresswoman. These are not uncommon events. People like this man, with likely untreated schizophrenia, are responsible for about 10 percent of the homicides in the United States. That means about 1,600 homicides a year.

Arrow

01-11-2011, 08:05 PM

And no... nobody on the right has that opinion. Nobody.

Why do you say dumb shit like that? Nobody. Nobody in the world. No Republican on the face of the earth thinks that Palin shouldn't use graphics with the crosshairs of a gun. Right, whatever. I could find one, I'm sure, probably wouldn't take me a half hour (heck, I've got a large extended family of Republicans, and not a one of them thinks like you at all...in any way...whatsoever), but I'm not bothering arguing with someone who wouldn't be convinced by any evidence I produced.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-11-2011, 08:41 PM

Why do you say dumb [****] like that? Nobody. Nobody in the world. No Republican on the face of the earth thinks that Palin shouldn't use graphics with the crosshairs of a gun. Right, whatever. [...]

It's called a "metaphor". It's a useful device in the english language, perhaps you've heard of it:

met·a·phor
/ˈmɛthttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌfɔr, -fər/ [met-uh-fawr, -fer]
–noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god).” Compare mixed metaphor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mixed+metaphor), simile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simile) ( def. 1 ) .
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

How ingrained is the use of "target" metaphors in our language? We have "Sales targets" in business meetings. Democrats prefer "targeted" tax cuts. People use colloquiallisms like "take your best shot", or "on target", or "in our sights", or any number of similar uses. There is simply nothing wrong with using a "target" metaphor in those graphics. None. Zero. Nada.

To use this as some sort of device to "get" Palin, is simply absurd. Totally, absolutely, manifestly absurd. People on the left should be embarrassed. This is just stupid.

So here's today's pop-quiz:

A politician puts up a map to "target" certain areas of the country for extra attention during an election.

A liberal comedian puts up a graphic of President Bush with the crosshairs on his head and the caption "Snipers Wanted".

You tell me... which is an incitement to violence?

JackieB

01-11-2011, 09:44 PM

LOL. Welcome back, Jackie!

Thanks. I was in San Francisco last week for work.

And Arrow did make good points in her post.

I doubt investigators will ever find a connection between Loughner's actions and the politicial rhetoric. But I don't think anyone would really appreciate having crosshairs used as a symbol for being removed from his/her job. Rep. Giffords complained about it at the time. So there is a connection in that regard, even if it has nothing to do with the shooter. She said she didn't appreciate it and then ended up a victim of a horrible crime that used a gun as the weapon. Most likely a terrible coincidence, but worthy of discussion because of her concerns. what I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I didn't like it myself.

If there was nothing wrong with that imagery, then Palin should have defended it and left it up. That graphic was pulled within hours of the tragedy and a staff member said they never intended it to be perceived as a gun sight. That seems a bit far-fetched. I don't know anything else that looks like that.

As I've mentioned before, I'm really tired of the unfounded, heated rhetoric. I don't care if it comes from my side or the other. If I ever engage in any of it, please call me out. I'll try to stick to established facts, or opinions that I think most could consider "reasonable". There is a standard for "reasonable". It's not that subjective. I feel like I can apply it pretty well on both sides of the debate.

Arrow, I hope you won't leave this section again.

JackieB

01-11-2011, 10:09 PM

So here's today's pop-quiz:

A politician puts up a map to "target" certain areas of the country for extra attention during an election.

A liberal comedian puts up a graphic of President Bush with the crosshairs on his head and the caption "Snipers Wanted".

You tell me... which is an incitement to violence?

I would expect the comedian to receive a visit from the Secret Service. I don't think an image of that type needs to be protected by the First Amendment. It's definitely the more dangerous example of the two you are referencing.

It would be possible to go back and forth with examples on both sides for a long time, though. I see so, so many examples of words and imagery that I feel cross the bounds of respect for one another and common decency. I can only do my part, though. I try hard not to endorse any of this stuff, or engage in it myself.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 03:55 AM

"Liberal comedian"? What's a "liberal comedian"? I didn't know that such a thing existed--the comedians I'm familiar with makes jokes about all politicians, on the right and on the left, that's kind of their job. Believe it or not, RD, reasonable, adult people know that the world is not divided up simply between those in the right and communists/fascists or whatever. Lots of folks have layers, different opinions, folks on the right and the left. Really, I have so many Republicans in my family who would be appalled to think that 100 years from now a historian would find only the rhetoric or you and your ilk and think that you represent mainstream Republican thought. There are reasonable Republicans and Democrats out there, and unreasonable ones, too, on both sides. Anyone who reduces everything in life to a zero-sum game and labels the other side as fascists just isn't worth my time (be they a Republican or a Democrat), life is too short, and there are more reasonable folks to talk to. There's no point in arguing with a jackass, because the jackass just brays louder but never makes any more sense.

Tiz

01-12-2011, 04:17 AM

I wonder what makes Democrats/progressives/left wingers so predictable.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 05:42 AM

I don't know anything else that looks like that.

The irony is... while I think she intended for the symbols to look like a gunsights, they aren't. The clip art they picked are actually surveyor's symbols... the crosshairs stick out the edges of the circle.

I hate to argue it, I think the whole debate is stupid... but since you said nothing else looks like that... :coffee:

JackieB

01-12-2011, 06:18 AM

The clip art they picked are actually surveyor's symbols... the crosshairs stick out the edges of the circle.

I hate to argue it, I think the whole debate is stupid... but since you said nothing else looks like that... :coffee:

No, I appreciate it. That is interesting.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 06:22 AM

I wonder what makes Democrats/progressives/left wingers so predictable.

The same thing that makes Republicans/conservatives/right wingers so predictable, Tiz. Their values.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 06:35 AM

Everyone is predictable :).... and... much as people wish everyone else was more polite... I'd argue politics has never been civil.

In lots of times and places in history, political differences have been marked by far worse than clip art imagery.

Heck... one used to be able to challenge his opponent to a duel.

But lets get back and remember something important. This whole debate about gunsights and Palin and the state of American politics, is all trying to pull something meaningful from a guy who there is no evidence at all paid attention to any of it. He's evidently mad because she didn't answer his unanswerable question. Or she spelled his name wrong. Or she was the only public figure he had access to.

twofingers

01-12-2011, 07:02 AM

[QUOTE=Arrow;383855]"Liberal comedian"? What's a "liberal comedian"? I didn't know that such a thing existed-"
I goggled liberal comedian.
janene garofalo, lee camp, rosanne bar, scott blackman, david letterman,sarah silverman, kathy friffin, stephane miller, aisha iyler, al franklen, garrison keller,.......to name a few. 1,600,00 hits. I further went on to read what these folks said regarding committing violent acts .. all of then called for the killing of the otherside - yes even keller!

JackieB

01-12-2011, 07:05 AM

But lets get back and remember something important. This whole debate about gunsights and Palin and the state of American politics, is all trying to pull something meaningful from a guy who there is no evidence at all paid attention to any of it. He's evidently mad because she didn't answer his unanswerable question. Or she spelled his name wrong. Or she was the only public figure he had access to.

I think it's pertinent because of what Rep. Giffords had to say, not her attacker. She had expressed concern over that particular political ad, and her office was vandalized and she received threats afters she voted for the health care bill. It's not surprising that this tragedy energized the debate.

cowgirlup@idaho

01-12-2011, 08:49 AM

Welcome back Jackie :)

JackieB

01-12-2011, 09:21 AM

Welcome back Jackie :)

Thanks!!!

JackieB

01-12-2011, 09:24 AM

[QUOTE=Arrow;383855] all of then called for the killing of the otherside - yes even keller!

What?! Could you show me that, please? I'm a big fan of Garrison Keillor. He's liberal, so I am not surprised that he lampoons the right, but I've always known him to be a very gentle soul.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 09:43 AM

Truth be told, we're also fans of Keillor, even RD :) We're going to see him live next month.

His live performances are always good, and usually apolitical when we've seen him in the past. Been to three shows, 2 of which were PHC broadcasts, and one that was a special appearance.

We're all going to another special performance next month.

That said... in his writing, he's written some stuff I was pretty taken back by. Not because it was strong in it's opinion, but because he definitely has an angry bitter side that doesn't show itself in his regular shows.

He's not ALL vanilla. :)

Arrow

01-12-2011, 09:48 AM

I wonder what makes Democrats/progressives/left wingers so predictable.

Our sense of decency and fair play, of course.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 09:50 AM

:rolleyes:

JackieB

01-12-2011, 11:52 AM

That said... in his writing, he's written some stuff I was pretty taken back by. Not because it was strong in it's opinion, but because he definitely has an angry bitter side that doesn't show itself in his regular shows.

He's not ALL vanilla. :)

I can understand that, but "calling for killing of the other side"?! He's never struck me as being angry or even satirical like that. I really want to see this quote that twofingers is referencing.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 12:00 PM

Can't say I know... and given that I want to continue to like the guy... I'm not going to go looking for that which I don't want to see :)

I think it's something of a silly argument even if he did once say he'd like to push Bush off a tall bridge. I know you think debate should be all polite and nice... but I don't think that's natural. I think people should say what they think, even if it offends. It's a lot more honest than watering down the acceptable language to the point where it doesn't really say anything.

Life is not always sunny and 72. We should have more spice in talk, not try to PC our debate down to that which will never upset anyone... People lose the ability to properly give perspective to picturesque speech, and they don't know how to tell the difference between metaphor and reality.

Horserider

01-12-2011, 12:49 PM

But lets get back and remember something important. This whole debate about gunsights and Palin and the state of American politics, is all trying to pull something meaningful from a guy who there is no evidence at all paid attention to any of it. He's evidently mad because she didn't answer his unanswerable question. Or she spelled his name wrong. Or she was the only public figure he had access to.

I made this exact comment to a friend today who told me he'd looked up the guy's Facebook page and he'd made a comment about Palin's gunsight map. I don't know how true that is or what the comment was. But if it does exist, it means that Loughner was at least aware of it.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 01:22 PM

Actually, I think the Facebook page many have talked about is a fraud.

natisha

01-12-2011, 01:47 PM

Just wait-now would be the perfect time to regulate the internet & free speech (Fairness Doctrine) Never let a crisis go to waste.

Maybe you guys discussed this already but remember when the shooter at Ft.Hood was suspected of being a bad muslim? Remember Obama(;)) sayiing how we shouldn't jump to conclusions? He seems rather silent now. Never let a crisis go to waste.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 02:31 PM

I know you think debate should be all polite and nice... but I don't think that's natural.

Life is not always sunny and 72. We should have more spice in talk, not try to PC our debate down to that which will never upset anyone....

The "natural" thing is to resort to violence, unfortunately. At least it looks that way to me. Humans harm or kill each other in greater numbers than any other animal. We begin working with toddlers at a very young age to help them understand that they need to use other methods to resolve their frustration and disagreements.

I'm interested in what is appropriate for a civilized society where people respect opposing views and understand that there usually isn't some huge underlying conspiracy on the part of the wealthy to take everything from the working class, or vice versa.

By the way, I think I have shown that I am not all "sunny and 72". I argue my positions, sometimes vehemently. But I always try to do so with respect for others. And even that has cost me a one-time forum friend who I haven't seen back since our argument.

There are all kind of ways to express extreme displeasure, and even contempt for another if that's what one wants to do, without invoking the slightest hint of violence. It's not that hard.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 02:43 PM

Remember Obama(;)) sayiing how we shouldn't jump to conclusions? He seems rather silent now. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Oops, never mind. I got mad at you for this, but later realized that I misunderstood. You meant that the President has been quiet about the issue of political rhetoric. I thought you were saying that he hadn't commented on the tragedy.

natisha

01-12-2011, 02:58 PM

Very jaded, Natisha. I'd be more blunt, but you know I consider you to be a dear friend.

On Monday Obama urged Americans to focus on the stories of bravery that came out of last Saturday's shooting, saying they speak to "the best of America, even in the face of such mindless violence."
"I think it's going to be important, I think, for the country as a whole, as well as the people of Arizona, to feel as if we are speaking directly to our sense of loss," the president said on Monday at the White House, "but also speaking to our hopes for the future and how out of this tragedy we can come together as a stronger nation."

Be sure to turn your TV on at 7 CST tonight to listen to a lot more of what the president has to say. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/the-schedule-for-together-we-t.html

Of course, I read a comment online saying that he's wasting our money by going there tonight. Terrific.I am jaded. I think he should have spoken up on this incident too. It could have stopped all the speculation before it even started. The killer is a nut, no one influenced him to do what he did. Sometimes the only one to blame is the person who did the act.

Blunt would be OK :)

Buckpoco

01-12-2011, 04:33 PM

The Pima County Sheriff had some very thought-provoking and very good points to ponder IMO.....
And, FYI, he did not state that Palin or the Tea Party or any other party were entirely to blame, rather the entire
political environment as a whole.

I think that before we even consider the political environment, we should take a good look at the violence of TV, movies and video games. Columbine, Virginia Tech...those images will forever be embedded in the brain of each one of us, including this killer. I think these sickies live in a world of violence... fed by TV, the media, games. This punk just chose a different audience than the murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech...but his profile bears striking similarities to the profiles of these other killers.
I think it's time the creators of these violent visuals accept responsibility and make a huge change.:nono:

Horserider

01-12-2011, 04:49 PM

Remali

01-12-2011, 05:09 PM

We certainly do live in a much more violent world..... that can't be denied. By that I'm talking about the things kids are exposed to these days.... the TV shows, the toys (do they even make real toys any more?), movies, videos..... Think back when you were a kid (OK, I'm old, we had paper dolls and Lincoln Logs and toy trucks and stuff...lol), we had more family values back then..... Look at how most kids act in school now, as compared to "back then".... kids respected teachers when I was in school.... (OMG do I sound like my dad?!!)

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 05:10 PM

Buckpoco, violent movies and video games mostly promote violence in young children that are unable to separate the games from reality. Kids don't shoot people because of movies and video games. Kids bring guns to school because they've been bullied so hard and for so long, that the only possible way they can see to stop it is to bring a gun to school and end it once and for all. They can't even really go to the principal because half the time the principal doesn't do anything or if they do, it's what, a few-day suspension and then the bullies come back to take their revenge on the "snitch."

All you've done is discounted one excuse that shifts blame off the perpetrator and given them another one.

Buckpoco's point is a good one... People including these shooters who commit these crimes, don't live in a vacuum, they have a lot of influences both real and fantasy... both personal and 'media'. We have no idea which things influenced this guy, except and until he shares his thought process with us.

But in the end, the reasons are only interesting from a sociological perspective. They don't reduce the guilt of those who decide to commit these crimes. IMHO, they are the ones solely responsible and accountable for them. Not the video game, not the movies, not even really the bullies, and definitely not a strategy map of targeted districts in an election.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 05:12 PM

(OMG do I sound like my dad?!!)

Scary huh ;) It happens to me all the time too...

Buckpoco

01-12-2011, 05:23 PM

Buckpoco, violent movies and video games mostly promote violence in young children that are unable to separate the games from reality. Kids don't shoot people because of movies and video games. Kids bring guns to school because they've been bullied so hard and for so long, that the only possible way they can see to stop it is to bring a gun to school and end it once and for all. They can't even really go to the principal because half the time the principal doesn't do anything or if they do, it's what, a few-day suspension and then the bullies come back to take their revenge on the "snitch."

Children, adults, whoever tunes into this violence and sees it over and over again, begins to own it and live it...scary but true. Fortunately not all people are affected this way...but too many snap. I know that violence is too often seen as the answer to problem solving...

And WB, totally correct...no matter what the reason, this is a cold, calculating MURDERER. We've had Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler...all viscious murderers...they will always be there... however, today we are smothering in violent images...not good.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 06:07 PM

All this doom and gloom notwithstanding... things aren't getting worse. Things are getting better. Both the murder rate and the violent crime rate have been falling pretty much every year for almost twenty years.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-crime-in-the-us-2009/prelimiucrjan-jun_10_excels/table-3

Tiz

01-12-2011, 06:25 PM

The same thing that makes Republicans/conservatives/right wingers so predictable, Tiz. Their values.

No, Jackie. It isn't values that causes a person to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable.

The right thing to do when you see this kind of mania, is to say "That's wrong." But you didn't, and now you say it's your "values". Amazing.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 06:38 PM

Always good commentary by the PJTV guys :)

YouTube - PJTV: Blood Libel? You and Sarah Palin Turned Jared Loughner Into a Cold, Calculated Killer

Arrow

01-12-2011, 06:40 PM

No, Jackie. It isn't values that causes a person to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable.

The right thing to do when you see this kind of mania, is to say "That's wrong."

Yeah, that's pretty much my approach--saying "that's wrong" when I see what you describe, Tiz.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 06:46 PM

Well... the memorial service 'campaign rally' is going the way of the Wellstone funeral, it seems. Are these people simply incapable of showing the least bit of class? I'm waiting for Lady Gaga to appear.

Of course they couldn't have a Pastor or Rabbi to do the invocation. They got a Yaqui shaman instead. So... how many native pagans were among the victims? Any? I guess it doesn't matter, since this rally wasn't going to be about them, anyway.

Obama is laughing and smiling and "working the room" on his way out. He's pretty happy. He finally got his Oklahoma City.

Tiz

01-12-2011, 07:21 PM

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 07:24 PM

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 07:26 PM

How about this, Arrow.

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you!

What are we nine? :p

Arrow

01-12-2011, 07:44 PM

How about this, Arrow.

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you!

There, you can use that in the future. That way you won't have to think even the little bit it took to put that sentence together.

Thanks! When I'm looking for shortcuts to thinking things through logically, I now know who to ask!

Tiz

01-12-2011, 07:45 PM

Your editing would suggest so, wouldn't it, WB?

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 07:55 PM

I didn't watch it... but after reading both sides' reactions.... I'm guessing your criticism is not fair.

The crowd has nothing to be sorry about for being there, in that moment, and feeling the way they did.

Obama's Obama. I probably wouldn't like him, but that doesn't mean he's a villain to be there.

[...]

Well, for the record, I didn't intend my criticism to be fair. It's true that the crowd's raucous reaction was wholly inappropriate, and I wouldn't pin that completely on Obama-- except for the part where he could have gently reminded the crowd why they were there, and to hold their enthusiasm. But oh well. I would advise him in the future, though, that smiling and laughing and back-slapping and "working the room" for handshakes and photos, are better left for other occasions.

It took 40 minutes for anybody to talk about the actual victims that were the subject of the service, and that was Jan Brewer. I think it was bizarre to have that invocation by a native Yaqui shaman... when I'm unaware that any of the dead or injured were actually Yaqui. That's just the usual shallow PC nonsense. God forbid any actual Christian (most of the victims) or Jewish (at least two) presence be allowed.

I would also advise that memorial services are the wrong time to pass out thousands of political campaign T-shirts. It's just tacky.

He's not a villain to be there. Did he need to be there? Not really. Did he need to drag the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General along? Not in the least. Was it in his political interest to be there and to "federalize" it? Absolutely.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:01 PM

I think it was bizarre to have that invocation by a native Yaqui shaman... when I'm unaware that any of the dead or injured were actually Yaqui. That's just the usual shallow PC nonsense. God forbid any actual Christian (most of the victims) or Jewish (at least two) presence be allowed.

Well, since the god of the Christians says that Jews are going to hell unless they acknowledge Jesus as their lord and savior, and the god of the Jews doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is god, perhaps the Yaqui was the way to go.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 08:01 PM

I'll agree the choice of the Yaqui sounds like an odd choice.

And I'll accept that it's not your primary objective to attempt to be fair. :)

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 08:09 PM

Well, since the god of the Christians says that Jews are going to hell unless they acknowledge Jesus as their lord and savior, and the god of the Jews doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is god, perhaps the Yaqui was the way to go.

I realize that you're just trying to sound as vile and offensive as possible to get a rise out of me, and that you're naturally hostile to anything about the Judeo-Christian heritage. So... please... Just have another glass of wine and see if you can't let go of some of that hate.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 08:11 PM

If we're going to be nine, we really shouldn't be drinking at all. :rolleyes:

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:12 PM

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 08:13 PM

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- Summoning the soul of a nation, President Barack Obama on Wednesday implored Americans to honor those slain and injured in the Arizona shootings by becoming better people, telling a polarized citizenry that it is time to talk with each other "in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds."

Since we've already established that nothing about this crime had anything to do with a "polarized citizenry" I presume that what he really means is that he'll be calling Sarah Palin to personally apologize and begin the work to "heal those wounds"?

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:17 PM

Since we've already established that nothing about this crime had anything to do with a "polarized citizenry" I presume that what he really means is that he'll be calling Sarah Palin to personally apologize and begin the work to "heal those wounds"?

Eh--any president in the oval office at a time like this would have said similar kinds of things.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 08:18 PM

I wasn't being hateful at all. I was simply saying that the religious beliefs of Jews and Christians are basically mutually exclusive, so why not have the representative of another religion officiate. And what have I ever said that makes you think I'm hostile towards Judeo-Christian culture?

No, that's simply not true. They're not mutually exclusive. Jews and Christians will always be brothers. You have no idea what you're spouting off about. But I have no desire to derail this thread with a discussion of comparative theology.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:20 PM

No, that's simply not true. They're not mutually exclusive. Jews and Christians will always be brothers. You have no idea what you're spouting off about. But I have no desire to derail this thread with a discussion of comparative theology.

Well, one groups says Jesus is divine and the other says he's not. Sounds pretty mutually exclusive to me.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 08:25 PM

No, Jackie. It isn't values that causes a person to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable.

The right thing to do when you see this kind of mania, is to say "That's wrong." But you didn't, and now you say it's your "values". Amazing.

Tiz. You didn't ask me about defensible, indefensible, excusable, inexcusable, mania, calm, or anything like that. This is exactly what you asked me: "I wonder what makes Democrats/progressives/left wingers so predictable."

And this is exactly how I responded: "The same thing that makes Republicans/conservatives/right wingers so predictable, Tiz. Their values."

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I don't endorse knee-jerk/polarizing actions during difficult times. If that's what you want me to comment on, then please ask your question clearly. I think you owe me an apology for your "Amazing." comment. I understood that clearly enough. You are saying that my "values" are distorted.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 08:27 PM

Well, one groups says Jesus is divine and the other says he's not. Sounds pretty mutually exclusive to me.

Then perhaps you should learn something about both of them.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:31 PM

Then perhaps you should learn something about both of them.

Well, I know enough to know that Christians think that any Jew (or anyone else) who doesn't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior is going to hell. Isn't that kind of a basic tenet of Christianity? Except for the Universalists, of course--they think everyone's going to heaven.

I'll ask again: why do you say that I'm hostile to the Judeo-Christian heritage? Since it's my heritage, I'm not likely to be hostile to it. And since it's my heritage, I certainly have the right to think about it and have an opinion about it.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 08:40 PM

The right thing to do when you see this kind of mania, is to say "That's wrong." But you didn't....

When did I do this, by the way? All I've said is that because Rep. Giffords expressed concern over the rhetoric, and then this tragedy occurred to her, that it's a legitimate enough thing to discuss. I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion should be far more measured than it is. I doubt that the investigation will show that the shooter was criminally deranged and not influenced much/at all by what anyone else had to say.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon or anything here. I'm just saying that the conversation regarding the politicial environment and the possibility of violence is legitimate to have in the aftermath of this tragedy.

It's a little hard since we aren't sitting across the table talking to one another, but I'm coming at this kind of like the NTSB investigates the crash of an airliner. All possibilities are worthy of investigation, consideration, and discussion. I'm not coming to any conclusions.

I will agree that there are a lot of people who would dearly love to place this firmly at the doorstep of Sarah Palin, but I'm not one of them. I don't like her, but I agree that the shooter probably wasn't influenced by her. He's just deranged.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 08:49 PM

It could have stopped all the speculation before it even started.

I don't think anything would quell the speculation, but I hear what you are saying. I agree that it would probably be helpful for the president to call for calm in the area of the rhetoric. That's a reasonable expectation.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:53 PM

When did I do this, by the way? All I've said is that because Rep. Giffords expressed concern over the rhetoric, and then this tragedy occurred to her, that it's a legitimate enough thing to discuss. I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion should be far more measured than it is. I doubt that the investigation will show that the shooter was criminally deranged and not influenced much/at all by what anyone else had to say.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon or anything here. I'm just saying that the conversation regarding the politicial environment and the possibility of violence is legitimate to have in the aftermath of this tragedy.

It's a little hard since we aren't sitting across the table talking to one another, but I'm coming at this kind of like the NTSB investigates the crash of an airliner. All possibilities are worthy of investigation, consideration, and discussion. I'm not coming to any conclusions.

I will agree that there are a lot of people who would dearly love to place this firmly at the doorstep of Sarah Palin, but I'm not one of them. I don't like her, but I agree that the shooter probably wasn't influenced by her. He's just deranged.

Jackie--I believe that you are reading too much into Tiz's post. I think that she was referring to you stating that I made some good points.

Remali

01-12-2011, 08:55 PM

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 08:57 PM

Well, I know enough to know that Christians think that any Jew (or anyone else) who doesn't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior is going to hell. Isn't that kind of a basic tenet of Christianity? Except for the Universalists, of course--they think everyone's going to heaven.

I'll ask again: why do you say that I'm hostile to the Judeo-Christian heritage? Since it's my heritage, I'm not likely to be hostile to it. And since it's my heritage, I certainly have the right to think about it and have an opinion about it.

I really, really don't want to derail this thread with a religious discussion. But it is also a basic tenet of Christianity that the Jews will, when the Lord returns, receive him en masse as the Messiah they've been waiting for. Jews and Christians have a long cultural and historical brotherhood and they are inexorably tied together.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 08:58 PM

I realize that you're just trying to sound as vile and offensive as possible to get a rise out of me,

Well, you should know, I defer to your expertise in this area of posting style.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 09:00 PM

But it is also a basic tenet of Christianity that the Jews will, when the Lord returns, receive him en masse as the Messiah they've been waiting for.

Huh--do the Jews believe that? And what about all the Jews who die before that happy day, are they going to hell because they didn't live to receive him en masse with the rest? And if the long, historical tradition of brotherhood is true, what about the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust or the rise of Antisemitism?

twofingers

01-12-2011, 09:01 PM

I am a great garrason keller fan, my wife - bless her, bleeding liberal heart - hates him. I was shocked to hear his comments (not on the prairie home companion) His comments were about the VP the crowd roared with laughter.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 09:11 PM

Wow. And... "He finally got his Oklahoma". What a nasty piece of s**t statement.
No need for me to even reply to something as vile as this at this point.... You really are showing your true colors now. But, then, I guess I am not surprised.

Yah... I figured that would twist some panties into a bunch. Honestly, I thought about leaving it out. But then I had another sip of bourbon and figured... ah... what the heck... :)

I agree-- it is totally vile. It's obscene. But it's not MY true colors you're seeing.

That reference, in fact, goes back to a remark by a longtime democrat operator named Mark Penn. It was only back in November that he made this vile remark on that nasty show Hardball with Chrissy Mathews: "... it took the Oklahoma City tragedy in order for President Clinton to “reconnect” with the American people. He then stepped off the cliff by saying that President Obama needed a “similar event” to achieve that reconnection following his party’s midterm losses."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-penn-says-obama-needs-similar-event-to-oklahoma-city-to-reconnect-with-voters/

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 09:24 PM

Huh--do the Jews believe that? And what about all the Jews who die before that happy day, are they going to hell because they didn't live to receive him en masse with the rest? And if the long, historical tradition of brotherhood is true, what about the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust or the rise of Antisemitism?

I would caution you to stop commenting on things that you're just not well versed. I'm not going to further derail this thread with biblical expositions. It's all there to read. Check it out sometime.

What about the Spanish Inquisition? It had nothing to do with Jews, and it only ever involved a few hundred people anyway, and it was started by nutjobs. It's just not important, historically. The Holocaust, as you know, was done by Nazis that were intensely anti-christian and anti-jewish. They were basically pagan. I'm not sure what that has to do with any of this. What about antisemitism? I don't know... what about it? There are people that hate jews. I don't know why. For about a billion people, it's because their prophet told them to hate jews and kill them everywhere they found them. Could you be a little more specific?

Arrow

01-12-2011, 09:38 PM

What about the Spanish Inquisition? It had nothing to do with Jews, and it only ever involved a few hundred people anyway, and it was started by nutjobs. It's just not important, historically. The Holocaust, as you know, was done by Nazis that were intensely anti-christian and anti-jewish. They were basically pagan. I'm not sure what that has to do with any of this. What about antisemitism? I don't know... what about it? There are people that hate jews. I don't know why. For about a billion people, it's because their prophet told them to hate jews and kill them everywhere they found them. Could you be a little more specific?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France....

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492....

There's more there--apparently the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise doesn't agree with you that it's not important historically. Also, the descendants of those expelled Jews made their way to the new world and eventually North America and created the first Jewish communities in what would become the United States. They were discriminated against in the colonies, of course, colonial authorities didn't give them full rights, but still--I'd call that pretty important in terms of American history.

As for the Holocaust, I wouldn't call that an event completely divorced for Christianity, who are you trying to kid?

And are you saying that no Christians are Antisemitic? Frankly, that's laughable.

You started all this--you said why have a Yaqui shaman do the service, why not Jews and Christians? I made the point that neither of the those two groups would have been completely happy with TPTB choosing the other as the official religious representative, so why not choose a third party? You said, that's not so--there's a long history of brotherhood. I said along with that long history of brotherhood is a long history of discrimination and hatred. You sound like a fool when you make these black/white distinctions. Of course many Christians feel towards Jews just as you say, but to try to pretend that all of them feel that way is patently absurd.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 09:48 PM

No, that's simply not true. They're not mutually exclusive. Jews and Christians will always be brothers. You have no idea what you're spouting off about. But I have no desire to derail this thread with a discussion of comparative theology.

Perhaps the scholarly theologians have a better overall understanding of what this all means, but Arrow certainly is accurate regarding what most of who were raised within Christianity were taught. Heaven is strictly reserved for those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and those who pass from this earth without doing that are not going to have a good eternity.

I've never heard anything about non-Christians being "exhumed" in order to accept Jesus when he comes back. That's news to me.

I don't believe that God is going to make such exclusions myself, but Christianity is pretty clear on the matter of non-Christians. I don't know enough about the other religions to comment on them.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 09:52 PM

Jackie--I believe that you are reading too much into Tiz's post. I think that she was referring to you stating that I made some good points.

Thanks. We'll see what Tiz has to say when she returns. All I was saying is that liberals and conservatives react in fairly predictable ways because of what each side values. Nothing more.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 09:54 PM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

There's more there--apparently the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise doesn't agree with you that it's not important historically. Also, the descendants of those expelled Jews made their way to the new world and eventually North America and created the first Jewish communities in what would become the United States. They were discriminated against in the colonies, of course, colonial authorities didn't give them full rights, but still--I'd call that pretty important in terms of American history.

As for the Holocaust, I wouldn't call that an event completely divorced for Christianity, who are you trying to kid?

And are you saying that no Christians are Antisemitic? Frankly, that's laughable.

You started all this--you said why have a Yaqui shaman do the service, why not Jews and Christians? I made the point that neither of the those two groups would have been completely happy with TPTB choosing the other as the official religious representative, so why not choose a third party? You said, that's not so--there's a long history of brotherhood. I said along with that long history of brotherhood is a long history of discrimination and hatred. You sound like a fool when you make these black/white distinctions. Of course many Christians feel towards Jews just as you say, but to try to pretend that all of them feel that way is patently absurd.

Wow. You must really hate me. I'm sorry about that.

What, exactly, about the holocaust was caused by Christians? Or do you labor under the delusion that Hitler was a Christian?

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was done by a bunch of Spanish nutjobs. So what? If I start quoting from nutjobs on a fringe website like Democratic Underground, should that reflect badly on all liberals?

I commented on the Yaqui Shaman because of the obvious device that anything "judeo-christian" had been intentionally excluded from the ceremony. I thought liberals were supposed to be inclusive. Except for Christians and Jews, I guess. The only thing missing was an Imam. Apparently they couldn't find one in time.

It figures.

WashingtonBay

01-12-2011, 09:58 PM

Been having some happy nice couch time with the hubby.... everyone behaving in here? Good.

Night ;)

Arrow

01-12-2011, 10:04 PM

I don't believe that God is going to make such exclusions myself

Do you know what influenced my beliefs more than anything else, JackieB? It's a passage from The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis that I must have first read when I was about 12 years old. A follower of the false god, Tash, finds himself in heaven and asks how he came to be there. Aslan tells him that "all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me...Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he is truly sworn....And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." I've never forgotten that, it's the very foundation of my whole religious viewpoint.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 10:12 PM

Wow. You must really hate me. I'm sorry about that.

What gave you that idea? And I don't think you're really sorry...about anything.

What, exactly, about the holocaust was caused by Christians? Or do you labor under the delusion that Hitler was a Christian?

So there were no Christians in Germany? No Christians supported the Holocaust or stood by and let it happen because they it was o.k. to do that to Jews? Whether Hitler was a Jew or not isn't really relevant--one man can't create a Holocaust, a society has to allow it to happen, and I'm pretty sure that 1930s German society was strongly Christian, not pagan.

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was done by a bunch of Spanish nutjobs. So what?

Well, they were Christians weren't they? The "so what" seems pretty self evident to me.

If I start quoting from nutjobs on a fringe website like Democratic Underground, should that reflect badly on all liberals?

:headscratch: Well, since you basically do that all the time, I'm not sure of your point here.

I commented on the Yaqui Shaman because of the obvious device that anything "judeo-christian" had been intentionally excluded from the ceremony. I thought liberals were supposed to be inclusive. Except for Christians and Jews, I guess. The only thing missing was an Imam. Apparently they couldn't find one in time.

Right, because there's not a single Imam living in Tuscon, Arizona? lol!

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-12-2011, 10:26 PM

Wow. I guess we should've tried all the civilians in germany at Nuremburg and sentenced them all to death too. Too bad we didn't just nuke Germany and kill them all, huh? Then kill alll the Christians left in Europe... Since it was all their fault.

Wow.

Arrow

01-12-2011, 10:33 PM

Certainly it was partly their fault. But it would have been impractical to try all the civilians. And other countries didn't do all they could do help take in refugee Jews, including countries outside of Europe. Pointing fingers at others means that you'll have to point them at yourself. There's plenty of blame to go around.

What you just posted has to do with our conversation, however, eludes me. You act like it's all brotherhood between Jews and Christians and Antisemitism is the exclusive provenance of pagans, atheists, and Muslims, and everyone knows that's patently absurd.

But you know what? I'm breaking my very own "never argue with a jackass rule"--he just brays louder and louder without making any sense. I'm off for the night. Ta ta.

JackieB

01-12-2011, 11:34 PM

Do you know what influenced my beliefs more than anything else, JackieB? It's a passage from The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis that I must have first read when I was about 12 years old. A follower of the false god, Tash, finds himself in heaven and asks how he came to be there. Aslan tells him that "all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me...Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he is truly sworn....And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." I've never forgotten that, it's the very foundation of my whole religious viewpoint.

I really like this passage! About sums it up for me, too.

natisha

01-13-2011, 12:16 AM

RD, rumor has it that you're a fool. Does that mean you fool around? ;)

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-13-2011, 01:17 AM

Jackie and Arrow:

I'm really sorry that C.S. Lewis's writings mean so little and were so shallow for you.

I don't suppose there's anything worth saying. it's just unfortunate.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-13-2011, 01:22 AM

RD, rumor has it that you're a fool. Does that mean you fool around? ;)

Well... I'm known for a certain amount of foolishness... :innocent:

WashingtonBay

01-13-2011, 06:01 AM

You started all this--you said why have a Yaqui shaman do the service, why not Jews and Christians? I made the point that neither of the those two groups would have been completely happy with TPTB choosing the other as the official religious representative, so why not choose a third party? You said, that's not so--there's a long history of brotherhood. I said along with that long history of brotherhood is a long history of discrimination and hatred. You sound like a fool when you make these black/white distinctions. Of course many Christians feel towards Jews just as you say, but to try to pretend that all of them feel that way is patently absurd.

This whole argument between you two seems foolish to me. Seriously. As if Christians and Jews in this country, yesterday in that stadium, would have been consumed with rage had a representative of one or the other spoke. They wouldn't have. We all know it. And the reason why they wouldn't has little to do with the religious history of Spain or Germany. The reason that they wouldn't has everything to do with the actual reality in this country that we are so tolerant, we could choose a pagan shaman no one follows and no one will jump up and declare he is probably going to hell.

Can we agree on this? That this country can at least credit itself that it has pretty much recovered from the inquisition?

Probably the only choice that would have enraged that crowd was if they chose a chaplain from ASU.

natisha

01-13-2011, 06:01 AM

I saw the Tucson Memorial speech & I think it was very well done. The crowd cheering at the beginning was a little weird but Obama(;)) seemed sincere. Not his fault some made a party of it.

Arrow

01-13-2011, 06:05 AM

we could choose a pagan shaman no one follows and no one will jump up and declare he is probably going to hell.

Well, except for your brother, apparently. He was quite upset. And so what if it's a foolish argument. We were just enjoying ourselves--isn't that what the forum is for? Or so you always tell me.

WashingtonBay

01-13-2011, 06:21 AM

Absolutely enjoy yourself... If that's what this is! :cheers:

JackieB

01-13-2011, 07:06 AM

Jackie and Arrow:

I'm really sorry that C.S. Lewis's writings mean so little and were so shallow for you.

I don't suppose there's anything worth saying. it's just unfortunate.

That's actually all I have ever read of C.S. Lewis. I probably should read his writings.

But I certainly didn't find that passage to be shallow. Just the opposite. It held great meaning for me and I found it to be beautiful and profound.

JackieB

01-13-2011, 07:10 AM

I saw the Tucson Memorial speech & I think it was very well done. The crowd cheering at the beginning was a little weird but Obama(;)) seemed sincere. Not his fault some made a party of it.

That's very gracious of you, Natisha. My most conservative horse friend said the same on FB (that he thought it was very moving). I would have preferred a more somber atmosphere, but I would guess that most of that has to do with the venue being on a college campus. College students are very resilient, kind of like children. They don't focus on grief if there is a reason to be happier. It can lead to awkward moments, but it's a great quality overall.

WashingtonBay

01-13-2011, 07:22 AM

That's actually all I have ever read of C.S. Lewis. I probably should read his writings.

But I certainly didn't find that passage to be shallow. Just the opposite. It held great meaning for me and I found it to be beautiful and profound.

Actually, I tried a few times to get through the Narnia series and never could do it... Not even the first one... But I also rather liked the passage posted. :)

cowgirlup@idaho

01-13-2011, 08:33 AM

It was poetic with a strong sense of right and wrong, reward and punishment. I immediatly saw Aslan as Christ and Tash as Satan. You could find very similar paragraphs in the Gospels.

C.S. Lewis is a fiction writer, a well respected one, but lions don't talk to people.

Tiz

01-14-2011, 01:27 PM

I saw the Tucson Memorial speech & I think it was very well done. The crowd cheering at the beginning was a little weird but Obama(;)) seemed sincere. Not his fault some made a party of it.

Love the campaign slogan that was unveiled at the rally/memorial. Swell to get a free tee shirt, too.

Photo of the Day: The Obama Touch . . . Tee Shirts For the Tucson Memorial

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dNDcHtiKdf4/TS5oRGczXUI/AAAAAAAAI0w/db2AjKe-56o/s400/TeeShirts.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_dNDcHtiKdf4/TS5oRGczXUI/AAAAAAAAI0w/db2AjKe-56o/s1600/TeeShirts.jpg)

WashingtonBay

01-14-2011, 06:07 PM

I don't find myself offended by the idea of t-shirts. Not as offended as some.

I'm just not sure the slogan is the right one for the event, or for anything. That's the best slogan they can come up with? Really?

Tiz

01-14-2011, 06:22 PM

Well, huh...OK. So, you just don't like the slogan they chose? Out of this entire memorial experience, that's it?

How about instead of "Together we thrive!", it's "Workers of the world unite!"?

WashingtonBay

01-14-2011, 07:00 PM

Neither of those particularly fit the occasion. Or the mood of the country. Or solve an issue anyone is grappling with.

And no - I don't know what would.

Tiz

01-14-2011, 07:38 PM

Neither of those particularly fit the occasion. Or the mood of the country. Or solve an issue anyone is grappling with.

And no - I don't know what would.

Maybe that's because memorials aren't supposed to have slogans.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-14-2011, 07:46 PM

Ah, to hell with it. I had a post all typed out. But what's the use. The time for arguments is over.

Tiz

01-14-2011, 08:19 PM

Ah, to hell with it. I had a post all typed out. But what's the use. The time for arguments is over.

Ah ah ah. Be careful now. Someone may think you're making threats.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-14-2011, 09:28 PM

Ah ah ah. Be careful now. Someone may think you're making threats.

Heh... you know, I didn't see that until you said that. I suppose our resident liberals have already called the FBI. I guess I should've left the post I had worked up. It was all about how the metaphor, as a figure of speech, appears to be lost in the understanding of the modern liberal.

Oh... there's a knock at the door. Gotta go.

JackieB

01-14-2011, 10:13 PM

I'm going to try to be less cynical about our elected leaders as a way to honor the little girl's memory. She wanted to be a politician to help others and probably was very idealistic about it and pure in her desire to serve others. Not all of our leaders are power-hungry, self-serving individuals by any means. I feel like we do a disservice to them when we cast a negative image over the entire group.

John Boehner is a good example. I had an intense dislike for him until I got to know more about him. He comes from very humble roots, he obviously wears his heart on his sleeve (I'm like that), he noted that he likes the president personally and has no hard feelings toward him, and Boehner has never taken an earmark. Not one! That's pretty impressive.

So, I have come to accept that if Boehner is successful in overturning Obamacare, it will only be because he truly believes that he has a better solution. And I'll be eager to hear about it.

If Mitt Romney gets the nomination for 2012, I could see myself possibly voting for him. I've always liked him. I'll want to hear what he, or whoever the nominee is (except Sarah Palin - I couldn't support her) has to say.

These are the thoughts that are running through my head in the wake of this tragedy.

I am convinced that the shooter was probably unaware of any of the heated rhetoric that has been present in our political discourse for many years now. He is just a terribly deranged young man who I believe suffers from untreated shizophrenia. I watched a video that he made some months ago, and his thoughts are completely disconnected and illogical.

We might possibly be able to make some improvements in helping a person like him get into an in-patient psychiatric setting, involuntarily. That's very hard to do in most instances. I had to do that with my dad due to his depression (no threat to anyone else, but he was slowly starving himself because of his own psychosis) and it wasn't easy, and they could only keep him for about 72 hours before releasing him unless he agreed to stay (he did).

And I accept that this isn't a gun problem, but we now know that the shooter had five encounters with campus police for disruptive behavior in class and that administrators considered him such a risk that he was expelled. I wonder if there might be a way in the gun background check to make information like that available to deny a purchase? Granted, the person is likely to go buy a gun illegally, but we certainly don't want to sell a gun to a person like him if we can legally stop it.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-14-2011, 11:32 PM

Good post, Jackie. I have no quarrel with any of it.

Except... for the part about how you couldn't support Sarah Palin, when you could support another Republican like Mitt Romney. I would challege you to find something that Palin believes that you, in your heart of hearts, don't also believe. I suspect you're being a little disingenuous if only for your own party consumption.

Admittedly, Mitt is a RINO (republican in name only). His beliefs, values, and voting history, are very much in line with the Democrat party. Naturally... he's from freakin' Massachusetts. [edited]

WashingtonBay

01-15-2011, 05:13 AM

Hey RD

:trout:

Over coffee this morning, consider cutting your sister some slack.... positive, constructive family-friendly forum, welcoming to all points of view and all that....

It's a goal...:coffee:

http://www.bottomsupcomic.com/comics/2009-06-29-Under-The-Bus.jpg

natisha

01-15-2011, 06:00 AM

Hey RD - over coffee this morning, consider cutting your sister some slack.... positive, constructive family-friendly forum, welcoming to all points of view and all that....

It's a goal...:coffee:Why didn't he get a fish?

Tiz

01-15-2011, 06:04 AM

She can get him with the fish when he crawls out from under the bus.

WashingtonBay

01-15-2011, 06:25 AM

There.... fixed it up there ^.... :cool:

JackieB

01-15-2011, 10:17 AM

Good post, Jackie. I have no quarrel with any of it.

Except... for the part about how you couldn't support Sarah Palin, when you could support another Republican like Mitt Romney.

I was actually extremely impressed with Sarah Palin when she gave her speech at the Republican convention. I remember telling my friends that we had a lot more to learn about her, but she "Knocked it out of the park" with her speech.

I'm afraid that I don't find Sarah Palin to be a credible leader. Specifically, I was unimpressed with her lack of even basic knowledge during her campaign. It wasn't "Gotcha journalism" on the part of Katie Couric and others. Those were questions that you and I could easily have answered ourselves and she fumbled with them because, up to that point, she lacked intellectual curiousity regarding issues such as foreign policy.

The "Thanks, but no thanks on The Bridge to Nowhere" didn't go down at all the way she presented it to us. Some of her Republican colleagues first cried foul about that, so I researched it and she twisted that story around pretty thoroughly to benefit her politically. It isn't what happened.

I'm convinced that she quit the governership of AK because she saw an immediate opportunity to earn millions of dollars. Her prerogrative, but it wasn't because the liberals were hounding her. Lots of politicians have to put up with that.

When forced with a tough question, Sarah Palin often turns to this sort of "psuedo-charm" that makes me want to ask her how dumb she thinks I am. I could give you examples, but I think you know what I'm referring to (even though you likely wouldn't agree).

I an assure you that I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm a very sincere person about these things and try to be completely honest. I do mean what I'm saying.

WashingtonBay

01-15-2011, 10:53 AM

I like Sarah as a personality. As a lightning rod and cheerleader she's fantastic. As the leader of the Republican Party she would be GREAT.... but I don't think she's real deep, and I really don't want her to run for president, because she's not near ready, and I don't want to have to argue against her. And I REALLY don't like her increasingly rabid fans on FR.

WashingtonBoy

01-15-2011, 11:09 AM

WashingtonBay

01-15-2011, 11:12 AM

^^^ What she said.

The worship of everything Sarah on FR has gotten as obnoxious as the endless bashing of her on DU. I don't like either side in this.

^ Why I married him :)

Tiz

01-15-2011, 12:43 PM

Of course it is. A man who's smart enough to agree with his wife. What's not to like about that.

Sarah Palin is shaking off the confidence beating she took in the media in 2008, little by little. A year ago she was so guarded and worried about not sounding smart she could barely speak, and when she did she'd blather on and on. Word salad, I think is an apt description of what would happen with her.

She's starting to sound more like the woman who ran for Alaska's governorship now. The woman who stepped out of small town, USA, Wasilla, AK, and knocked it out of the park at the Republican Convention. I don't find myself telling her via the TV to "Just shut up and talk like you talk!" as much as I used to.

I don't know if she's "deep" enough to be President, mostly because I don't know if one needs to be "deep" to be President. I'd be excited for simple common sense and honesty in that job right now anyway. I do hope she doesn't run. She's more valuable doing what she does, preaching founding principles, tried and true. Besides, after eight years of foaming at the mouth hatred from the left for GW Bush, two more of the same for her, even out of office, I'm not ready for it.

I like what Herman Cain says about running the country. So far, he's my front runner.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-18-2011, 05:42 PM

Oh, brother... this is just freaking absurd:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/18/cnn_apologizes_for_guest_using_term_crosshairs.htm l

I suppose CNN is also going to rename the show "Crossfire" too?

JackieB

01-18-2011, 05:45 PM

^ Why I married him :)

He's a great catch, that's for sure! A very level-headed guy.

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-18-2011, 06:00 PM

There.... fixed it up there ^.... :cool:

Sorry about that... :o

I only just now saw that. I do try to restrain myself... I'm just not always successful.

WashingtonBay

01-18-2011, 06:23 PM

'tsallright :)

Oh, brother... this is just freaking absurd:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/18/cnn_apologizes_for_guest_using_term_crosshairs.htm l

I suppose CNN is also going to rename the show "Crossfire" too?

Can we get any sillier?

I mean really. Can we?

Ragnar Danneskjold

01-18-2011, 07:11 PM

'tsallright :)

Can we get any sillier?

I mean really. Can we?

We shouldn't ask questions that we won't like the answers to. It really should be pretty darn silly... but it's not.

I suppose the democrats will have to stop talking about "targeted tax cuts". No more use of the term "bullseye" for anything. Of course "Target" stores will have to change their name.

It's newspeak! We've arrived! ...and it's double-plus non-good.

Arrow

01-19-2011, 08:08 AM

"Federal judge died saving a life"

More on the incident--

http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/01/19/arizona_shootings_video

One of the more visceral details of the account involves the late Judge John M. Roll who died while apparently saving the life of Ronald Barber, a Giffords staffer. After Loughner shot Barber, Judge Roll grabs the injured man and attempts to guide him to safety while shielding Barber with his own body.

In the New York Times' report, Mr. Kastigar desribes the event:

[The judge was] intentionally trying to help Mr. Barber. It’s very clear to me the judge was thinking of his fellow human more than himself… He pushes Mr. Barber with his right hand and guides him with his left hand. The judge was on top of him and is covering up Mr. Barber, literally lying on top of him, and his back was exposed.