Tucson And The Political Debate

Remove all ads!

Ever heard of places like Belgium and Norway? (I'm probably forgetting a few.)

 

I know what you are saying, but it doesn't make any sense.

I going to tell you and KJ to your faces that those people mentioned are hate and fear mongers. They make their careers and living off of inflaming others and trying to scare the hell out them about their government. And everyone knows that the shooter posted that he "didn't turst the government," and then he singles out a congresswoman, a democratic congresswoman, and goes and shoots her. Also, he attended one of her meetings and asked her a question about "the government" that no one understood, which also pissed him off, and MAY have played a part in it.

What's "amusing" is that some people are trying to sell us on "this isn't political" jive. Go peddle that jive BS to those in the echo chamber who are willing to believe it. Some of us feel, that at least in someway, there is evidence that politics, while certainly not all of it [the guy is crazy], may have been a piece of it. And the guy is unstable, he probably is niether a Republican, nor a Democrat in regards to mainstream politics. So what? He's probably too confused to understand the difference.

You try and do the same.

 

Well you might not be so close to where you can easily get one.

 

NOG - whatever, you win. There is honestly a falsehood, non-sequitor, false equivilence or just plain dumb conclusion in almost every line of that post, and I don't have the patience (or certainly the time) for the quote-a-thons that I used to. I got exhausted just reading that. You've chosen to focus on semantics and ignore the bigger picture in just about every respect, but I suppose it serves me right to expect otherwise (this is nothing new). And I'm not even going to get started on that "blood libel" schlock every conservative outlet is now shouting from the rooftops (way to be original). The floor is yours.

 

An appropriate methaphor....

 

So because it's your opinion that they are "hate and fear mongers" it's ok to lay partial blame on them as an accomplices to murder and wish they'd get shot instead? Disgusting.

He did seem to be anti-government, but not because of anything Rush/Palin/Beck had said, but because of films like Zeitgeist, which according to his friend, ""I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in." Source. AKA, the conspiracy movie about how Jesus is a myth, 9/11 was an inside job, and the world is run by bankers. Doesn't sound like a Conservative movie to me.

 

I think this happened because the guy played too many violent video games. He probably saw too much violence on TV and too many violent movies -- he became desensitized to violence and the effect it could have on a real living person.

Or perhaps he want to show his love for Jodie Foster.

Or maybe it was all the violent based rhetoric both sides have been spouting.

Or his shoes were to tight.

Or his heart was two sizes too small.

But then, maybe, just maybe this happened because the guy was a wack-job who should have been institutionalized long ago.

 

Dude, I think you've been dipping something in all that tea you've been drinking. First, they ARE fear and hate mongers. Do you want me to post some examples from You Tube? Second, I'm not really blaming them as "accomplices," as much as I am saying that their imagery and choice of terms, promotes a toxic political environment. As Jon Stewart mentioned, "Maybe if some people didn't talk so crazy it would be easier to spot those who really are crazy from the rest of us." Third, "Where did I say that they should be shot instead?" You are either hallucinating, or lying.

It does to me, but that's besides the point. Now, you are trying to imply that it really is poltical after all and that he is on the Left? And that it is because he saw the wrong movie? So he went and shot a congresswoman who is a Democrat? What a fool you are.

BTW, Coin posted the Zeitgeist set of clips a while back on one of the threads and we debated it pretty heavily. It was really not a left or right issue. But by all means, scour the web for any little morsel, or tid bit you can find to promote your agenda and post it here. And then complain about how the other side is using this to promote "their agenda." Right.

I have to say, KJ, I'm really disappointed. I know we are on opposite sides, but I actually like conservatives [those who are reasonable and honest, and there are conservatives who are]. And it is not so much that we disagree, but that you have chosen to misrepresent and twist my words around to suit your own purposes. What a drag.

 

Chandos, it is my impression as well that you in some kind want to 'make believe' that
the Republicans are responsible for the deaths of this tragic event.

By all means what does this guy who did this terrible thing has to do with the Republicans?

You think because the rhetoric was heated, that this was the reason that he suddenly went shooting people? Isn't that very very far fetched?

You apply the same reasoning like politicians who want to ban horror movies or 'killer' games, because they 'could' inspire someone to play it out in real life.

I understand this is tragic and even I living on the other side of our planet am saddened by it, but one should stay reasonable.
Maybe, when this event has been processed over time, then there is time to accuse,
because then there is eventually more evidence about all the backgrounds that led to this event.

 

Baronius is sort of right. While countries like Switzerland and Finland do have high gun counts, you're only looking at like 42 and 32 per 100 people (respectively), where as the USA tops the chart at a whopping 90 per 100 residence. There is definitely a significant difference. Whether this is because gun laws are more laxed, as Baronius suggests, or for other reasons, I don't know.

 

Most of the heated rhetoric comes from the Tea Party. While it is true that some of them are Republicans, they claim that they are NOT Republicans.

It would if I actually said that.

Show where we I said THAT.

Don't take my comments out of context. Go ahead and link my comments to what you are saying that I actually SAID. Go Ahead. I have time.

Yes, but above all one should be honest. Although English may not be your first language, this is what I actually said regarding "Republicans."

I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote in my posts.

 

Come on, in essence you blame some kind of heated rhetoric by whomever for the action of a single person.
No need in splitting hairs here.
Sorry if I mixed Republicans and Tea Party or parts of them up. It's hard enough for me to keep up with German poltics. But that isn't my point anyway.

Or are you just ranting against some politicians out of context, without connection to the murders?

 

Take a Look, Hanni.

This is the over-arching theme and idea that I was working with in crafting the thread. I suggest you read what it says carefully. And stop and think before you continue on with giving anymore false impressions. After you understand what it says, we can have reasonable dialogue about it.

Hint: You can go back and read it in the very first post on this thread.

 

Yes, I read it, and again:
What has that to do with this guy who shot the girl and others?

We had our share of tragic shootouts here in Germany as well, and gun law is extremely restricted here.
What I want to say is, that the reason, why someone decides to do such terrible things can't always be grasped.
I understand that one tries to search for reasons, and heck, maybe you are even right.
Why going so aggresively against anyone who disagrees with you?

edit:
By the way I agree with you when you speak of what is problematic in the USA.
Maybe I have just misunderstood you, but my point is that I see no connection of these problems
to the murder and i had the impression that a few users alongside you tried to draw this line.

 

I am a little confused by some of the comments made by Chandos and DDr myself. On the one hand they say that no one is to blame for this guy's actions but himself. I agree, and point out that crap like this happens in far off countries and has happened many times in the past.

The idea that American political and social discourse is steeped in violent imagery has also been brought forth and I agree with that too.

Then the fact that there are Right wing demagogue douchebags like Beck, Limbaugh, etc out there is brought up. Also true.

Where it breaks down for me then is the assertion that the words of such douchebags are contributing factors in this tragedy. That's where my opinions differ. This doesn't mean I'm a fan or lacking class or an echo chamber moron. It simply means that I don't buy the 'some small degree of influence' concept. Even if this shooter were to directly reference Beck, that wouldn't make Beck any more culpable than Salinger was when that assassin referenced Carcher in the Rye.

I'm not arguing that beck is some sort of hero or anything. I watch his rants once a year. He and his ilk have said some wild crap, no doubt about that fact. But the Right wing talking heads bear absolutely no responsibility for this shooting. As someone else said, the shooter and only the shooter pulled the trigger. If believing that means people will calle obtuse, stupid, a Right wing shill, or whatever, fine think what you want. I know I am none of those things.

 

Semantics? It's semantics when a politician says someone needs to execute his political rival? What did you say you'd do if I claimed the comments from my side 'weren't literal'? You may want to try the procedure on yourself.

One, I never claimed it was original. In fact, I even cited the source. Two, I don't think you're paying attention to what I'm saying. I'm not saying criticizing the dialogue from the right is blood libel. That's legitimate criticism. We may disagree on how valid it is, but it's a point. What I (and others) are calling blood libel is trying to lay the blood of the innocent at the feet of people who probably had nothing to do with what happened, without even a shred of evidence that they have any guilt at all. Blood libel is trying to use the dead of this tragedy for a political score card.

Btw, it would also have been blood libel if the Reps had tried to lay the blame for 9/11 on Clinton and the Dems for opposing conservative security hawks. I don't believe for one moment that there was anything we could have done ahead of time to prevent that without knowing it would happen, short of killing Osama, and both Clinton and Bush botched that job. For the record, I don't remember any Reps doing so, but if any did, they're just as guilty of blood libel in that case.

Like hannibal, LKD, and KJ, I don't mind criticism of the political rhetoric out there, and I would love to have a proper debate on that, because I think it's an honest conversation worth having. Trying to connect it to this shooting, however, is just plain wrong. I have also been reminded recently that, while I still suspect many of the critics involved are just trying to harm their political opponents, there is also a strong human drive to blame someone when something goes wrong, especially things we can't understand or predict. Lightning as coming from an angry Zeus. Diseases as punishment for sins. Political rhetoric as driving the shooting of innocents by a twisted psyche. Trying to assign blame is natural, but that doesn't mean it is good or right. Blame should be assigned by evidence, not percieved association.

Actually, most estimates for the number of Americans that own guns are only around 25%. We have a high gun count because many of them own several guns. I guess gun collection is a common hobby in the US (I know at least two people who do it in my small circle). I don't know how distributed it is in Finland or Switzerland, but I generally think the % ownership is more important than the total number.

 

NOG beat me to it, but I have to echo that there is no way 90% of the people in the US own a gun. Heck - about 20% of the population is under 18 and connot even legally buy a gun, so they certainly wouldn't show up in such statistics.

As not says, it's because there's a lot of people in the US that own mutliple guns. In fact, most people I know who own guns own more than one - even if they aren't gun collectors. A couple of them are just hunters, who have bought a few hunting rifles over the years - or perhaps they use different rifles for different game - FIIK - I don't hunt.

 

You have to be freakin' kidding me. Really? Maybe in countries that have a civil war going on, like Iraq, but it must nice sitting up there in Canada, where you are mostly safe, while you smugly proclaim, "It happens everywhere," while our children and citizens get shot by madmen. Yes, it happens in other places, occasionally. But here it is a fact of life. Why? There is something about American society and culture that promotes these things.

No, that's not what I said. But I don't directly blame Sarah either, or Beck. They contribute to a larger problem, which, as I have said, is the "gun culture" in the US. They are opportunists who make their careers off of paranoia and fear of specific issues in which people feel the need to arm themselves and are prepared to start shooting. The immigration issue is a big one in AZ, and DR mentioned how the governor was talking about "headless bodies out in the desert," while citizens were busy arming themselves. It turned out not to be true as he pointed out.

Good, because I feel that is a large part of the problem. And that is what I specifically object to.

Not that you are disagreeing with me, but that you are misrepresenting my point of view, and what I'm saying. Do I sound pissed off? You bet. I'm still pissed about Columbine and VA Tech and Fort Hood and Binghampton, NY, and Jonesboro, Ark, [this one was an 11 and 13-year old shooters], not to mention numerous others.

Case closed. No need to look beyond that --- until next time.

 

Example: My wife's immediate family (include the Brunos) have an average of four guns per household -- even though the Brunos have none. I think if I took that to extended family (going out to cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) in both my family and my wife's the average would be at least two guns per household -- even though only about half the households have guns.

 

Nonsense - each residence in the US contains exactly 9/10 of one firearm.