Arizona Congresswoman Gunned Down

[Crabtownboy]

Not directly, but it can help to create a vitriolic atmosphere which makes nutters more likely to act in this way; comments of a violent nature (cross-hairs, shooting metaphors, 'shock jocks', etc) tend to breed violent actions. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, particularly if you aspire to public office; there's also the old adage of not shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

You are right. Apologists may say, "Oh they were only using the words as metaphors."

Well metaphors are powerful and the unbalanced and insane may take those words as marching orders. In essence they are pushed over the edge. In my mind these politicians and talking heads, regardless of political stance, bear some responsibility ... not legally, but morally.

Politicians and talking heads should be careful of their inflammatory language.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The only person guilty here is the shooter, there is no doubt about that.

I do think it gives us pause to consider how inflammatory language and imagery might be misinterpreted or misused and to think before it is used.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

So you're saying that Obama knew about the shooter and sanctioned his actions?

I am sure that obama would have plausible deniability...

But, Chicago Style Politics has been the watch word of his administration.

And, I find it *very* convenient that as soon as "Daly" is in charge, that this would happen and that all the news media is blaming sarah Palin and the Tea Party...

If anything it's the Liberals that cause insanity and unfathomable actions...

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

The only person guilty here is the shooter, there is no doubt about that.

I do think it gives us pause to consider how inflammatory language and imagery might be misinterpreted or misused and to think before it is used.

Yes like a Sergeant quoting Psalm 109:8 in reference to obama, when any LEO should know that it is against Federal Law to express the desire that harm come to the President. (No matter how evil one may think he is.)

Unfortunately, when you are talking about evil, no matter how you couch/cache your words it's going to appear vitriolic.

And, this administration *is* evil, repressive and anit-Constitution...

Lastly, doesn't anyone remember the vitriol Pelosi and Reid leveled at and continues to level at Bush? But, they remain blameless while the Tea Party gets blamed for this pathetic unstable individual.

 

[carpro]

Not directly, but it can help to create a vitriolic atmosphere which makes nutters more likely to act in this way; comments of a violent nature (cross-hairs, shooting metaphors, 'shock jocks', etc) tend to breed violent actions.

Do we know whether this nut ever saw or heard any of the "vitriol" from the right? The answer is no.

But we do know he saw the corruption of the political process democrats used to pass a bill the majority of Americans do not want.

He wrote about it in his blog.

So was he set off by the corruption of democrats or the so called "vitriol" of the right?

One scenario is just as likely as the other.

He may have even been angry at a convenience store clerk or a traffic signal that didn't change fast enough.

Bottom line is he is a nut. Anything anyone says or does at any time can set him off.

When you have proof he was set off by any form of political free speech, get back to me.

Your idle speculation is just as harmful as anything else that may have happened.

 

[carpro]

The only person guilty here is the shooter, there is no doubt about that.

I do think it gives us pause to consider how inflammatory language and imagery might be misinterpreted or misused and to think before it is used.

Uniformed speculation based on facts not in evidence can be just as damaging.

One might even call it nothing more than sinful gossip.

 

[Matt Black]

Carpro, it's scarcely 'idle speculation'. He was spouting on his blog the same kind of violent language against your government that the extremist Tea Partiers and shock jocks use. There's a clear link.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Carpro, it's scarcely 'idle speculation'. He was spouting on his blog the same kind of violent language against your government that the extremist Tea Partiers and shock jocks use. There's a clear link.

Matt, I agree with you ... and politicians, shock jocks, and extremist of any strip who use inflammatory language bear part of the moral responsibility of such acts as this one.

Inflammatory language such as:

In June, the campaign of Giffords' Republican opponent in this year's midterms, Jesse Kelly, placed an ad that read: "Get on target for victory in November/ Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office/ Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

The website for Kelly, a former US Marine, depicted him with holding an automatic weapon.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978892111


can, IMHO, not be excused off as an innocent comment.

 

[carpro]

Carpro, it's scarcely 'idle speculation'. He was spouting on his blog the same kind of violent language against your government that the extremist Tea Partiers and shock jocks use. There's a clear link.

So which was it...anger at democrat corruption of political free speech?

You have no idea. You're just spreading gossip based on speculation and not factual evidence.

Clear link to what ...democrat corruption, Palin's map with crosshairs or democrat's earlier ad with bullseyes on republican districts.

If you have proof of which it was, share it.

 

[Matt Black]

We have laws in this country against incitement to violence - and I'm sure you do too; whilst the comments of Palin et al do not legally amount to his, there is more than a case for saying that they morally do (none of which lessens the legal guilt or moral culpability of the shooter). Cross-hairs, calls to 'reload not retreat' and for a 'Second Amendment solution' against a democratically-elected executive and legislature, all add up to a picture of violence and vitriol, and those who perpetrate such junk should act all surprised when an oddball acts out their rhetoric.

 

[carpro]

We have laws in this country against incitement to violence - and I'm sure you do too; whilst the comments of Palin et al do not legally amount to his, there is more than a case for saying that they morally do (none of which lessens the legal guilt or moral culpability of the shooter). Cross-hairs, calls to 'reload not retreat' and for a 'Second Amendment solution' against a democratically-elected executive and legislature, all add up to a picture of violence and vitriol, and those who perpetrate such junk should act all surprised when an oddball acts out their rhetoric.

Still waiting for proof of the connection.

Meanwhile, take a look at thes and tell me which it was, one of these or Palin's:

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wo...s-eyes-and-sarah-palins-surveyors-crosshairs/

The radical left and their allies in the media have been working over time trying to blame the tragic mass murder in Arizona Saturday morning on Sarah Palin. The “smoking gun” they claim is the “Take Back The 20” campaign Sarah launched last year. This was an effort to defeat vulnerable democrats in congressional districts that she and John McCain won in 2008. It was a targeted effort.

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wo...ongresswoman-giffords-targeted-as-a-sell-out/

While all of the left wing hatemongers and their media partners conspire to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the senseless mass murder in Arizona, claiming the fact that Sarah “targeted” Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords incited violence against her, they conveniently leave out their own targeting of political rivals.

As we pointed out earlier, the democrats use actual bull’s-eyes when they target their “enemies.” You can see the difference between the type of “Targeting Strategy” the democrats use, and Sarah’s low key advert here.
One of the worst of the hate mongers is Marcos Moulitsas, publisher of the Daily Kos. This is a far left hate site that routinely cheers when a Republican or anyone they don’t care for, dies or gets ill. It’s a sickening place. They are not above attacking their own though, if they dare stray from the far left ideology they espouse.

Show me proof of which one it was.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Show me proof of which one it was.

The issue here it not who is 'at fault.' Only one person is to blame.


However, perhaps it is time for both sides to step back and examine their use of possibly inflammatory rhetoric and postings.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yeah, we should all harken back to the days before talk radio, when no vitriol was anywhere. No Kennedy assasinations, no M.L.K. killing, Puerto Rican Nationalists never shot up congress......nothing bad ever happened, did it ?

The truth is political events like this hardly EVER happen, except in other countries, where there's no Sarah Palin. And there is also evidence this woman was ion several similar ads from her own side.

Everyone told us not to jump to conclusions after the Islam-inspired mass murder at the Texas Army base. Now the same hypocrites strain to connect this guy to an ideology.

There are two dementias on display. The killer's, and those so obsessed with political enemies they are willing to connect this awful event to them.

 

[carpro]

The issue here it not who is 'at fault.' Only one person is to blame.

I agree that only one person is responsible.

But, The leftist media and democrat politicians made fault an issue immediately saying "vitriol" from the right was the cause, and Sarah Palin has been prominately blamed.

My point is the same as yours, but there are many here who made the same leap as the radical leftists, with a liberal press leading the way.

Both sides are equally guilty, as I have shown, but all the finger pointing has been to the right. I believe what is at the bottom of the speculation and finger pointing is the left's continuing desire to, in violation of the 1st Amendment, to control political free speech.

I appreciate your even handedness.

 

[Aaron]

There is no more reasoning to be done with liberals. They know that rhetoric is not to blame for the shooting. They know it, but they belch their subterfuge anyway, because they're liars and their agenda is their religion.

Anyone who thinks the socialist agenda is merely a political difference with conservatives, and thinks that the issues can be resolved by facts and reasoning, and who thinks there are some extremes that the Left would not go to advance their agenda should read "Radical Son" by David Horowitz.

The only thing that keeps them at bay is fear, just as fear kept the Jews from crucifying Christ sooner than they did.

 

[NiteShift]

Cross-hairs, calls to 'reload not retreat' and for a 'Second Amendment solution' against a democratically-elected executive and legislature, all add up to a picture of violence and vitriol, and those who perpetrate such junk should act all surprised when an oddball acts out their rhetoric.

'Targeting' of Congressional seats is nothing but figurative language and has been used for years, both in the US and UK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/lskey103097.htm
Democrats Target 30 Congressional Seats in Effort to Retake House

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/democrats-target-southern_n_144327.html
"Democrats target Southern Senate seats for 2010"

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/04/29/house_democrats_target_29_gop_seats.html
According to a leaked memo,DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) plans to target 29 House Republicans from districts won by Barack Obama last November.

People only make a political issue of this type of speech when it suits their purpose.

And BTW, the "Reload not Retreat" text was from back in March of 2009, before the elections. I suppose the shooter must have been looking at archives of her website.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

satan *NEVER* lets a crisis go by without pushing his agenda to castrate and make impotent people who believe in individual freedom to seek Christ and speak openly about such things as Justice and Mercy.

That there are a few Globalists on this board can not be denied...

That they think that American Freedoms are to blame for all the violence is so narrow minded that it is pathetic and obvious...

American Freedom, IMHO, is what little salt there is that retains Freedom throughout the World. Like it or not.

As long as America is free, despots throughout the world have to wonder that if they go to far, will American Patriots attempt to export that same set of Freedoms over their dead bodies?

Whos is to blame for the Arizona shootings?

Is it the 2nd Amendment?

Did that handgun march itself to the scenec and start firing all by itself.

Would laws banning Handguns have prevented this?

No, probably not.

Because handgun laws only prevent the law aabiding person from obtaning one. A determined criminal or sociopath can always get a handgun, even in Austrailia or England.

And, even barring the availability of a Handgun, there are always kitchen knives. And, sociopaths are never against getting up close and personal...

But, there are now screams to tighten handgun laws...

The real reason...

The despots running America are afraid that if they push too far, it won't be an election they will have to worry about. satan can't make sinners sin, if there is too high a cost involved, that they can see clearly.

Was it Internet free Speech? Doubtful.

Some of the election campaining rhetoric throughout US history was been even more vitriolic. The only difference was that a person had to be literate enough and prosperous enough to buy and read a newspaper.

But, obama now wants an Individual Cyber security ID for all Americans!

This way he can shut down all connects for anyone who voices an contrary expression with a few keystrokes...

Why? Because they are afraid of the right to Free Speech and its affect on their satanic agenda. They don't want any Truth but their own "truth" to be heard.

Because if the light of day truly shines on their actions Globalist Liberal Christians will have no excuse for sitting idly by and reelecting such satanically inspired trash.

Who's *really* to blame?

satan!

And ,his minions who the Liberal Globalist church has empowered by putting his "ministers" in charge of our government and the over throw of the US Constitution.

To which I still have an oath to defend...

 

[glfredrick]

There is no more reasoning to be done with liberals. They know that rhetoric is not to blame for the shooting. They know it, but they belch their subterfuge anyway, because they're liars and their agenda is their religion.

Anyone who thinks the socialist agenda is merely a political difference with conservatives, and thinks that the issues can be resolved by facts and reasoning, and who thinks there are some extremes that the Left would not go to advance their agenda should read "Radical Son" by David Horowitz.

The only thing that keeps them at bay is fear, just as fear kept the Jews from crucifying Christ sooner than they did.

Actually, because the Left has used rhetoric SO successfully to further their aims...

 

[Matt Black]

Still waiting for proof of the connection.

Well, the fact that the victim was a Democrat, not a Republican, for starters, would suggest that he was a believer in right wing rather than left wing propaganda. And are you seriously suggesting that comments like those of Jesse Kelly ("Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.") don't raise the temperature to a dangerous level and aren't irresponsible? For the record, I equally condemn the use by Democrats of bullseye targets; any mixing of politics with the imagery of violence is unnacceptable.

Bro Curtis: yes, assassinations existed long before shock jocks...and abortions occurred long before Roe-v-Wade. Doesn't make either right.

Sarah Palin needs to reach out to wider America rather than its lunatic fringe if she's to stand any chance of running in 2012; as one commentator has put it, "she needs to decide whether a Ronald Reagan or a Rush Limbaugh"; she can't be both...

 

[carpro]

Well, the fact that the victim was a Democrat, not a Republican, for starters, would suggest that he was a believer in right wing rather than left wing propaganda. And are you seriously suggesting that comments like those of Jesse Kelly ("Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.") don't raise the temperature to a dangerous level and aren't irresponsible? For the record, I equally condemn the use by Democrats of bullseye targets; any mixing of politics with the imagery of violence is unnacceptable.

Laughable reasoning, but...

Still waiting for proof of a connection.

Even your government requires proof to convict, doesn't it?