Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[katsarecool]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

Does that mean she doesn't read things before she goes public with it. If so, she's even less bright than I first thought.

I suspect much of what she read off the teleprompter went right over her head. I am beginning to think she is just a puppet. As I thought GW was a puppet. Too bad no one will get a chance to pull her strings if they had hopes of getting her into the WH.

[MsDemeanor]

I just came back from checking to see what the Freepers were saying about the speech. It seems that it was horrible that people cheered and applauded.

I need a shower.

[key]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I just came back from checking to see what the Freepers were saying about the speech. It seems that it was horrible that people cheered and applauded.

I need a shower.

I knew as soon as I heard the first applause the freepers were going to jump all over it, like they still do when referencing the Wellstone memorial. I admit that I did not feel entirely comfortable hearing cheers when someone named someone who died. But we Americans have so few ways to express our overwhelming emotions.

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

[katsarecool]

Originally Posted by key

I knew as soon as I heard the first applause the freepers were going to jump all over it, like they still do when referencing the Wellstone memorial. I admit that I did not feel entirely comfortable hearing cheers when someone named someone who died. But we Americans have so few ways to express our overwhelming emotions.

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

We are going to see a great deal of this bright young man! The interview he did on Nightline was awesome!!! His speaking ability reminds me of a younger President Obama.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Remember Ms O'Donnell is a product of the movement that gave us this:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
(Anonymous aide to George W. Bush* as quoted by Ron Suskind in The New Yorker--2004)

I'll bet the ancient Romans felt the exact same way...

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by key

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

...and a well-deserved one.

[Toughy]

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............

-------------
I do find it a bit disturbing to suggest that any member of the House is an 'inconsequential politician'. I am sure that no one in her district thought she was inconsequential before she was shot. Giffords is a 3 term House member.

----------
I watched part of the memorial service and I was a bit skeeved at all the cheering and clapping and hooting and hollering that went on................and it was during the entire service, not just during Obama's words to the country.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

Well, you know. As the right moves further to the right, the new definition of "progressive" becomes the old definition of "centrist".

I actually don't know anything about her. I've heard she was pretty gun-rightsy. I'm not sure how she felt about Brewer's antics. I do know she was in favour of HCR.

She probably was pretty centrist. But you know, that's just a few steps away from filthy commie to some people.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

No, I have to say that interpretation hadn't occurred to me. However, after reading your post I gamed it out in my head on my drive home from work. It doesn't work for me for a number of reasons:

1) The perpetrator is all wrong. Circumstances have handed any pol wanting to drum up fear in the body politic the *perfect* foil--namely Muslims.

2) The actual deed is wrong. Yes, six people died but there could have been a much higher body count.

3) Giffords survived. If this were a conspiracy she would have died because from a propaganda perspective she is worth far more dead than alive.

What possible benefit would come out of this for a politician or 'the government'? None. If someone is going to take such a HUGE risk as a false-flag operation, there has to be a payoff. There's no payoff to this. Discussion of gun control ( which goes nowhere) and distraction? Not nearly enough.

If the shooter had been a suicide bomber and if said suicide bomber had conveniently been in Pakistan or along the AfPak border area and immediately following there were calls to invade Pakistan then I could see an argument for a false-flag operation. But given the above, I just don't see it. The risks of being caught so outweigh any potential benefits that there's no way someone would green light the kind of operation you are alluding to.

Cheers
Aj

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............

Blue Dog and self-described "former Republican"

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

I actually wanted to add this--and I know this sounds cynical but here goes anyway.

There is no level of gun-violence mayhem that I would put past the American public. Every year, every YEAR, enough people are shot and killed in this country to make up the body count of a decent-sized guerilla war or partisan insurgency. In fact, I would go so far as to say that suicide-bombings not-with-standing, there are hardly any excesses of the most vicious, brutal, hard-fought civil war that cannot be easily and enthusiastically duplicated by an ordinary American walking into a building with his Constitutionally protected firearm.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Well, you know. As the right moves further to the right, the new definition of "progressive" becomes the old definition of "centrist".

I actually don't know anything about her. I've heard she was pretty gun-rightsy. I'm not sure how she felt about Brewer's antics. I do know she was in favour of HCR.

She probably was pretty centrist. But you know, that's just a few steps away from filthy commie to some people.

You know it's really sad but so true. I'm pretty liberal. If there were a way to do it *democratically* I would be in favor of socialism but I don't see any way to have democracy and real nationalization of the economy. So I'm a social democrat. But things have tilted so far to the right that my positions end up being rather centrist.

I've heard (and read) European Leftists say that there is no American Left because positions that seem Left in America would be of the Right in Europe. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it is a sign of how far Right this country has turned.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

She is a Blue Dog Democrat... an acknowledged sub organization of the Democratic party... many of whom refuse to pay dues to the Democratic platform. She is, unlike most Blue Dogs, pro-choice and very supportive of LGBT rights. She is a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus...

The only stated position for the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism. I think that most of them tend to be "socially conservative" though... whatever that means (to me a more appropriate term would be socially backwards!). She says she was once Republican...

Originally Posted by Toughy

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............

-------------
I do find it a bit disturbing to suggest that any member of the House is an 'inconsequential politician'. I am sure that no one in her district thought she was inconsequential before she was shot. Giffords is a 3 term House member.

----------
I watched part of the memorial service and I was a bit skeeved at all the cheering and clapping and hooting and hollering that went on................and it was during the entire service, not just during Obama's words to the country.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I've heard (and read) European Leftists say that there is no American Left because positions that seem Left in America would be of the Right in Europe. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it is a sign of how far Right this country has turned.

Cheers
Aj

I can see that. I mean, for as long as I've been old enough to understand "how things work" and "what things mean" your Republicans have been to the right of our Conservative Party of Canada and your Democrats have also been to the right of our Liberal Party of Canada.

Mind you, our Conservative Party is also moving to the right at a maddening/saddening pace - although not quite as maddening/saddening as your Republicans.

(By the way, I don't consider the Liberal Party to be Leftist at all. I consider them centrist.)

[betenoire]

Tucson Tea Party founder says that the Tea Party is also a victim in the shooting

But, he said, the political rhetoric surrounding the shootings is leaving the Tea Party as an additional victim of the tragedy.

Oh, and also that it's partially Gifford's fault that the shooting happened at all.

The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Tucson Tea Party founder says that the Tea Party is also a victim in the shooting



Oh, and also that it's partially Gifford's fault that the shooting happened at all.

Typical blame the victims crap, was wondering how long it would take them to flip that lil tidbit.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Typical blame the victims crap, was wondering how long it would take them to flip that lil tidbit.

I know, I was beginning to wonder what took so damn long to get to the "well, it was Giffords own fault..." meme.

Cheers
Aj