It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
All indications are that he was more of a leftist than a righty, so the idea of placing blame on a single side of the aisle is just intellectually dishonest.
The left seems to have jumped all over this, from blaming Beck, to blaming guns. Sheer lunacy.
Perhaps both the right and the left need to take a serious look in the mirror and realize these were the actions of a lone individual, and his political persuasion is meaningless.
Originally posted by GhostLancer
Americans have become desensitized to violence.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I Thai box regularly, and if there's something I learned, it's that the "dogs who bark the loudest are the ones that hardly ever bite". The right-wing aggressive rhetoric is nothing but hot air, and I understand that, but sadly there's a lot of very instable and dumb people in this country, and they don't see it that way...they take it literally, just like they take the bible literally when they claim the earth is only 10,000 years old.edit on 11-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Alxandro
What about true left wing rhetoric like this?
If Palin Lived in Pakistan, Could She Face a Drone Strike?
by Robert Naiman
Suppose that Sarah Palin lived in Pakistan. Suppose that Jared Loughner, the alleged killer of federal Judge John Roll and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' staffer Gabe Zimmerman, had once traveled to Pakistan. Suppose that a "credible source" told a U.S. intelligence official that Loughner, while he was in Pakistan, had met with Sarah Palin. And suppose that Sarah Palin had published a map showing Gabrielle Giffords' congressional district under the cross hairs of a gun sight (of course, as the world knows - including, presumably, people in Pakistan - this last statement is not a supposition, but an established fact.)
This is exactly the sort of hypothetical question that courts consider all the time in judging whether government actions are legal and constitutional. If the government has the legal authority to do X, does it also have the legal authority to do similar thing Y? If not, why are the two situations legally different? We claim, in the United States, that we live according to the rule of law. A fundamental premise of the rule of law is that you cannot have one law for Fred on Monday and another law for Suzie on Tuesday. If you have one law for Fred and another for Suzie, then you have laws, but you do not have the rule of law.