It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over rightwing rhetoric in US

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

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.


All indications is the guy had some severe mental problems that were not dealt with. All indications is the guy woke up one morning and something snapped, prompting this kid to take a gun, some ammo, and no rational thought process to the Congress on the Corner.

All indications are is this kid went on a shooting spree for reasons only he knows. Until he talks about it, which does not look likely anytime soon, all indications are this was the act of a mentally distrubed kid.

All indications are we have absolutely no idea whats going through this kids mind, and neither does the media.

Until he decides to speak its all conjecture, and all political spectrums can accuse whomever they want of whatever they want, and in the end, they will all be wrong because we dont know.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
OP is as insane as the gunman.

Somebody seriously needs to put him on a watchlist.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by enigma91
 


Don't worry he's from the UK so he is already on a watch list and castrated by his own government. Probably has a case of pistol envy.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Americans have become desensitized to violence. We watch it *everywhere* and about *everything.* War movies, crime thrillers, dramas... cartoons. From neonates to toddlers, from adolescents to teenagers, from young adult to old age... We simply THIRST for violence in all its forms.

There are shows on all manner of channels, hundreds and hundreds of channels... From vivid documentaries on the Military Channel to HBO mini-series about WWII; from the numerous "Law and Order" and "CSI" clones to brilliantly written shows like "Castle." From the new "Hawaii 5-0" to just about any and every kind of show you can imagine on television these days. And that's not counting the movies. The novels.

VIOLENT CONFLICT seems to sell to human beings. We are a passionate bunch, and prone to violence. The main distinction is that usually the "good" guys only use it as self-defense. Although for a decade, the theory of "preemptive strikes" has been popularized. Still, we, as a large group, tend to enjoy watching bad peopel do bad things and then good people following up with bad things to stop the bad guys from doing more bad things. Violence is at once repulsive AS WELL AS a *solution.*

Naturally, as human beings (and as AMERICANS) we become passionate about our beliefs as evidenced throughout history. Take a look at any and all time periods. We fight. We wage war. We kill. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that there are lifeforms on this planet UNWILLING to fully acknowledge us and make first contact. After all, one of our best achievements, nuclear power, was ushered into the world via the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What a way to begin the "Space Age."

And here, some 60 years or so later, how far have we really come? We still make our political arguments (essentially "my way is better than yours"). We still get heated and passionate. Only, now, we are uneducated enough, over-medicated enough, bankrupt (as a nation) enough... to take matters into our own, extremely distorted hands. Like the assassin who attacked over the weekend.

Did suggestive imagery from Sarah Palin's website incite this bald maniac to kill? Was her choice in using crosshairs/gunsights poor? Why didn't she and her team remove the imagery when months ago people pointed out that it might be a bad choice in visuals? Because they left the imagery as it was, we must ask these questions and we will never truly know if he (the alleged assassin) was prompted into ACTION by said imagery.

The lesson learned? Politicians like Sarah Palin (or ANY who use violent images and language) should tone down their violence-encouraging style. Otherwise, America will suffer from the woes of Ireland and England during the 80s and 90s when bombs were going off almost every day. Do you remember that?

The use of suggestively violent imagery and speech is irresponsible, wreckless and counter-productive to established American ideals. We are a nation of the peaceful transition of power. We are not a nation based on assassinating your way to political office. In fact, I humbly suggest a law that prevents ANY political party to benefit from assassination. In other words, if any public official is assassinated, the successor MUST COME FROM THE ENCUMBENT'S OWN POLITICAL PARTY. I don't know the complexities of Arizona laws, but for goodness' sake, if she was a democrat and shot out of office, a republican or tea party candidate better not take her place. Otherwise we feed the fire of political assassination.

For the record, I am not affiliated with any political party. I am simply for the best person, the best idea. I think America is stronger when we work together --unhampered by party line requirements that tend to prevent positive collaborations.

Just some thoughts. One final one: STOP PUTTING CROSSHAIR TARGETS ON ANYONE, lest this entire situation spiral out of control and *everyone* is afraid to go into public because of gunfire and explosions. Politicians who live by suggestively violent speech and imagery, I imagine, could find themselves the victims of their own rhetoric. That's not the kind of America I want. We must behave as ladies and gentlemen, not barbarians killing each other to win the leadership positions. Otherwise, let's just revert to a system where the strongest person becomes the leader in a WWF-styled THUNDERDOME cage match and be done with all pretense. Is that the America you want?
edit on 11-1-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Americans have become desensitized to violence.


No we haven't. In this case, outside of a few pricks there has been a fairly even consensus level of horror at what has happened.

Now, someone getting their butt kicked in a fist fight, that is a different story. People do tend to stand and tweet those things, or take video to upload. But that is more of a thing of nowadays, everyone is a reporter and everyone likes to think they are living on reality TV.

It is more like we are desensitized to reality. Violence will jar us awake a little and provoke a meaningful response.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The Revenant
 


Yet liberals can hate everyone else with a free pass. I do give you that hate and negativity is annoying, but free speech is also nice to have. Sometimes there are real issues that need to be debated, and fear-mongering people with good, legitimate arguments into staying quiet is not the way to have it done. However, I hope we can make a distinction here between free speech and going on a rampage.

I also think that people should have the right to rant or express their opinions in a free society, even if they don't make sense, although I place that at a slightly lower right than the right to express controversial FACTS or LEGITIMATE OPINIONS without fear of being prosecuted and told one is a racist or "too right wing" as a free card the liberals have to shut down debate they don't want to deal with.

I am more liberally inclined, but this does seem to happen.
edit on 11-1-2011 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
There's a difference between hating someone, and publicly stating that person deserves to be killed...like Beckel on FOX who said Assange should be killed, illegally if not possible in a legal way. That statement could get you prosecuted in quite a lot of countries, but I guess enticing people to violence and killing people is just fine


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)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Hypocrites.
What about true left wing rhetoric like this?






























posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


That's just totally uncalled for Alxandro!

How dare you present factual imagery representative of reality!
This shall not stand! I'm reporting this post for inciting realism!

Michelle Malkin does a pretty damned good job of cataloging
exactly this kind of stuff...It's a LONG list spanning from 2000 to 2010:
Reality hurts sometimes.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 




I despise the political dichotomy.

However, in my memory, the "toxic political discourse" started with the "Bush Derangement Syndrome", whereby we saw what you posted. I had never seen people talk so toxically about a president until Bush.

Hypocrites, indeed.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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)


As one martial artist to another I salute your dog reference. I made a similar point elsewhere. What has always annoyed me about the right and left is that their rhetoric frankly incited the poltitical footsoldiers to further acts of insanity like attacking the police (who are frankly just working people) , the mindless destruction of properrty and now murder.

Young people wish to make their mark and are idealists who then become cynical old men. Ithink it is up to the political leaders to develop solid political solutions as opposed to going for the cheap slogans. The fact is neither right or left offer credible solutions for America or even the West.
edit on 11-1-2011 by tiger5 because: add a sentence



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Hypocrites.
What about true left wing rhetoric like this?


I did not recognize any of the public figures with a national voice in your pictures. Can you maybe add captions so that we can see which politicians and national broadcast figures are supposed to be in those pictures?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Looking over the tableau of political posters with slogans I remembered something. Many of the slogans and posters originated from the alternative political scene. Fair comment as the alternative political scene never expected to get into office and even if they won would never take part in that system of government. Ask anyone who knows the left as opposed to shouts slogans (huge difference). The same goes for the alternative right like the TP prior to their election wins.

My question is when did this type of heated rhetoric get into the mainstream political milieu was it Bush 1 or Bush 2? Or was it Clinton.

Remember I am trying to understand something and not make a political Right /Left point



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
www.commondreams.org...



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.)



If you think about it. Yes she would be on the Drone Strike list and have a card in the deck with her picture on it.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Oh, so now he met with Palin, and she told him to kill her? That is the most retarded comparison I have heard in my entire life dude. Wow....



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


You should read the article instead of just jabber jawing.



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.


Unsubstationated proof or no proof at all is what drone strikes are done with all the time. And I would say all the proof needed for a drone strike on a terrorist leader has been made according to past examples or have they? Maybe some of the things that have been done under the name of war on terror should be looked at or we should in fact do a drone strike on her just to be fair under the rule of law. Justice is blind they say.
edit on 11-1-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
So this is really how it ends then.. People breaking the law because of insert any reason here.

Manning released classified info - People aregue its not his fault but the Governments
Guys shoots Rep and others - People argue the Right is to blame
A drunk driver fleas a traffic stop and in the process kills a person - The cops are to blame
A man in a wheel chair threatening Police with a knife is shot and killed - Police are to blame
A gun is used in a crime - The gun loving / 2nd amendment loving people are to blame.

At what point do we stop the denial and say what the problem is - Personal responsibility?

You break the law, you go to jail.. plain and simple

Not one person made Manning access and release classified info, not one person made this guy buy a gun, nor did they force him to go shoot the Rep and the others, not one person made the guy in Cali pull a knife on passerbys, nor did anyone force him to act in a threatening manner with that knife to the officers present, not one person forced the guy to drink in excess and then drive, nor did anyone force him to flee from the police, not one person has forced anyone to by or own a weapon under the 2nd amendment.

Our society has moved from standing on our own to feet to an uber welfare state where the group is punished for an individuals actions. A guy shoots a member of Congress, and its the right wings fault? That same guy buys a gun legally, and the second amendment is to blame.

The complete and total hypocrisy of some people in these forums is just staggering. People make the slipperly slope argument, that the government is taking away rights an liberties at an alarming way, going so far as to use the police state terminology.

yet....

when it comes to whats going on at the moment, those same people make the argument to limit free speech, censor thoughts, prohibit / clamp down on media.

Apparently we live in fantasyland, which has now become very real, where its anybodys fault except for the person who is responsible.


edit on 11-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Well the article is trying to make a shooting out to be a terrorist attack, I would disagree with that. The term gets tossed around way too loosely if you ask me.... I will however agree where it criticizes how we can go around bombing people like we do. Blowing up a whole building full of people because a suspected terrorist might be in there, or bombing a funeral etc. That is kind of off topic though.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree, there is way too much scapegoating that goes on these days. It is getting pretty ridiculous if you ask me.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join