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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Honestly, i am all about personal responsibility. In Mannings case, he broke the law. Now, the law is fuzzy on this due to precedence....so we will see what comes of it. I, personally, would acquit. The peoples "right to know" supercedes the need for national security when there are laws being broken.

In the shooters case, he is to blame. he is a nutjob, so that blame may be pretty thin...but it is his solely to have.

But i will tell you, just saying "you break the law you go to jail" does not suffice for me. We all break the law, all the time. There are 600,000 of them....you are always in violation of something.

I think if we would more narrowly define what "law" is, by thinning the lawbooks, i would support your statement a little more. As it is, i can say honestly that, if you break the law you likely only broke a tyrannical law unless someone directly suffered loss.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


There are protections under Federal Law that specifically cover Mannings incident. Where Manning sunk himself was by not using that system, and by releasing classified information that went beyond the initial criminal wrongdoing he exposed.

He knew exactly what he was doing, and as an intelligence analyst he knows full well the info he released is not the entire story, since agencies who have the same source dont always put detailed info into their reports, because another agency is responsible for it.

I would not acquitt, I would go for Prison time for him.

As far as the other comment, I am sorry but people do not have a right to certain information. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Represetative Republic. Meaning the people elect others to represent their intrests in Government. This includes Government oversight committees as well as intelligence and armed services committees.

Thos elected officals are the ones who have a right to know on behalf of the American people who sent them to Washington to represent their intrests. If people dont like this thats fine. In order to change it we would need to change our form of Government and the Constitution.

What we have are people who think they have a right to classified information for whatever reason they think. The manner in which some of the people think in these forums, and if they had access to the information, would be disasterous. It would be Monday morning quarterbacked by people who think they know whatrs going on. It exposes sources and singnal intelligence, undercover operations and investigations.

As with Law Enforcement, when I am working an investigation, its not for public consumption. Only after the courts have made their rulings, and appeals exhausted does the information become a matter of Public Record. I dont see people throwing a fit over that rule, so why is it different when it comes to the Government and intelligence?

Again, its personal responsibility.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



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


From an artistic point of view the most chilling poster is the one with Sarah Palin her husband and the baby. Wer can agree that Sarah palin is an idiot. If my fellow American citizens decide to elect her well so be it. Nero was suppose to have made his horse a senator. However the symbolism is frankly offensive firing a round at her may mean another child being shot or her husband both are not politicians. As a liberal this is not in my name.

There should be a voluntary code of conduct in politics.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Revenant
I congratulate you all. Seriously.

My experiment has worked - all it takes is a little hostility from someone on either side, and BAM! the hatred and vitriol lights up.

Sorry to wind some of you up, and use you for the example, but it's shown exactly what we're up against eh? I am a leftie, and a practising Liberal Democrat politician. I disagree with lots of right-wing politics, but not all. Quite frankly, as long as people are civil, and not saying anything uncivil (which includes bigotry and incitement to murder) then I don't care what they say. Belief is belief - we're all entitled to it.

But I stand by one comment I made earlier - the word whether written or spoken, is FAR MORE POWERFUL than the gun.

Tone down the hate-speech everyone - the conspiracies will be much more interesting that way.

The Revenant.


If indeed it was an "experiment", you appear to have discovered the touchstone to spark rancor.

Now your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to discover the touchstone to spark dialogue in lieu of rancor. That can be a good bit more productive.

To assist you in that quest, allow me to suggest some light reading. In this thread, a "violent right-wing nut job" (that would be me) was able to come to terms with a card-carrying communist, a :left wingnut". It doesn't get much farther left than that, nor much more polarized. The thread was authored by AdAbsurdum as an effort to synthesize a political ideology we can all manage to agree upon. I just added a pretty trinket to it here and there.

A little background: AdAbsurdum is self-described as a communist so far to the left he bumps up against the right. I personally am somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun, so far to the right I damn near wrap around to the left. Had we met in the field 25 years ago, one of us would have HAD to have killed the other - and that seems to be just the sort of thing under discussion here. Instead, we ran smack dab into one another in this thread. The running battle begins on page two of that thread, and it was me that pulled the trigger on it, but AdAbsurdum who had the plan. He needed a "right wing nut job" to bounce his "left wingnut" ideas of of, and to attempt to reach an accommodation between the two philosophies.

Somehow, we managed to get that done without bloodshed. The thread he initiated above is the fruit of that discussion. Is it perfect? Probably not - but the point is that some sort of accommodation CAN be reached, and it won't be reached by infantile name calling and demonization, purposefully pissing folks off just to get a rise out of them.

Read the thread, see what you think, then you can get back to your regularly scheduled programming.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So in your point of view what happens when the senator of a state teams up with a woman to run the country. But they lose to a demorate. Then the woman goes out and says to her supporters don't back down reload. Then draws bullseye on a democrate in the district of the senator who ran with her to run this country. Then a follower follows her leadership view and targets that democrate in the district her partner was in.

Was she a leader in a leadership role ordering the shooting of her opponent? If so should she be liable? The new American way is to do a drone strike on that person and tell the judges you can't see the evidence against her. Where is the law in that no where because she and her fellow leaders made it that way.

Beware of what you ask for you just might get it. Rings true in that case.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


So in your point of view, you take exception to the cros hairs and palin, but you are ok with the Deomcrats doing it? Check the post of mine a few up where the democrats put out a map of the US with vulnerable Republican seats wiuth bullseyes on them, with the map labeled behind enemy lines.

Its a 2 way street if your going to make that argument.

My point is the people who are to stupid to think rationally took what they wanted out of a speech, and acted on their own.

To use your analogy, because Democrats support abortion in a public manner, does that give the right to people who share that view to kill doctors who refuse to perform an abortion?

Republicans rail against abortion, does that give a person the right to go kill doctors who perform abortions?

When Preisdent Obama called the the other party "The Enemy" does that give people a right to go kill Republicans and Tea Party members?

The logic people are trying to use by taking something Palin said, which is protected free speech, and turn it into an indightment because someone idiot heard the speech in a manner they wanted to hear it, and not how it was intended is grabbing at straws.

What I find even more disturbing is how blatanlty the fringe Democrats are using this incident to make their accusations against Palin, yet were quiet when Obama said the enemy, when the DailyKos posted their info and then removed it because it wouldnt look good to accuse republicans of hate speech when they had their own hate speech up against Rep. Giffords.

You can make all the arguments you want about Palin, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what occured. The gunmen is an indiependant, and has had issues with Giffords for some time now according to media info.

The more people try to sustain this idiotic endeavor to blame Palin, the more stupid and out of touch democrats look.

The majority of Americans on BOTH sides of the political arena beleive this is the act of a madman. But by all menas, the Democrats need something to exploit to shift attention from their losses in the midterms. What better way than to use a play from Rham emanuels playbook, never let a good crisis go unexploted.

This entire argument dealing with the shooter and Palin is nothing but a sad attempt by people who have absolutely no clue, no conscious and no class.
edit on 11-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra




The foaming at the mouth left refuses to accept it but the symbols on Palin's map were surveyor's symbols and not the crosshairs of a gun. The crosshairs bothered me from the beginning because anyone who has ever shot a scoped rifle knows the crosshairs don't extend beyond the reticle. I've shot scoped rifles and I know Sarah Palin has so I wondered how it could be so off. I learned how yesterday from Neal Boortz.

The Democrat bullseye on the other hand has no use except to be shot at by something.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
While I do not dispute that liberals at times make inflammatory remarks, the right is guilty by an order of magnitude. Fear is the central device that is used to recruit and mobilize for their party. (How else can you explain poor or middle class people voting to give billionaires tax breaks.)


I explain it as a desire to see all men equal under the law. Interesting concept, huh? If you insist on concessions to treat them "specially" because of their economics, what's to stop anyone else, like for instance mine or your poor, poor asses from being treated "specially" too? The thing is, we might not much like the "special" attention we could get out of that sort of arrangement.

I'm not a "respecter of personage". That include hammering them down because of their economic debilities. Yes, I see being "rich" as an economic debility. It creates far to much stress in those so afflicted. I see no reason at all to afford them "special" treatment solely on that account.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Alxandro
 


From an artistic point of view the most chilling poster is the one with Sarah Palin her husband and the baby. Wer can agree that Sarah palin is an idiot. If my fellow American citizens decide to elect her well so be it. Nero was suppose to have made his horse a senator. However the symbolism is frankly offensive firing a round at her may mean another child being shot or her husband both are not politicians. As a liberal this is not in my name.

There should be a voluntary code of conduct in politics.


Look at that poster again. The baby would not be an incidental kill, or "collateral damage". The crosshairs are directly on it's forehead.

In that poster, the baby IS the target. Feel the love?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   




Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus--living fossils--so we we'll never forget what these people stood for."






Glen Beck: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."




Eric Erickson (Redstate.com): "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"




Michael Savage: "I say round liberals up and hang em' high. When I hear someone's in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-25."





Dick Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say 'we're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over.' Well, they're beginning to have a case."





G . Gorden Liddy (broadcasting advice on how to kill law enforcement officers): "...-shots, they are wearing body armor, head shots... or shoot for the groin."





When will those people understand that their idiotic political rhetoric entices crazy nut jobs to commit awful crimes like the Tucson shooting??



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
When will those people understand that their idiotic political rhetoric entices crazy nut jobs to commit awful crimes like the Tucson shooting??


I'll take a shot at that question.

Maybe when someone...anyone...can provide a single shred of evidence that they are even remotely connected?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
I'll take a shot at that question.

Maybe when someone...anyone...can provide a single shred of evidence that they are even remotely connected?


Right wing talk radio and TV motivated Adkisson to "kill Liberals"
For starters.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


From your source... (The title of which made me laugh out loud, by the way. Thanks,)

The news vaguely mentioned something about his idea as being out to kill Liberals, and the discovery that his house was filled with books by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing hate talkers. It seemed reasonably clear that his was a hate crime, aimed at Liberals and instigated by right wing pundits on radio and TV. But the press never presented more evidence than just rumors of his speech claiming to be after "Liberals and Democrats."


And then the lengthy "quote", attributed to Adkisson and reposted to your sourced blog from another blog, never once mentions being "incited" to kill by anyone. His explanation for his hatred for liberals is easily attributable to news sources other than those named in the post to which I replied, including the MSM and even ATS.

Note the underlined segments of your source article excerpt. I'd say those words acknowledge a complete lack of evidence.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the Arizona tragedy?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Maybe when someone...anyone...can provide a single shred of evidence that they are even remotely connected?


Will this satisfy your "They Are Connected Meter?"


precisely because environment is related to violence in psychotics the fact that his web postings include rantings about the constitution, currency and other hot political topics that have been tinged with violent rhetoric legitimately raises the possibility that his target was chosen in part because of the political environment.

Put more simply, if you are a violent paranoiac and someone tells you someone else is a threat to you, you may believe them and act on it.

Source

Granted it is a blog but it is backed by erudite medical studies. I have NEVER claimed that Palin's words alone were responsible for the shootings but rather the voices in his head. However there is strong evidence to suggest that mentally ill are prone to suggestion.

ETA: More clinical research on "Power of Suggestion"

Münsterberg's work was grounded in the theory of psychophysical parallelism, which argued that all psychological processes had a parallel physical process in the brain. He believed that mental illness had a physiological basis and made diagnoses based on behavioral observations, an interview, and answers received by the patients whom he interviewed. He frequently used direct suggestions and auto-suggestions in treatment, reporting success in his treatment of drug addiction, phobias, sexual disorders, alcoholism, and obsessions.

Source

*Bolded emphasis by me in both quotes.





edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: Added content



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Let's have a look at the facts, shall we?

- He was a member of group that was against government.
- He shot a liberal in the head and killed/wounded other liberals.
- He planned this and called it an "assassination"
- He was against the FED and all those other organizations that get attacked by Beck/Limbaugh/Palin every single day

Now who called for the assassination of liberals?? Read the quotes I posted above and it should be pretty clear that at best, those guys didn't help to stop this nutcase, but rather fueled his irrational actions.

Now let's see how much proof we have that he was a liberal himself like the rightwing media claims:

- He smoked pot...of course only liberals smoke pot

- He read "Mein Kampf" by Hitler...again, Naziism and being a liberal is the same, right?

- He read the communist manifesto...again, being liberal doesn't mean you're a communist, if it were, you'd just call them communists


So the political group he belonged to was far right, and he called it a planned assassination. But you don't believe there's a connection because of the "proof" that he's a liberal. That "proof" is beyond laughable, especially the pot smoking one. You do realize Bush smoked pot, right? I wouldn't call him a liberal

edit on 13-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
And then the lengthy "quote", attributed to Adkisson and reposted to your sourced blog from another blog, never once mentions being "incited" to kill by anyone. His explanation for his hatred for liberals is easily attributable to news sources other than those named in the post to which I replied, including the MSM and even ATS.


Yeah he probably got the idea that all Liberals are amoral socialist bent on destroying America from watching MSNBC or reading ATS. Sure. Nevermind that is Glenn Becks entire schtick.


Note the underlined segments of your source article excerpt. I'd say those words acknowledge a complete lack of evidence.


Note the man's own words - ALL OF THEM.


Anyway, what does that have to do with the Arizona tragedy?


Direct reply to the last post. Did you not understand what you were replying to?

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by MrXYZ
When will those people understand that their idiotic political rhetoric entices crazy nut jobs to commit awful crimes like the Tucson shooting??


I'll take a shot at that question.

Maybe when someone...anyone...can provide a single shred of evidence that they are even remotely connected?

"political rhetoric entices crazy nut jobs to commit awful crimes like the Tucson shooting?? "

You asked for a relation. I have more. Lots more.






edit on 13-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


How about this.


She seems like a smart lady. She seems to believe there is a connection between violent rhetoric and the violent actions that sometimes follow because not everyone is sane, mature, intelligent, or even fit to eat at a table. I saw this and thought she had a good point. Based on history, she is pointing out that we have enough causal evidence in the past to indicate this kind of talk is a bad idea. Now, she could be way off. Or she could be lying in the hospital with a bullet wound in her head.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Absolutely, without a doubt, it is "possible" (using the same terminology as your excerpts) for a mentally disturbed person to be more susceptible to suggestions of others. Even a neighbor's demonic dog.

However, just because it is "possible" is not evidence that it is the case with Giffords's assailant. I am amazed that this whole flap was put into play by a Paul Krugman article that began with

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.


Unbelievable! And actually, I guess the furor of the left over this incident further proves your statements about the susceptibility of the weak minded to the power of suggestion.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


Apparently you missed the part where she explains that after certain "TEA party" activitists instructed their flock to damage offices with vandalism, rep Giffords office was vandalised. Crazy coincidence, eh?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by spaznational
 


AP - Left wing.


Your source (big government) is run by Andrew Breitbart. A known political operative and shill of the Republican party.



Ummm.... I didn't link to BigGovernment, that was the poster before me. And yes they are right-wing.

AP cherry-picks what news to run or quash based upon how well it fits into the leftist narrative.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join