Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson shot

[image=http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee234/Darth_Guy/9680.jpg]?

 

Actually if you look at my posts, my point is that the supposedly "violent rhetoric" from Palin, Beck, et al had nothing to do with the Tuscon shooting. Every indication we've been seeing is that one has NOTHING to do with the other. If you want to talk about the effects of violent rhetoric and etc, have at it, but I'm not about to let the notion that Palin, Beck, or anyone else had some sort of influence on this guy to cause him to want to shoot these people when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Speaking of the left getting all worked up about the crosshairs deal with Palin and them claiming that the right is all about violence while the left, on the other hand, is all about peace and love, how do you respond to this?

~Hmmmm...Obama is joking about killing the Jonas brothers. Isn't that a tad bit violent?

~How about this quote from Obama during a fundraiser in 2008, "don't give up! If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun!" I wonder what kind of impact that had on impressionable youth.

~What about this campaign map from 2004? Are those crosshairs!?!?!

~What about Bill Maher saying that lives would be saved if Cheney was dead? That seems like a pretty violent bit of rhetoric to me.

~How about Alec Baldwin (who wants to run for office at the moment) saying that Henry Hyde and his family should be stoned and killed? Wow... You don't get much more violent than that, eh?

~Maybe a more recent example? How about The Death of a President and it's depiction of Bush being assassinated?

My point isn't to decry these things (I'm all for free speech) but I think it only fair to say that if liberals are going to go after Palin and other conservatives for this kind of stuff, shouldn't liberals also be held to the same standard? As I see it, the left is getting a free pass here and the only reason Palin is being attacked is because the left is looking for political points when the mood of the country is clearly not in their corner. There's no other word for it than hypocritical.

 

That was one of the best speeches Obama has given yet, Let's be the America that Christina imagined us to be.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized ? at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do ? it?s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, 'when I looked for light, then came darkness.' Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.


[...]

But what we can?t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.

[...]

So sudden loss causes us to look backward ? but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if we?ve shown enough kindness, generosity, compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we may question whether we are doing right by our children, our community, whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality; we are reminded that in our fleeting time on earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -? but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

[...]

They believe and I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here ? they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us. And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That?s what I believe, in part because that?s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine, imagine here for a moment, a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just beginning to glimpse that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation?s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism, vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us ? we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children?s expectations.

This was already mentioned, Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called ?Faces of Hope.? On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child?s life. 'I hope you help those in need,' read one. 'I hope you know all of the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart. I hope you jump in rain puddles.'

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here, on this Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and we commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

Da

 

Oh for ****s sake.

1)Were you paying ANY attention at all? I'm not going after Sarah Palin. I'm not going after anybody. All I ever said was that a discussion about violent political rhetoric in a thread about a congresswoman and a judge getting shot was a valid discussion to make, something you've been contesting for four pages. It so happens that the one closest to this incident was done by Sarah Palin. It also happens that others (people in the media and with blogs) have been blaming her for it. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I THINK SHE'S RESPONSIBLE.

What, do I need to find every single piece of violent rhetoric ever and make a comment about it? Otherwise you'll just paint me as one who's trying to make it about Sarah Palin, even though I'm the one who's saying it's not just about her? Please. Enough with the strawman.

2)"Liberals" aren't going after Sarah Palin. And even if they were, I'm not accountable for it.

So what was that you said about generalizations earlier? That you were tired of them?

 

Not quite. The idiot in question hosts the morning show in Toronto I listen to daily. They frequently have Shirley Phelps as a guest and openly mock her on the radio for their own amusement. In his own words, Dean Blundell (the show's host/star) knows his audience is smarter than to be caught up in her ridiculous claims, and have either tuned out or are equally amused with how ridiculous she sounds. Its not something they do just with her, they frequently have newsworthy guests worthy of ridicule on and openly mock them.

In this instance Blundell asked Phelps to honour their arrangement - he would let her spew her garbage on air and in return she won't protest the spots he asks her not to, usually local to Toronto, but just this once he asked her to leave the 9 year old child's funeral alone and she said she would try to talk to her people about it (though wouldn't guarantee they wouldn't protest).

So I wouldn't call Blundell an idiot (its a usual segment for entertainment purposes), and though he did give her a wider audience they weren't likely a very receptive audience and she ended up making a fool of herself...again.

You can hear it on their podcast here: http://www.edge.ca/DJsandShows/TheDeanBlundellShow/Audio.aspx (Labeled: "Shirley Phelps - Jan. 11")

 

Death of a President was a British production, so I'm not sure why it has anything to do with your list. And for what it's worth, it was far more about the reaction and fallout to such an assassination than the assassination itself.

 

That was probably Obama's speech since becoming president. Really great.


And it's probably fallen on totally deaf ears for many in this thread. Fantastic

 

I thought it was a well done speech as well.

 

That speech brought me to tears. The moment when he mentioned Congresswoman Giffords opening her eyes was so moving. I thought the cheering from the college students was odd at first for a memorial service, but then following in the wake of the President's uplifting words--the cheering became overwhelmingly appropriate.

And the way he spoke of that little girl: her innocence, curiosity, and trust--this was a wake up call to indeed dare to hope to live up to such idealistic dreams of goodness for a nation. I believe in that goodness and tonight was so proud to have a President like Mr. Obama to help lead a such a divided nation. I was also amazed at the use of biblical passages, and how appropriately they were used. I feel that he was brave to directly address the political discourse that has been happening over the past few days--to show the futility of the finger pointing in the midst of such evil.

There was a lot of truth coming from President Obama tonight. I only wish such goodness and such truth would be exclaimed more often--without the encouragement of such tragedy.

I'm faithful many others were moved by that speech and by that service tonight. And though it may not teach all of us, and people will still fall, bad things will still happen, and politics will not lose its cynicism, people will continue to move forward, to hope, and give their best in the name of goodness (even in this thread ).

Thoughts and prayers for the people who suffered through the tragedy in Tucson, which served as a reminder of the sort of evil that occurs everyday, and the sort of goodness that is always there to meet it.

 

Although, the discussion isn't linked to the event. I mean, we could say that a congressperson is shot, we should discuss if Puerto Rico should have independence from the U.S., or talk about the dangers of religious cults, because those are both linked to congresspeople being shot or killed, but there's no reason to tie it to this. Heck, more current, it was an attempt at killing a group rather than an individual, would it be valid for us to discuss the dangers of fundamentalist Islam? Or to use this to discuss the violence associated with the drug trade in Mexico?


The preponderance of evidence, at this point, is that he was not influenced by political rhetoric (on the mainstream right or the mainstream left) any more than he wants an independent Puerto Rico, or was part of Al-Queda. The validity of the two hasn't been linked. Now, if this was just leading people to talk about the tone of rhetoric, as an independent discussion without citing the shooting as evidence that there's a problem with the rhetoric, that'd be different.


As for Obama's speech, said some things that definitely needed saying, and I hope people take it to heart.

 

Lowie you're misunderstanding. Closest doesn't mean "caused or related to."

Also, please don't tell me you think talking about violent speech in a thread about a shooting isn't relevant.

 

Alright, I'm at a loss for words here;

I don't care what your opinion is--that Palin is solely responsible, partly responsible, or not at all responsible--it is flat out dishonest to somehow claim that much of this thread and the conversation surrounding this incident isn't a discussion partly about Sarah Palin and her role in our current discourse. My own opinion is that much of the Tea Party rhetoric is vile and reprehensible and that may have contributed to this incident, and seeing as Sarah Palin is their symbolic leader, when she makes a statement as unapologetic as the one she makes today, that she ought to be condemned for it. Seeing as Sarah Palin is not exactly the most popular person on the JCC, I was mildly surprised there wasn't more discussion about it.

Right, and that's a perfectly valid point, so why need to be so vulgar, hostile, and dismissive and obscure that point? Can you blame me for for perhaps not deciphering his incredibly eloquent post? Despite that, I just clarified my own position. There was absolutely no point to Vivec's post other than to try (unsuccessfully) to say "Gotcha!"

Who are the ones here not letting a past discussion go? I've expressed both privately and publicly--in this thread no less!-regret and shame for some of the things that were said by me in those past discussions, and on top of that was very candid earlier about being a sufferer of a mental illness, and trying to gear the discussion in that direction. That, too, was dismissed.

I guess I'll just stop trying to learn from my mistakes and be critical of myself and try to get tight with JRod and JediSmuggler.

 

"...it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

--President Barack Obama

 

i'm kind of confused, other jacen dude. it looks like you're trying to say "yeah, i guess we shouldn't be talking about sarah palin" with words that equate to "hey, why aren't we talking about sarah palin more?"

is this accurate? anybody? am i crazy here?

 

I'm trying to have a discussion about all possible facets of the tragedy.

But trolling with socks is more fun.

 

Calm down dude. As I said before, the evidence doesn't suggest that any supposedly violent rhetoric, regardless of the source, is to blame for the tragedy in Tucson. That's my entire point. It just so happens that Palin seems to be the one that's primarily in the "cross hairs" of those that are looking for some political points to gain from this incident. My assertion isn't necessarily aimed at you but everyone that's been trying to blame Palin and conservatives for this tragedy. And don't try and claim that liberals aren't going after Sarah Palin. Anyone that's watched even a pinch of news over the last three days can't help but see her being brought up. On the very day of the shooting before we even knew the name of the shooter, the main stream media was talking about Sarah Palin's target map from September and making a link between her and the shooting. It's crazy!

In any case, about Obama's speech, I can only hope that people on both sides of the aisle actually listen and temper the polarizing discourse. Unfortunately I think the Palin/Beck/Tea Party haters on the far left and in the media won't be able to stop themselves.

 

you didn't answer my question, guyicantcalljacenbecausethatswhoiam. i'm legit trying to figure out what you were saying in that post. could you please enlighten me? no joke, i'm interested.

 

"If irony were strawberries, we'd all be drinking a lot of smoothies right now!" - South Park

 

good point

Edit: Skating close to the line, another comment about a user and not the subject on hand will result in unpleasantness.

 

I have to say, President Obama's speech tonight was absolutely perfect. I take issue with a lot of the president's political opinions, but that speech spoke to me on a human level. This was a horrible thing that happened in Arizona, and I sympathize with the families of the lost. It seems they all died bravely. My prayers go out to Rep. Giffords, and the families of those who died or were wounded.

 

Just a reminder to people that personal comments about other users are unacceptable.

 

Edit out....

 

Then take the time to post more than two words and say "Isn't it a little hypocritical to ask for people to not take polarising stances and then turn around and make a comment that just does that? While undoubtedly certain media commentators are going to exhibit their personal biases, it's unfair to claim they are necessarily going to be of a particular political/party persuasion since some across all spectrum are unlikely to let things go."

Warnings have been given in the thread about avoiding personal comments. You can afford to use more words.