U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona shot in the head

[kairparavel]

At least with the congress woman and the judge they knew they where making stand, they knew there could be danger.

They were not in a war-zone. They were not rushing into a burning building. They were not working in a coal mine. They were in a parking lot of a Safeway. The idea that a politician could be in danger by virtue of simply being out in public meeting their constituents boggles my mind. The idea that they are in danger by virtue of simply being a government representative is even more alarming.

[Trebla]

Yeah, what is already being talked about is how Congress will now be shielded from their constituents. My former congressman used to meet and greet people a few miles away from me at grocery store. We'd get the automated call that he was appearing. We've seen the town halls and rallys. I now wonder how long it will take to go back to that. Or if we ever will.

A terrible, terrible tragedy. It happens in Arizona which has the hotbed of discourse. And a 9 yr old girl that was BORN on 9/11 murdered.

[Swordfish]

I can't believe your defending a woman who uses violent rhetoric and imagery in her speeches and on her website.

Oh bullshit.

It would be nice if you guys could at least let the blood stains dry before you try and turn this into some political advantage for yourselves, But I suppose that's asking too much.

Nooo, sorry I remember you-

then you have me at a disadvantage, because I have no recollection of you at all.

Oh please, people have been saying for months that the Right needs to tone down the violent rhetoric. I feel like I'm having the same argument now that I had when Angle came up with the "second amendment remedies" line. For some reason the Right was absolutely fascinated in 2010 with having violent rhetoric for their campaigns.

I do not think it is a coincidence that Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" website, which featured Giffords under crosshairs, was taken down hours after Giffords was shot in the head.

Of course it's no coincidence. Jesus christ.

You might have a perfectly valid point if it was just the map and the crosshairs ect.

There is however more. From the Upcoming Events section of the website in question:

Jesse Kelly being her opposition in the election. Hard to claim there is no intentional violent imagery present when the campaign rallies themselves were juxtaposing defeating a woman and shooting assault rifles with her opponent.

:rolleyes:

Good grief, have you no shame?

Right. Like her followers aren't basically stupid.

And even that's irrelevant. A politician has to curb anything that can be construed as controversial or inflammatory, unless deliberately so.

Once again we are faced with:

1. Palin is an advocate of terrorism

2. Palin is a political moron

Swordfish, take a step back on this one. "You people" goes without comment from Smashing Young Dipshitroll, but you should know better.

I stand by my comments.

It's disgusting for people to try and use something like this to score cheap political points.

Just as it was with the lynchings a few months ago.

It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

The irony is that the same posters are crying out for honest, polite discourse with their next breath.

Seriously this whole thing is beyond sad. That little girl, what the hell can a little girl do to be assassinated? I know she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but seriously she affected me more then the congress woman or the judge. At least with the congress woman and the judge they knew they where making stand, they knew there could be danger. But a 9 year old girl? WHY

But it is a sad day in American politics when we do decide to reload, and not retreat. It is a sad day in American politics when elected officials can't interact with their constituents with out well placed fear. We've taken a huge step back; I am just so sad and disgusted.

How? politicians have been getting killed for thousands of years.

If anything, it's probably less common now than at almost any point in history.

It's a terrible, sad, tragic incident, but that's ALL it is.

[kairparavel]

Swordfish, regardless of whether the Palin Take Back the 20 and the shooting were related or not, why can we not take this opportunity to discuss and consider the implications of violent rhetoric and public figures. Why can we not use this as a sobering event to tone it down some, regardless of who or what is to blame?

And opportunistic jackal? Any idea why Sarah Palin felt the need to post something to her Facebook page in the first half hour after the shooting was reported?

[Galactus]

Basically, only idiots would believe Palin had any kind of intention of getting people shot, but the point is that she really shouldn't sound like that's what she wants since there are weirdoes who'll take her at her word.

And yes, there are weirdoes who'll take "Hello my name is George" as an invitation to shoot you, but there's still a difference of degree here.

[Swordfish]

Basically, only idiots would believe Palin had any kind of intention of getting people shot, but the point is that she really shouldn't sound like that's what she wants since there are weirdoes who'll take her at her word.

And yes, there are weirdoes who'll take "Hello my name is George" as an invitation to shoot you, but there's still a difference of degree here.

there isn't much reason to believe though that this guy took her at her word, or that he had any kind of coherent political philosophy.

It sure looks at this point like he's just a guy who had an extreme psychotic break.

Look at the books on his favorites list:

The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, We the Living......

I don't see anyone here blaming Marx or hitler for this incident, and I will freely admit that I'm pretty shocked no one has blamed Rand yet.

Should we ban those books as well?

Swordfish, regardless of whether the Palin Take Back the 20 and the shooting were related or not, why can we not take this opportunity to discuss and consider the implications of violent rhetoric and public figures. Why can we not use this as a sobering event to tone it down some, regardless of who or what is to blame?

That is not, for the most part, what has been happening in this thread.

[BloodRider]

No need to have them convinced someone's sending them some sorta secret go-ahead to assassinate people.

I am beginning to wonder if the other guy was using the shooter to enact a political assassination? Pure speculation on my part, but something seems very Lee Malveaux about it.

[Ser Greguh]

It sure looks at this point like he's just a guy who had an extreme psychotic break.

And how exactly is this inconsistent with anything anyone you're attacking is saying?

The point has been from the beginning that Palin et al should have gone to efforts to curb their rhetoric precisely because of how it might be interpreted by the less hinged of their followers, who are much more likely to interpret these charged messages as a direct call to violence. The fact that the shooter is mentally unstable enhances, not deters, these arguments.

[Galactus]

there isn't much reason to believe though that this guy took her at her word, or that he had any kind of coherent political philosophy.

Eh? If anything that list implies that he's at least somewhat politically "engaged", and with an interest in politics.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Swordfish, regardless of whether the Palin Take Back the 20 and the shooting were related or not, why can we not take this opportunity to discuss and consider the implications of violent rhetoric and public figures. Why can we not use this as a sobering event to tone it down some, regardless of who or what is to blame?

And opportunistic jackal? Any idea why Sarah Palin felt the need to post something to her Facebook page in the first half hour after the shooting was reported?

Why? This thread should be about the victims. If you want to discuss the right's violent rhetoric why not start another thread?

[kairparavel]

No, this thread is about the shooting and this board is about discussion.

[Ser Greguh]

And opportunistic jackal? Any idea why Sarah Palin felt the need to post something to her Facebook page in the first half hour after the shooting was reported?

Or, more to the point, why she took down those images in the wake of the shooting to begin with? I hear tell she's been going back through her Twitter account and deleting some of her more rabble-rousing Tweets as well.

[Seventh Pup]

They were not in a war-zone. They were not rushing into a burning building. They were not working in a coal mine. They were in a parking lot of a Safeway. The idea that a politician could be in danger by virtue of simply being out in public meeting their constituents boggles my mind. The idea that they are in danger by virtue of simply being a government representative is even more alarming.

I was thinking more that this politician had received death threats, I've read the judge had as well. I think it's truly an act of bravery to stay as open to the public as they did even after receiving threats.

Swordfish if you can't see how using murder as a means of conveying ones political opinion as a step back for the country I don’t even what to know what your view of America is.

[Arthmail]

The escalation in rhetoric began during the Bush years. This faux moral outrage I'm seeing on the left it utterly laughable in the face of their behavior during that time. What's being attempted by the left—using this tragedy to demonize and cow tea party supporters—is transparent and doomed to backfire.

But hey, go full press with it (you already are). The game is on.

Uhm...right. The lefts escalation being along the lines of peaceful demonstrations and calling Bush an idiot? Did we see violent rhetoric? Did we see calls for civil uprising? No. We saw people that disagreed with the Iraq War being called tratiors and blah, blah, blah.

Calling Bush an idiot, or Cheney evil, is a signifigant stretch from what we've seen on the right.

The tea-party, by the by, is a flash in the pan. It won't be around in five years as little more than a fringe group. This isn't an attack on the tea-party itself because thats not worth it. Its a call to end some of the disgusting language that gets bantered about by high level elected officials.

Words have consequences.

[Arthmail]

Why? This thread should be about the victims. If you want to discuss the right's violent rhetoric why not start another thread?

There would be a page or two in this thread, thats it. What can you say that CNN doesn't speculate every three seconds?

[kairparavel]

I was thinking more that this politician had received death threats, I've read the judge had as well. I think it's truly an act of bravery to stay as open to the public as they did even after receiving threats.

That's part of my disconnect. 'A group of citizens voted you in, but I disagree with you and your stance so you deserve to die because of it.' Whatever happened to 'I disagree with you so I will work to vote you out of office'?

[Seventh Pup]

That's part of my disconnect. 'A group of citizens voted you in, but I disagree with you and your stance so you deserve to die because of it.' Whatever happened to 'I disagree with you so I will work to vote you out of office'?

I don't know but it fills me with much sadness. :(

[mormont]

The escalation in rhetoric began during the Bush years. This faux moral outrage I'm seeing on the left it utterly laughable in the face of their behavior during that time.

I don't recall Democratic politicians routinely using shooting metaphors in the GWB years. Given that, their behaviour during that time is irrelevant. Moreover, the suggestion that the outrage displayed over this incident is 'faux' rather than genuine is an out-and-out insult: it has all the appearances of someone flailing around to find something, anything, in this to use to bash 'the left'.

Basically, if this is your contribution to the discussion, you shouldn't bother. It's both crass and inept. You're doing much more harm than good to the viewpoint you want to support.

That is not, for the most part, what has been happening in this thread.

For the most part - if not 100% - it is.

What has been happening in this thread is that people have been upset and outraged by the shooting and have suggested that the violent, shooting-related imagery commonly used by many on the right may have had a part to play in inspiring the incident. For the most part, there's no accusation that there was ever any deliberate intent by Sarah Palin or others that their words should inspire an actual shooting. But the point has been well made that that does not excuse the use of such imagery, or exonerate from blame those who were using it. Irresponsible use of inflammatory rhetoric isn't as bad as deliberate use of inflammatory rhetoric - but it's still something which can contribute to incidents like this, and for which people should have to answer as a result.

[Ser Greguh]

Moreover, the suggestion that the outrage displayed over this incident is 'faux' rather than genuine is an out-and-out insult

Basic projection. Republicans have spent the past half decade turning faux outrage into such a cottage industry that they no longer recognize the genuine article.

[Annelise]

My Dad called yesterday and tried to tell me about this but I was in the middle of something & thought he was talking about border patrol killing a nine year old girl.

Yeah, what is already being talked about is how Congress will now be shielded from their constituents. My former congressman used to meet and greet people a few miles away from me at grocery store. We'd get the automated call that he was appearing. We've seen the town halls and rallys. I now wonder how long it will take to go back to that. Or if we ever will.

After the human cost, this possible outcome is the next most depressing thing to me.

ETA: I did read they are trying to locate a second suspect seen on a security camera but evidently there have been no arrests?