BREAKING NEWS: ARIZONA CONGRESS WOMAN SHOT IN HEAD!

[john9blue]

I am not holding the victims responsible for the shooting. I am holding the congresswoman responsible for how she conducts public meetings.

You seem to conveniently forget that she is one of the victims.

"the shooting" does not equal "how she conducts public meetings"

his statement still holds

i thought you were a logic master?

[mpjh]

She is both a victim and the chief organizer of the event. She deserves both our sympathy for being a victim and our criticism for being a poor organizer of the event. She is going to have to live with that.

[Orwell]

I am not holding the victims responsible for the shooting. I am holding the congresswoman responsible for how she conducts public meetings.

You seem to conveniently forget that she is one of the victims.

"the shooting" does not equal "how she conducts public meetings"

his statement still holds

i thought you were a logic master?

The shooting is beyond her control hence it has no bearing on how she conducts her public meetings.

So yes, he is blaming the victim.

[Orwell]

She is both a victim and the chief organizer of the event. She deserves both our sympathy for being a victim and our criticism for being a poor organizer of the event. She is going to have to live with that.

She is absolutely not to blame for holding a public meeting nor was her organization of the event at fault. The shooting was beyond her control.

Stop blaming the victim and blame the violent punk who committed the crime.

[mpjh]

Having security at the event was entirely under her control. She also could have held it indoors where people passed through doors past discrete security. She also could have told people not to bring children near the podium.

She could have taken any number of simple, reasonable precautions to protect her constituents, especially the children.

She did none of these.

[Orwell]

Having security at the event was entirely under her control. She also could have held it indoors where people passed through doors past discrete security. She also could have told people not to bring children near the podium.

She could have taken any number of simple, reasonable precautions to protect her constituents, especially the children.

She did none of these.

Fascinating. In your attempts to blame her for the shooting (which again, she had no control over), you are advocating for limiting her constituents to reasonable access to their elected representative? And I thought we lived in a free and open democratic republic.

Are you going to now blame all 535 members of Congress for putting their constituents at risk for every time they have appeared in public? With access comes opportunity. It's what we elect or Congresspeople to do - to listen and represent us.

Only that violent punk can be held responsible for putting people's lives at risk.

[thegreekdog]

Having security at the event was entirely under her control. She also could have held it indoors where people passed through doors past discrete security. She also could have told people not to bring children near the podium.

She could have taken any number of simple, reasonable precautions to protect her constituents, especially the children.

She did none of these.

Fascinating. In your attempts to blame her for the shooting (which again, she had no control over), you are advocating for limiting her constituents to reasonable access to their elected representative? And I thought we lived in a free and open democratic republic.

Are you going to now blame all 535 members of Congress for putting their constituents at risk for every time they have appeared in public? With access comes opportunity. It's what we elect or Congresspeople to do - to listen and represent us.

Only that violent punk can be held responsible for putting people's lives at risk.

So you don't support the proposed bills being tossed around in Congress?

[Phatscotty]

Having security at the event was entirely under her control. She also could have held it indoors where people passed through doors past discrete security. She also could have told people not to bring children near the podium.

She could have taken any number of simple, reasonable precautions to protect her constituents, especially the children.

She did none of these.

Fascinating. In your attempts to blame her for the shooting (which again, she had no control over), you are advocating for limiting her constituents to reasonable access to their elected representative? And I thought we lived in a free and open democratic republic.

Are you going to now blame all 535 members of Congress for putting their constituents at risk for every time they have appeared in public? With access comes opportunity. It's what we elect or Congresspeople to do - to listen and represent us.

Only that violent punk can be held responsible for putting people's lives at risk.

She could have taken steps to possibly prevent what happened, and certainly minimized the damage.

For me, the FBI got a call about him 3 hours before the shooting, and a Fish n Game officer had him an hour or 2 before the shooting.

I thought we spent 1 trillion dollars to make sure the agencies can connect the dots and communicate better.

I hold firm that the patriot act protects us from terror the way the the stimulus plan is going to protect us from a depression. Same move, different parties.

all bad for the cattle and sheep, good for the rancher

[DangerBoy]

blue highlight shows similarities of alleged shooter and tea party

[mpjh]

You guys need to watch the movie Parallax View.

[Aradhus]

blue highlight shows similarities of alleged shooter and tea party

A few questions:

Is somebody arguing that Jared was a tea partier?

Is Palin really a hero of the Tea Party? Really really?

I would've thought Ron Paul would rank a little higher than some clueless money grabbing dingbat.

Is the premise that if you're a lefty you can't be influenced by what a righty is saying?

Is the premise that if you're mentally unstable you can't be influenced?

Is the premise that, words don't matter?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because it can lead to more violence against the government, against government workers. It has more potentionally dangerous consequences than if joe schmoe is murdered. We can be as cynical about politiicians as we like, but at the end of the day, they are putting themselves out there because they want to improve the country, state, district they're representing.

That's a huge assumption and not at all fact.

Then the analyzed intention of every single human action cannot be classified as anything more than assumption.

Aradhus, that's not true at all either.

You assuming that politicians become politicians in order to improve the country, state, and/or district that they want to represent. Are you aware that there are plenty of other incentives on which they act other than the "for the people" one?

You don't know the motivations of a single person on this planet, when it comes to what they do, and why they do it.

Are you aware that even with all the many many incentives to be the politician you speak of, they're still putting themselves out there, and all those incentives doesn't mean that, whilst representing state, district etc, they will try their damndest to ruin what they're representing, or they wil not try to improve the place they're elected to represent.

If politicians became politicians for such lofty goals, then why do problems like vested interests always persist in government (especially the US)?

[mpjh]

lol -- the politicians that want to help their constituents (the people in their district) are the ones that lose. the ones that win have their hands deep, deep into the pockets of corporate america

[thegreekdog]

lol -- the politicians that want to help their constituents (the people in their district) are the ones that lose. the ones that win have their hands deep, deep into the pockets of corporate america

I agree completely (although I would say the more local one goes, the more likely the politician is in it to help constituents).

[Aradhus]

If politicians became politicians for such lofty goals, then why do problems like vested interests always persist in government (especially the US)?

Where does someone like Nelson Mandella fit within the framework of your reasoning?

It is difficult to answer your question because the answers are many, and complex.

So I will condense it down to this, the premise of your question suggests that politicians are somehow fundamentally different from you, me, joe schmo on the street corner. There is no difference. They're persuadable, corruptible, egotistical, can get angry, can be misled, can be happy, can be inspirational, can be you or me.

If there is a problem, the problem isn't with the people, it is with the system. There is massive structural failings. It has bit by bit, intentionally or accidentally, evolved into a monster that incentivizes the actors to play by the monsters rules.

Which is mostly why I am largely sceptical about the "tea party". It is simply more meat for the monster.

If you have inflexible principles that conflict with the monsters interests you will be marginalized and/or removed.

TGD and MPJH posts help explain one small facet of the complexity. At the local level politicians will spend more time with joe schmo, while at the state or national level, politicians will spend more time with Jeremia Alexander Blueth the 3rd, CEO of Corruptocorporation. It is easier to persuade someone to advance a position that aids you, when you have access to the person you need to persuade.

[Phatscotty]

blue highlight shows similarities of alleged shooter and tea party

A few questions:

Is somebody arguing that Jared was a tea partier?

Is Palin really a hero of the Tea Party? Really really?

I would've thought Ron Paul would rank a little higher than some clueless money grabbing dingbat.

Is the premise that if you're a lefty you can't be influenced by what a righty is saying?

Is the premise that if you're mentally unstable you can't be influenced?

Is the premise that, words don't matter?

Many people have put the cross-hairs on the Tea Party, the right wing, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle. That's why the reaction is all about attacking the free speech of anything that could remotely be said and anologized about a gun or the function of a gun or any part of a gun.

Tell us our standards, then give us yummy brains to eat!

[Phatscotty]

To everyone who is calling for stricter gun laws in light of the tragedy in Tucson, may I offer this little tidbit: If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Remember: Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose.

I like how the guy at Fort Hood can yell "Allah is Great" but that doesn't mean hes a terrorist or motivated by Islam. But an atheist pothead Nihlist who is nutz....goes nutz....and it's Sarah Palin's fault.

It's not like the gunman yelled "sarah palin!" just before he lets the dogs out. Of course, that doesn't matter though. It's ok to guess without any evidence all of a sudden.

[Aradhus]

First of all, as far as I have read, the real criticism is that certain persons with a pulpit have been irresponsible. And of course those persons will play the victim card faster than Phatscotty can swallow a right wing talking point. Also they will carry on regardless with the irresponsible speech, and the only people who will try to be more responsible with what they say, are the people who were being responsible in the first place.

Also, the stupid "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is beyond retarded. In 2004 the federal law that a magazine could only hold 10 bullets was changed. Had it still been 10 bullets, that's 21 bullets Jared wouldn't have been able to fire. He would've had to stop after ten bullets. And as what happened when he went to reload, he would have gotten tackled. That would have been 21 shots less fired, and maybe it was one of those additional 21 bullets that that magazine carried that resulted in a 9 year old girl being killed.

[patches70]

Where does someone like Nelson Mandella fit within the framework of your reasoning?

I will probably get flamed for this, but Nelson Mandella might not be such a good example IMO.

Sure, he stood against apartheid and by default people view that as admirable. But when you look at the results of the consequent actions of his ANC party, you start to shake your head and realize that the ANC is just as bad as the previous regime.
In some ways the ANC was even worse.

Look at South Africa now, one of the highest murder rates in the world,
and the unique distinction of being the baby rape capital of the world.
The most rapes of any country in the world.
All of these happening after the fall of apartheid.....

Kinda like one step forward and two steps back. The level of violence displayed by the ANC after they took power should be of no surprise considering they were violent in their rise to power. A like minded organization modeled after the ANC would happily kill a Congressman/Woman in the pursuit of bringing down the Government in power.

Just saying is all.

[mpjh]

Yeah, Mandela failed as a head of state.

[Victor Sullivan]

Why did Creeper edit his posts?

[Aradhus]

Where does someone like Nelson Mandella fit within the framework of your reasoning?

I will probably get flamed for this, but Nelson Mandella might not be such a good example IMO.

Sure, he stood against apartheid and by default people view that as admirable. But when you look at the results of the consequent actions of his ANC party, you start to shake your head and realize that the ANC is just as bad as the previous regime.
In some ways the ANC was even worse.

Look at South Africa now, one of the highest murder rates in the world,
and the unique distinction of being the baby rape capital of the world.
The most rapes of any country in the world.
All of these happening after the fall of apartheid.....

Kinda like one step forward and two steps back. The level of violence displayed by the ANC after they took power should be of no surprise considering they were violent in their rise to power. A like minded organization modeled after the ANC would happily kill a Congressman/Woman in the pursuit of bringing down the Government in power.

Just saying is all.

The premise of the question wasn't results, it was do people become politicians because they have "lofty goals", or because they have some ulterior, perhaps insidious, motives.

[mpjh]

Motives, smotives, its results that matter and means that make the difference.

[patches70]

The premise of the question wasn't results, it was do people become politicians because they have "lofty goals", or because they have some ulterior, perhaps insidious, motives.

The premise of your specific question-

Where does someone like Nelson Mandella fit within the framework of your reasoning?

is that some politicians get into politics for the purpose of actually serving the public and that Nelson Mandella is one of those politicians, or that is how I read your question.

I merely went ahead and showed the results of this supposedly "noble" politician. The results show the contrary. Every politician gives lip service to "lofty goals", "noble aspirations" and "to serve the public" but too many fail to look at the results and draw a conclusion but base the conclusion on the lip service.

Just like it is lip service and disgusting political pandering for people to blame this shooting on the Tea Party. It is a base action, just as the shooting itself was and frankly most honest thinking people reject that premise.

[Night Strike]

First of all, as far as I have read, the real criticism is that certain persons with a pulpit have been irresponsible. And of course those persons will play the victim card faster than Phatscotty can swallow a right wing talking point. Also they will carry on regardless with the irresponsible speech, and the only people who will try to be more responsible with what they say, are the people who were being responsible in the first place.

Of course they should play the victim card since there is still NO EVIDENCE that Loughner even knew about their comments muchless actually followed them. The blame game has failed miserably except for to come back and smack the liberals senseless. (Oops, I guess I'm to blame for the next assault for promoting slapping people. )