BREAKING NEWS: ARIZONA CONGRESS WOMAN SHOT IN HEAD!

[thegreekdog]

So, he wasn't at all advocating killing liberals from that quote? Is that your (dishonest) position?

Oh mother of pearl! Of course he wasn't advocating killing liberals!!!! Rush Limbaugh does what he does to make money, not to win political office or kill other people. How do people not understand this? I don't sit here and accuse Keith Olbermann of shit like this!

By the way,. are you arguing that its ok for Rush to talk about killing specific groups of people? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

Yes, it's okay for Rush Limbaugh (or me or you or Saxitoxin or President Obama or former President Bush or Serbia's mom) to talk about killing specific groups of people.

As far as I know, people in Philadelphia did not bring guns to any knife fights after President Obama's speech here. And even if they had, I would blame those people before I ever pointed a finger at President Obama.

[saxitoxin]

So, he wasn't at all advocating killing liberals from that quote? Is that your (dishonest) position?

Oh mother of pearl! Of course he wasn't advocating killing liberals!!!! Rush Limbaugh does what he does to make money, not to win political office or kill other people. How do people not understand this? I don't sit here and accuse Keith Olbermann of shit like this!

By the way,. are you arguing that its ok for Rush to talk about killing specific groups of people? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

I don't speak for TGD but I assume he's arguing that:

If ...
(1) the Wizard of Oz glorified vigilante acid-attacks against Witches,
and
(2) since 1933, Wiccans have been killed or assaulted,

(3) The Wizard of Oz incited murder

Naturally, those with inferior academic pedigrees may not understand the nuances of logical reasoning and draw different conclusions.

I believe the cold war was a documentary film about Aradhus sticking his gold finger up your ass.

I'm afraid you have me bested in trying to communicate in the kind of colloquialisms so common among painters and bricklayers in Northampton. I regret you do not have sufficient knowledge of words or language that would allow you to express yourself or enunciate what you are feeling. I empathize with the frustration you are experiencing.

[thegreekdog]

So, he wasn't at all advocating killing liberals from that quote? Is that your (dishonest) position?

Oh mother of pearl! Of course he wasn't advocating killing liberals!!!! Rush Limbaugh does what he does to make money, not to win political office or kill other people. How do people not understand this? I don't sit here and accuse Keith Olbermann of shit like this!

Keith olbermann talks about killing conservatives? I believe the topic was toxic rhetoric. Rush makes money because he preys on the stupid, inciting stupid fucks into potentially commiting violent acts.

Keith Olbermann talks about trying the president for treason, which would result in his death. Keith Olbermann talks about how the Tea Party is full of racists (and has a guest on his show talk about it as well), which should, if anything, incite violence... IF HIS LISTENERS WERE INSANE AND COMMITTED TO INSANE ACTS IN ANY EVENT!!!

Rush does not make money from inciting people to commit violent acts. And this guy may be stupid, but he committed these acts because he's insane... not because he's stupid.

[thegreekdog]

In the legal world, there are a number of factors that constitute an effective tort claim. I like to think these factors can be applied in a sort of cause and effect analysis:

(1) Duty
(2) Breach of duty
(3) Harm
(4) Defendant's breach causes the harm (i.e. causation)

One should take each of these elements in order to determine whether a defendant is liable to the plaintiff for injuries sustained.

Duty - does the media have a duty to people who listen to keep them from doing harm to others or does the media have a duty to the general public to keep listeners from doing harm to the general public? I think the answer is no, but let's assume the answer is yes.

Breach of duty - Assuming the media has a duty to keep people from doing harm to others, does the media breach that duty when they use crosshairs in political ads? I think the answer is no, but let's assume the answer is yes.

Harm - Yes, harm is caused, so we can skip this one.

Did defendant's breach of duty cause the harm - Of course not. And this is where we're getting hung up. The media's alleged breach of their alleged duty doesn't cause someone to go out and kill someone else. There is no cause and effect.

[aage]

strike and tgd, you're missing the point. The question is if he would have killed anyone else if not this woman. I think nay. This woman apparently did something to the guy (or at least in his opinion) and "paid for it", as Jared would describe. The other victims might well have been collateral damage.

Apparently there was this woman who stood up to him, referred to as "the hero" in the interview with the Sherrif. She didn't get shot. That might mean the guy had his mind fixed on something. A "true lunatic" would've shot anyone. Hell, a true lunatic would've blown himself up.

Yes, he would have killed someone else.

If the blog post was his, then the congresswoman's vote against Pelosi is what she did to him. There are also reports of other possible communications between him and her office that could have made him angrier. He was also angry at the lack of proper grammar in the 8th Congressional District and viewed her as the leader of that district.

So tgd, is there anyone else who has been doing all of these things lately? I mean, you have no evidence that he would've shot anyone for less, and since he didn't we can assume he wouldn't have.

Also, Saxi, I know you have heard the apples-oranges argument before, but I do admire your stubbornness

[Ray Rider]

An excerpt from the end of a good article about gun laws and the Tucson shooting:
"There have been dozens and dozens of people killed in school shootings in the U.S. since the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed in 1995, including, of course, the notorious massacre at Columbine. It’s been said countless times before, but it seems to bear constant repeating since it seems never to sink into the minds of those who think that laws can solve everything: criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law, no matter what it says about carrying guns to public events, while disarming the law-abiding public can only embolden them. If government can’t manage with the sensible laws it already has against letting volatile individuals own guns, it seems pointless to give it less sensible ones to enforce. After all, if the answer to stopping a lunatic assassin like Jared Lee Loughner were as easy as that, the U.S. could simply outlaw murdering people. Except it already has. That hasn’t worked, either."

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsy3g9rvcj0&feature=sub[/quote]

Phillips was once a member of the so-called "religious arm of socialism," but abandoned its ranks when he found his views diverged from the party line. Among the positions that he now detests:

Phillips is a socialist schill

[saxitoxin]

I mean, you have no evidence that he would've shot anyone for less, and since he didn't we can assume he wouldn't have.

Incorrect. In fact it's a false dichotomy, in logic known as argumentum ad ignorantiam.

But I admire your effort. Here's a good place to expand your knowledge:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logi ... 304&sr=8-1

[Aradhus]

So, he wasn't at all advocating killing liberals from that quote? Is that your (dishonest) position?

Oh mother of pearl! Of course he wasn't advocating killing liberals!!!! Rush Limbaugh does what he does to make money, not to win political office or kill other people. How do people not understand this? I don't sit here and accuse Keith Olbermann of shit like this!

Keith olbermann talks about killing conservatives? I believe the topic was toxic rhetoric. Rush makes money because he preys on the stupid, inciting stupid fucks into potentially commiting violent acts.

Keith Olbermann talks about trying the president for treason, which would result in his death. Keith Olbermann talks about how the Tea Party is full of racists (and has a guest on his show talk about it as well), which should, if anything, incite violence... IF HIS LISTENERS WERE INSANE AND COMMITTED TO INSANE ACTS IN ANY EVENT!!!

Rush does not make money from inciting people to commit violent acts. And this guy may be stupid, but he committed these acts because he's insane... not because he's stupid.

Ignoring the bullshit, the fake Equivalence , tha lack of nuance about your criticism of mr Olbermann and what he was saying. I assume you are , by proxy, conceding that the political rhetoric in the US has gotten out of hand.

[saxitoxin]

I assume you are , by proxy, conceding that the political rhetoric in the US has gotten out of hand.

What's more out of hand: a failed assassination or a dozen riots? A long gunman or a protracted period of civil unrest? Shots fired in a city or a city burned to the ground? A parliamentarian shot in the head or the heir-to-the-throne threatened with decapitation? Picketing and name-calling in a province (Arizona) or a province stocked with armed units of foreign-trained rebels (Ulster)?

I don't think either are particularly bad. In consideration of the 1850 Report of the Central Committee to the Communist League delivered by Karl Marx and addressing the topic of "permanent revolution" I'm happy with anything that makes the leadership caste frightened.

You obviously have you precious little head in a scared, McCarthyist fearmongering tizzy, however. Which is worse and why? Why is one out of hand and not the other?

[Aradhus]

I assume you are , by proxy, conceding that the political rhetoric in the US has gotten out of hand.

whining, moaning, crying about having no power.

What's worse, beating your mother because she won't let you f*ck her in the ass, or fucking her in the ass becasue she won't let you beat her?

[saxitoxin]

I assume you are , by proxy, conceding that the political rhetoric in the US has gotten out of hand.

whining, moaning, crying about having no power.

What's worse, beating your mother because she won't let you f*ck her in the ass, or fucking her in the ass becasue she won't let you beat her?

What's a becasue?

[Aradhus]

Its a nut from south America.

[saxitoxin]

Its a nut from south America.

I thought you were from the EU?

[Aradhus]

You made an assumption about an assumption to make a funny.

Good dog. How about next time, you check your own posts, and correct the errors within, because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

[saxitoxin]

You made an assumption about an assumption to make a funny.

Good dog. How about next time, you check your own posts, and correct the errors within, because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

All that rage and fury to respond to just 7 words?

because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

I like to learn from errors! Let's agree you don't post in this thread again until you've helped me out by itemizing the five worst spelling errors in my last 30 posts. Put that Bradford degree to work. Go!

[Aradhus]

I assume you are , by proxy, conceding that the political rhetoric in the US has gotten out of hand.

What's more out of hand: a failed assassination or a dozen riots? A long gunman or a protracted period of civil unrest? Shots fired in a city or a city burned to the ground? A parliamentarian shot in the head or the heir-to-the-throne threatened with decapitation? Picketing and name-calling in a province (Arizona) or a province stocked with armed units of foreign-trained rebels (Ulster)?

I don't think either are particularly bad. In consideration of the 1850 Report of the Central Committee to the Communist League delivered by Karl Marx and addressing the topic of "permanent revolution" I'm happy with anything that makes the leadership caste frightened.

You obviously have you precious little head in a scared, McCarthyist fearmongering tizzy, however. Which is worse and why? Why is one out of hand and not the other?

[Aradhus]

You made an assumption about an assumption to make a funny.

Good dog. How about next time, you check your own posts, and correct the errors within, because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

All that rage and fury to respond to just 7 words?

because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

I like to learn from errors! Let's agree you don't post in this thread again until you've helped me out by itemizing the five worst spelling errors in my last 30 posts. Put that Bradford degree to work. Go!

How about instead of that, we just come to an agreement. That agreement being that you're a sanctimonius self righteous, narcissist with a desperate need for attention resulting in an epistomological wet dream.

[saxitoxin]

You made an assumption about an assumption to make a funny.

Good dog. How about next time, you check your own posts, and correct the errors within, because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

All that rage and fury to respond to just 7 words?

because it ever so slightly devalues your pithy attempt at humour, when you criticize others spelling when yours isn't pristine.

I like to learn from errors! Let's agree you don't post in this thread again until you've helped me out by itemizing the five worst spelling errors in my last 30 posts. Put that Bradford degree to work. Go!

How about instead of that, we just come to an agreement. That agreement being that you're a sanctimonius self righteous, narcissist with a desperate need for attention resulting in an epistomological wet dream.

So is that a no then?

[Aradhus]

Reading your posts one time is mind numbingly dull. I don't fancy reading the same circular illogical drivel again.

[saxitoxin]

Reading your posts one time is mind numbingly dull. I don't fancy reading the same circular illogical drivel again.

Whatever excuse you need to calm yourself down long enough to get to sleep I'm happy to accept.

[Woodruff]

This isn't an isolated incident. Therer is a lot of anti government rhetoric in the Us right now. Things have consequences.

So the guy is crazy, agreed. But where does he direct that crazy?

I don't think it matters where he directs the crazy. If it's directed anywhere, it's bad.

If he directs his crazy at hoarding weapons but not using them, that's tentatively ok. If he directs his crazy at using weapons, that's not ok.

Ok, so nobody is influenced by anything anybody else says, and when batshit goes batshit mark2, who cares why, he's batshit. I mean, it doesn't matter that there's the slightest possibility that his batshit could have been directed elsewhere. All that matters is he's crazy. Crazy like Osama Bin Laden?

People sure are influenced (or motivated as Woodruff put it in another thread).

You're agreeing with me that (1) the guy is crazy and (2) the guy is going to kill someone. If these two things are true, is there anything else we need to know? Do we need to know whether he read the Communist Manifesto or listened to Glenn Beck religiously or thought that postal workers were the spawn of Satan? I think the answer is no. If we took away the Communist Manifesto and Glenn Beck and postal workers, he would have killed someone anyway right?

The "motivator" is not motivating him to kill. The "motivator" is motivating him to direct his killing at a specific individual... at least in the killer's mind.

I'm not sure I agree. Understand that I'm only speculating here...not making any claims of reality. But it's possible that the killer would have previously only been motivated to hoard weapons (against the oncoming fight against the government that's oppressing us, or whatever). Whereas someone COULD motivate him that "the time to act is now!", leading him to act rather than wait. If that makes sense.

Therefore is it not prudent to find out what tipped this guy over the edge. Just stating that he's fucking crazy shouldn't be the end of the discussion.

Well if you want to make that assumption, shouldn't his post on Daily Kos saying his congresswoman was "dead to me" for voting against Pelosi have something to do with it? In fact, wouldn't that mean he's a strident liberal and wants to remove blue dogs from the party? It certainly wouldn't indicate conservative rhetoric was a cause.

Sure, that makes sense. I hadn't heard that particular detail.

Therefore is it not prudent to find out what tipped this guy over the edge. Just stating that he's fucking crazy shouldn't be the end of the discussion.

Well if you want to make that assumption, shouldn't his post on Daily Kos saying his congresswoman was "dead to me" for voting against Pelosi have something to do with it? In fact, wouldn't that mean he's a strident liberal and wants to remove blue dogs from the party? It certainly wouldn't indicate conservative rhetoric was a cause.

Rhetoric, whether conservative or liberal, is never the cause.

So you believe that the political rhetoric has no affect on anyone? Because if it has an affect on anyone, then it certainly COULD be a cause (one among several, almost certainly). And based on how effective it seems to be amongst the politically motivated, I have a difficult time personally believing that it doesn't affect anyone.

So when Rush Limbaugh talks about killing liberals, or when Glenn beck states that there is a secret marxist plot to overtake the american government, or that the tyranny is already here. And the first thing these tyrants will do is take away your guns, there are no consequences to that sort of talk.

Oh come on. Really?

The only consequences to that sort of talk is that people will vote differently.

To the sane, sure. To someone who is already riding the edge of sanity, with paranoiac delusions of their own? I must disagree.

Why aren't TGD or GabonX or PhatScotty or Doc_Brown out killing people?

Because other than Doc_Brown, they're all sane.

So when Rush Limbaugh talks about killing liberals

http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/eliminationism-kill-all-liberals/

Rush Limbaugh: “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals."

mm hmm

Wow, your dishonesty in quoting is massive. Way to try to change the context via elimination of whole sentences. What, pray tell, was your motivation to do that?

[Woodruff]

He was also angry at the lack of proper grammar in the 8th Congressional District and viewed her as the leader of that district.

No shock. When you have English teachers spewing their pro-grammar vitriol without consequence these kind of things are bound to happen. We must eliminate all vocabulary classes to protect the leadership caste.

Based on how students typically speak, I believe this has already happened.

Uh, I was right both times, idiot. What you claimed was in that link and what was actually in it was different.

For example, had I said Limbaugh stated to kill all liberals, that would be me missquoting what was in the link I posted.

Jog on, knucklehead.

indeed ...

Aradhus: "Rush Limbaugh talks about killing liberals"

from Aradhus' source "fitnessforlife.blogspot.com" or whatever it was: "I tell people don’t kill all the liberals."

What was your course of study at Bradford? IT? Auto Repair? Landscaping? I ask only because there might be a topic you'd feel more conversant in than this one.

You do realize that his source doesn't at all contradict his claim, and in fact supports it, right?

So, he wasn't at all advocating killing liberals from that quote? Is that your (dishonest) position?

Oh mother of pearl! Of course he wasn't advocating killing liberals!!!!

Wait, what? "Don't kill ALL of the liberals" isn't advocating the killing of liberals?!?!??!

Rush Limbaugh does what he does to make money, not to win political office or kill other people. How do people not understand this? I don't sit here and accuse Keith Olbermann of shit like this!

That's the problem! These assholes (all of them) NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR STATEMENTS THEY MAKE. Why aren't they? Because there are too many fucking lapdogs on both sides of the aisle willing to drink their fucking kool-aid bullshit and not bat an eye at it.

[Baron Von PWN]

An excerpt from the end of a good article about gun laws and the Tucson shooting:
"There have been dozens and dozens of people killed in school shootings in the U.S. since the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed in 1995, including, of course, the notorious massacre at Columbine. It’s been said countless times before, but it seems to bear constant repeating since it seems never to sink into the minds of those who think that laws can solve everything: criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law, no matter what it says about carrying guns to public events, while disarming the law-abiding public can only embolden them. If government can’t manage with the sensible laws it already has against letting volatile individuals own guns, it seems pointless to give it less sensible ones to enforce. After all, if the answer to stopping a lunatic assassin like Jared Lee Loughner were as easy as that, the U.S. could simply outlaw murdering people. Except it already has. That hasn’t worked, either."

Or maybe its because you can just cross a state border and get yourself an AK. A more reasonable comparison would be to look at countries where gun ownership is banned or severely restricted and compare them to the US. If in those countries Gun violence actually increased (or stayed the same) after the ban, the article's assertion (Gun bans only serve to embolden criminals and deny citizens protection) would be correct.

[thegreekdog]

If (IF!) the killings were politically motivated and if (IF!) the killings were politically motivated due to statements made by radio personalities or the killings were motivated by gunsights used on a campaign website, do any of you contend that these factors caused (CAUSED!) the killings.

I am getting caught up in the distinction between causation and motivation (or effect... which is a better word). Did political discourse have an effect on the killer? This has not been proven, but let's assume the answer is yes. Political discourse does not CAUSE someone to go kill someone else.

And, further, what is the conclusions or changes you would like to come out of this? Would you like to shut down radio personalities who engage in heated political discourse? What about non-heated political discourse? What about non-political discourse? In what way should these people be "held accountable?"

What is the responsibility of the media to account for someone going out and killing someone else? How is that responsibility weighed against the responsibilities of others? Why is there no outrage that this person was not incarcerated or in a mental institution? Why is the outrage directed at Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

Sorry, I can't respond to all quotes... too confusing to me.