Discovery Channel's building was occupied by a "nut job" who was radicalized by a former political figure. Eco-terrorism such as this is a problem, as well. Did Al Gore and the Media make a big deal out of this guy? Did Republicans? It all seems a bit one-sided to me.

Based on the level of airplay this is getting from those such as yourself, Yes, I find this lower than expected.
Feed the people such slop as news and you will get a great many who will believe it, they will believe anything that suits their fancy. You yourself are peddling this nonsense as factual and letting us believe your assumptions are fact and twisting what little facts are there into something they are not. Example is with Palin, the liberals love to hate here, anything you say that might, just MIGHT link her with anything bad and you have a good number who will embrace it. You mention she used cross hairs over a target and imply it was the Congresswoman. No, it was her district and her name was used, nobody but nobody knows what district number she is in let alone what their own number is, we know the politician who holds that seat. "Targeting" John Doe's district is nothing new and most certainly nothing wrong in the least. Because a gun sight was used to indicate the target (would a bulls eye be any better?) it becomes violent and incendiary? Hell no it doesn't and the problem is you know full damn well yourself it isn't.

and did you even bother to look at the supposed incendiary image?

http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... l-news.jpg

damned new site will not allow me to post the picture here
...nothing wrong here, get over it already

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon, you are being disingenuous at best. You began this forum with an article that mentioned Palin as in some way her rhetoric or map were motivating this. YOU mentioned her by name.

That may well be your inference. My intention was to point out that before she was shot, people who opposed her (it matters not much who or why) had publicly sent out messages that use shooting-related imagery and included Giffords' name. I'll come back to why at the end of this post.

Still waiting for some evidence linking the shooter to any of this imagery or rhetoric.

It's not "(my) inference." You said it and cannot defend it. Danifail.

Oh, oh, wow, so . . . clever--just like you!

Now, you've backed off to "everyone" does it. Fine, then why bring up Palin in the first place?

Actually, I don't say that "everyone" does it. There are many people in the US, people who are involved in politics, who do not use violent gun-related imagery which sets individual opponents up as a target. But Palin is mentioned because she did. Is this getting through?

No, because it's as IMMATERIAL as it was in the beginning. Palin has nothing to do with this. In fact, it is beginning to appear more and more like Sheriff Dupnik and his office failed to stop this guy--they knew (apparently) he was a nut by virtue of MANY previous incidents.

I mentioned him because you claimed no massive political violence had occurred during the Clinton Years. You opened the door, Doctor Fail.

One instance, by one nut, not directed at Clinton, is hardly a clear connection to the rhetoric of the time.

It's still insane that you deny there is a systematic problem with Islam and yet say one incident is "massive," regardless of its scope. OKC was terrible, but there was no subsequent wave of McVeigh-inspired violence, Danifail.

Oh, oh, I did it again! Wow!

Well, even madmen can be politically motivated. But that is not actually what I'm saying. I'll make it simple for you, ok?

I'd prefer you to just be cogent, but that's too much, I'm sure. Let's see.

1) It is bad that a man shot Giffords and the people with her because he wanted to kill her

2) It would be bad for people to incite someone to shoot Giffords

3) It is also bad to hint at shooting Giffords as part of a normal political campaign

Politicians like Palin and Kelly do not appear to have intended (2), but they certainly did not avoid (3). Is it it less bad than incitement? Yes. Does that comparison make it good? No

No one hinted at shooting Giffords--any more than the DNC in 2004 was suggesting Republicans should be shot (see my post above). "Targeting" is a metaphor. I know you prefer "simple," linear thinking--like "targeting means they are indifferent to violence." However, "targeting" has other meanings. You know what? Let me make it simple for you:

1. When a corporation "targets" another company for a "takeover," it doesn't mean they are sending in armed gunmen.

2. When a company "targets" a demographic, they aren't implying they would like to see violence visited upon them.

See, words can have different nuances. I know, I know--it's complex and you can't help it, you're a liberal.

A regular burning up of the straw man that I've claimed a direct link.

Right. We should know better than to take anything you say seriously. On behalf of all literate visitors at Redscape, I apologize for believing you meant anything by your post. I should have recognized it for the drive-by nonsense you so regularly engage in.

. . . the spirit of the America I admire and respect, and is sadly lacking in the likes of you

As if you, Danifail, know anything about what it is to be an American. Oh, I forgot, you do have TV.

In other words, America, man up!

How about this: Britain, pipe down! And, if not, how about growing up? That the facts don't fit your preconceived ideas is inconvenient, but it doesn't let you off the hook. There is no connection between rhetoric and this crime, let alone between Palin and this crime.

My God!
The United Kingdom claims the US is calling for the murder of British Exchange students?!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... dents.html

Surely this can not be so? The English do not use such wording!?
so any British exchange student killed since that time must have been done so by the urging of this newspaper because they used such "incendiary" comments?

Doctor Fate wrote:No one hinted at shooting Giffords

Really? You really can't see the problem with

"Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"?

You don't see the problem with the message "Don't retreat - reload" used to publicise map with 20 gunsight targets, each relating to a named individual?

--any more than the DNC in 2004 was suggesting Republicans should be shot (see my post above). "Targeting" is a metaphor. I know you prefer "simple," linear thinking--like "targeting means they are indifferent to violence." However, "targeting" has other meanings. You know what? Let me make it simple for you:

1. When a corporation "targets" another company for a "takeover," it doesn't mean they are sending in armed gunmen.

2. When a company "targets" a demographic, they aren't implying they would like to see violence visited upon them.

See, words can have different nuances. I know, I know--it's complex and you can't help it, you're a liberal.

Yes, words can mean different things in different contexts. Well done. Now, you can see that not only are 1. and 2. here benign, they are also quite different to each other.

Equally there is a difference between a 'target' of removing an opponent for office, and a 'target' of removing an opponent from office using a gunsight, or guns, as part of the targeting publicity.

If the DNC did that, they are no less reprehensible. Got it?

Once you start with nuance and context, you could at least try to follow through a little.

Here's the point about metaphors. When they become too literal, they cease to be metaphors.

You're right steve, the source I provided didn't refer to the interview tapes of Byron Williams. Here you go.
.

In audio interviews obtained by MediaMatters, accused shooter Byron Williams says Fox News host Glenn Beck "blew my mind" with "the things he exposed." Williams is charged with allegedly opening fire on police on Interstate 580 in Oakland, California, while on his way to "start a revolution" by attacking members of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. As we've reported, the Tides Foundation is a favorite punching bag of Glenn Beck's, and he counts the group among his cabal of liberals aiming to bring socialism to America

source: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/byron_williams_1/Adn why do I refer to it? Because its another example of violence that seems to be motivated by extremist views fanned into action by the legitimacy that the views are given when they are given broadcast support.There are all kinds of delusional people. You Steve worry, legitimately, that some will be prompted to act upon the vile teachings of extremist Mullahs preaching "Death to America".
We've had a shooter at the Holocaust Museum. and a Texan who flew his plane into the IRS building in Houston. (I think it was Houston) .
The FBI lists right wing militias as a major threat

Last month federal agents arrested nine members of a Christian militia based in Michigan, calling itself the Hutaree. They have been charged with plotting to murder local police with a stash of guns, knives and grenades

source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7100318.ece

The group you are always stressed about are deluded by the ranting of people who misconstrue the Koran. They get guns easily.
The group that the FBI also worries about, who also get their guns easily, the right wing militias and kooks are deluded by the ranting of people who misconstrue the American Constitution due to...who deludes them Steve? If Beck isn't among the group who spread misinformation and disinformation, then who?

GMTom wrote:My God!
The United Kingdom claims the US is calling for the murder of British Exchange students?!

My God!
An American internet user is still unable to differentiate between the use of 'target' on its own and the use of 'target' alongside the use of gun-imagery?!

Surely this can not be so? The English do not use such wording!?

Surely this can not be so? The Americans are not so stupid as this!?

so any British exchange student killed since that time must have been done so by the urging of this newspaper because they used such "incendiary" comments?

So, any American who can't work out simple contextual differences must find living in a complex world way too confusing, because it's the essence of a lot of human communication?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No one hinted at shooting Giffords

Really? You really can't see the problem with

"Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"?

Please show the connection between this quote and the shooter.

It was a fund-raiser. Was it the smartest event in the history of politics? No. However, is it in any way, shape or form connected to the shooter? No.

You don't see the problem with the message "Don't retreat - reload" used to publicise map with 20 gunsight targets, each relating to a named individual?

No. Again, what is the connection to the shooter? I can cite a lot of intemperate rhetoric from the Left--like the PA congressman who said Rick Scott should be put up against the wall and shot. Words don't always result in violence.

In this case, a nut, a psychotic who had a long history of threats and interaction with law enforcement (given his short life), acted on a personal fixation with Giffords. Stop trying to make it something it is not.

Let me know when you have some proof connecting political rhetoric and the 6 murders in Tucson.

Doctor Fate wrote:Please show the connection between this quote and the shooter.

It was a fund-raiser. Was it the smartest event in the history of politics? No. However, is it in any way, shape or form connected to the shooter? No.

I am not saying there's a direct connection to the shooter. I'm saying that it's an inappropriate way to use guns and publicity.

You don't see the problem with the message "Don't retreat - reload" used to publicise map with 20 gunsight targets, each relating to a named individual?

No. Again, what is the connection to the shooter? I can cite a lot of intemperate rhetoric from the Left--like the PA congressman who said Rick Scott should be put up against the wall and shot. Words don't always result in violence.

Again, I don't know of a direct connection. But even on its own, I find it to be a distasteful and unnecessary use of gun imagery.

As I've said before, find all the examples of intemperate rhetoric you like from wherever. If that PA congressman did say that, it was reprehensible.

Let me know when you have some proof connecting political rhetoric and the 6 murders in Tucson.

Well, there is proof that Jared Loughlen employed political rhetoric. I guess that's not what you are looking for.

rickyp wrote:Adn why do I refer to it? Because its another example of violence that seems to be motivated by extremist views fanned into action by the legitimacy that the views are given when they are given broadcast support.

Gee whiz! Just one problem: how is it "another example of violence that seems to be motivated by extremist views . . ." when the FIRST such "example" has yet to be demonstrated?

There is no evidence Giffords was shot because of rhetoric.

Why can't you grasp this?

There are all kinds of delusional people. You Steve worry, legitimately, that some will be prompted to act upon the vile teachings of extremist Mullahs preaching "Death to America".

Maybe that's because the links have been established! I'm old-fashioned that way. Even the UFO community is disowning Loughner, is that what has you so in a lather? He turned his back on you and your comrades? http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/11/fello ... n-threads/

We've had a shooter at the Holocaust Museum. and a Texan who flew his plane into the IRS building in Houston. (I think it was Houston) .

Right. Who were not conservatives, but they were nuts. Limbaugh is right on the money every now and then, and this is one instance: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

The FBI lists right wing militias as a major threat

Actually, that was a political hatchet piece put out by DHS--the same group that is responsible for groping Granny while allowing actual terrorists to board planes.

The group you are always stressed about are deluded by the ranting of people who misconstrue the Koran. They get guns easily.

Funny how you minimize the one case of actual rhetoric turning into violence.

The group that the FBI also worries about, who also get their guns easily, the right wing militias and kooks are deluded by the ranting of people who misconstrue the American Constitution due to...who deludes them Steve?

Still waiting for connection between the shooter and rhetoric.

As for who deludes right-wing militias, I'll say it's you and and Keith Olbermann. Why not? It's fun! There is just as much evidence of that as there is for Beck, Palin, or anyone else you'd care to name.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please show the connection between this quote and the shooter.

It was a fund-raiser. Was it the smartest event in the history of politics? No. However, is it in any way, shape or form connected to the shooter? No.

I am not saying there's a direct connection to the shooter. I'm saying that it's an inappropriate way to use guns and publicity.

Which helps make your case--which one presumes you have since you started the thread--of violent connection between Loughner and Palin? Otherwise, why not name the forum: "Inappropriate Use of Guns and Publicity?"

You don't see the problem with the message "Don't retreat - reload" used to publicise map with 20 gunsight targets, each relating to a named individual?

Well, there is proof that Jared Loughlen employed political rhetoric. I guess that's not what you are looking for.

Really? Like what? The bit about the government controlling us through grammar?

Can you say "stretch?"

Green

You are saying that you find it ok to limit possession of firearms, but only curb speech a little bit? I am for punishing actions. If you scream fire in a theater, that is an action that should be punished. If you take a pistol and shoot a store clerk, that is an action that should be punished. If you take away guns because they can be used for criminal actions, are you willing to cut the larynx of everyone to ensure their voice is not used for criminal actions also? Should every man's @#$! be cut off because men can use them as a raping weapon? Certainly the difference can be seen between action and ability. Everybody has the propensity for evil. Only some employ that evil through action.

Or perhaps you think that the actions are the problem that should be addressed?

I am curious... Do you find Olbermann incendiary? How about Maddow or Dionne? Should their speech be limited as you seem to think Beck and O Reilly should be?

Well, here's the thing, when words are used like weapons they can hurt. Feelings. And when used to inspire people to use actual weapons they can be dangerous. But the guns themselves are the key.
Without his weapons purchased without delay at a local Texas store Hassan wouldn't have killed anyone on the air force base.
Without his glock and extended magazine, purchased without any check of his sanity or suitability, Laughren would have not represented as much of a threat to Giffords or the people around her who he murdered. You believe in punishing the actions of people who act badly.
I believe that is fine, but prevention is a wiser course. Punishing Gifford shooter with execution accomplishes nothing except his death. It doesn't serve as a deterrent to other nuts, because, well, they are nuts.

If Giffords shooter had to go to a training center and take a course on gun safety to purchase a gun (like a driving course) do you think instructors would have certified him for ownership? He was an obvious nut to his college mates.
What if he couldn't have bought an extended magazine of 32 rounds? Who might have lived. ?
It should be incumbent upon each citizen to explain why they require the weapons they are going to buy, and to show society that they have the training, knowledge and sanity to be trusted with weapons. And it shouldn't be an immediate purchase. Today private gun selles in Texas or Arizona can, and do, sell to anyone. There are NO checks. Not even the cursory database checks that retailers pursue.
Assault weapons? Why does anyone need them?
The original intent of the 2nd amendment is largely meaningless today. (The guarantee of a quickly mustered defensive force.) Its been distorted to where, in some places, assault weapons are allowed to be carried where families shop for their groceries...And the ease with which nuts arm themselves and take innocent lives is the lesson that should be taken away from every mass shooting. No matter how the shooter was motivated or encouraged.
But it won't.
And as far as incendiary? What I've heard of Ed Schultz and Dylan Rattigan I would say is worthless ranting. Olberman ? Only seen his rants on You tube a few times. I suppose he's beyond the pale. I've seen Maddow interview people only a couple of times and was impressed with her ability as an interviewer... Does she rant? I don't know. Don't get MSNBC at home and its not often on my US hotel tv's. (Fox always is....)
What I do like in American Cable is Farrid Zakkaria (newsweek guy on Sundays.) ...and I've liked Parker Spitzer few times I saw them. . They let their guests talk, and provide full answers. Their guests also tend to be well educated, genuinely expert, and speak well.... And though there is disagreement its approached reasonably... So I expect it will die a ratings death.

Doctor Fate wrote:Which helps make your case--which one presumes you have since you started the thread--of violent connection between Loughner and Palin?

You may presume all you like, but I have said several times what my 'case' is.

The shooting is terrible.

The use of such rhetoric is also bad.

The former highlights the latter, as one person was the target of both. Whether there is a direct connection between the two was not my point. The coincidence of them was. You being the expert in nuance should be able to figure this stuff out.

So cutting a man's penis is acceptable as prevention?

What other things do you see that have no place in society for the purpose of prevention?

Cars? They do cause accidents even though they are meant to be driven slowly.
Trains? Collisions make this a dangerous travel method.
Airplanes? Don't even get me started.
Horses? Ever been bucked off? (I have, btw)
Bicycle? Broken bones on children every year.

Perhaps we should just all walk, eat leaves (Cholesterol), sit in our little palm frond covered huts (for fear of collapse!), and harvest with stone knives (a necessary danger. I guess if they are all licensed and the users trained, tested, and mentally screened).

Or we can act like adults, have some personal responsibility, and be held accountable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA

We don't live in Mamby-pamby land...