OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
we already have a problem.



A Democratic Congressman plans to bring in a bill to outlaw violent symbols targeting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, or the judiciary.

another nail in the coffin for our freedom of speech. fear trumps freedom every time.

I'm thinking I don't really understand anymore what Freedom Of Speech means. If this constitutional right makes it okay for a person to post "violent symbols targeting members of the U.S. House of Representatives", or such violence against anybody for that matter, then it seems like this particular 'freedom' has been misused.

But then is there any difference between violent symbols targeting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, versus people expressing their opinions of the violent punishment due the shooter? Granted, Palin's Crosshairs thing was presented to the entire world via countless media outlets. But our opinions of violence towards the shooter are confined to a small Facebook Group.

The older I get, the more I see conscience explored subjectively. I disliked the Crosshairs thing, it felt wrong and grossly inappropriate. I despise this shooting event, it feels evil. Yet, in some people's minds, both these things were rationalized as being okay to do. Seemingly, a great many felt the Crosshairs thing was perfectly fine. But hopefully, only ONE person rationalized these murders, the shooter. I hope the survivors of this nastiness can someday find forgiveness.

OFFLINE

i don't know the exact language of the bill, but if they're saying palin's crosshairs would be illegal under such a law, then i feel they are defining a threat WAY too liberally. it's already illegal to make a death threat against a federal official. isn't that enough? if crosshairs on a map would be illegal, then obviously effigies would be illegal and who knows what else? what about this?



or this?



or this?



or just saying "someone needs to kill anthony weiner."

i mean you can't legislate the crazy out of people, and you can't stamp out political discourse, even if it's distasteful.

OFFLINE

To try and blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Parties for this only spreads the victimization and tragedy onto others.

I "target" consumers for a living.  If you go to my website, you'll see lots of stuff on "targeting" people.  One of my business icons is a ... target!  I shop at a store called "Target" ... they also have a target for their icon.

Does this make us responsible for senseless murders of people?

From where I sit, I see pundits and talking heads casting blame on something that's not connected so they can politicize this and  score political points.  They call it hate speech.  But they're so inflamed with hate of their own they're eager to manufacture the connection.  As a result, they're doing EXACTLY what they're railing against.

And yet ... while there is ZERO connection between Palin, Tea Partiers and what happened in Tuscon, the pundits have such short (or convenient) memories.  A year ago, these same people were quick to say "Let's not rush to judgement!  Let's not accuse Muslims for the crimes of one!" when another deranged idiot shouted "Allah Akbar!" and opened fire on other innocents at Fort Hood.  And oh no ... let's don't blame others for what the "underwear bomber" was trying to do.




Who are the ones who work 24/7 to try to brand "teabaggers" as "racists" and "terrorists"?

TALK ABOUT HATE SPEECH!

It's hypocrisy at the ultimate level.

And anybody who tries to spread this to others who weren't connected are victimizers themselves.

It's disgusting ... unconscionable.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i mean you can't legislate the crazy out of people, and you can't stamp out political discourse, even if it's distasteful.

We have places specifically designed to house crazy people, prison for example. But then a seemingly crazy person typically stands before a judge and jury who determines if they're crazy enough to be imprisoned. Is the shooter in this case crazy enough to be imprisoned or face the death penalty? Circumstances being what they are, I feel that's a rhetorical question.



But when you look at Palin's Crosshairs picture, the Crosshairs are only displayed over certain states, but specific names are listed right below it. That, to me, makes an inference which I feel is just short of the blatancy demonstrated in the three "Kill Bush" pictures in the prior comment. Maybe Palin's intentions with her Crosshairs picture are only to show those whom she's in political opposition to. But then if that's merely her message, then why not just say it as such with real substance without a picture that infers pointing a gun at specific people?

America is a free society. And it's a fact that there are a LOT of people existing freely among us with undiagnosed mental illnesses and some of the worse personality disorders. That  being a fact, isn't it really very immoral for Sarah Palin to present such a picture? Granted, the picture doesn't specifically says, "HEY, ANYBODY, COULD YOU PLEASE ACQUIRE A FIREARM AND ASSASSINATE THE PEOPLE I'VE NAMED BELOW?" But then wouldn't the shooter meet the criteria listed in the DSM-IV-TR for Antisocial Personality Disorder? Would Sarah Palin? I dunno, but that Crosshairs pic certainly seems like a crazy or unconscionable idea to me.

Well, one thing is for certain, the shooter done something unconscionable, killing some and emotionally wounding many. I suppose we could take a deep look into this person in search of possibilities in how he was socialized to become a murderer, all in hopes of minimizing the chances of this happening again. And even if it turns out that Crosshairs pictures had nothing to do with it, I don't feel that means Crosshairs pics are any less dangerous - socially. But why mention Sarah Palin's name at all? Well, perhaps if her Crosshairs pic never listed names of people involved with this shooting, she and this pic might not have come into view. But isn't it only bad cops who ignore possible leads?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:
From where I sit, I see pundits and talking heads casting blame on something that's not connected so they can politicize this and  score political points.  They call it hate speech.  But they're so inflamed with hate of their own they're eager to manufacture the connection.  As a result, they're doing EXACTLY what they're railing against.

This feels like an example of why I cannot be a Republican or a Democratic. Hypothetically speaking, if roles were reversed and Barack Obama and all associated victims here were Republican, and Sarah Palin were a Democrat, then political history shows that the Republicans would engage in the same kinds of responses Democrats have here. That, to me, epitomizes the hypocrisy that's so chronically pervasive throughout American politics.

OFFLINE

I haven't specifically looked, but someone told me that Palin removed her Crosshairs pic from her website right away after this incident. If there's absolutely nothing wrong with this particular picture, then why would she have had it removed at all? Would keeping it up be,,, in bad taste? If so, then it seems to be in bad taste to have posted it in the first place. Did Palin experience an "Oh ****!" moment as soon as she heard about this incident? If so, then wouldn't that imply - guilt?

OFFLINE

But it appears to me you're making the connection yourself Shawn.  And based on your rationale, that would make you no different than those you accuse (Democrats and Republicans).

So OK.  I'm open.  I'd like for you or anybody else to show us ... how what happened in Tuscon was a result of Sarah Palin's map and/or "Teabaggers".

If it's indeed true, one would be able to draw direct lines that link cause and effect.

OTOH, if they can't ...

OFFLINE

so i suppose we should walk on egg shells worrying about how our every word and action can influence homicidal nutjobs? i don't see anything wrong with the above picture. what's wrong with "targeting" districts where political opponents are perceived as being weak? and this isn't coming from a big palin fan either. hell, television, movies, and video games can give people more ideas than anything sarah palin has done or said.

i'm sorry, but IMO, what you're advocating is folding to the PC monster. why in the hell do we feel the need in our society to transfer blame onto others. it seems there is virtually zero accountability for what people do these days. it's always someone elses fault. people are incapable of acting under their own accord, without outside influence.

and to what scott said:

"A year ago, these same people were quick to say "Let's not rush to judgement! Let's not accuse Muslims for the crimes of one!" when another deranged idiot shouted "Allah Akbar!" and opened fire on other innocents at Fort Hood."

this same exact thing crossed my mind last night. they sure aren't afraid to say we have a tea party problem, but damned if you say we have an islamic jihad problem.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:
But it appears to me you're making the connection yourself Shawn.  And based on your rationale, that would make you no different than those you accuse (Democrats and Republicans).

I'm making a connection to something I feel is worthy of considering with the idea of a less violent future in mind, and those responsible are held accountable. If a thorough investigation proves that victim names and the names on Palins Crosshairs pic are only coincidental, then so be it. Something very bad happened, and I want to see where it's rooted. I feel that to ignore this as a possible connection just because it's politically unpopular to do so is just one more crime on our hands.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
so i suppose we should walk on egg shells worrying about how our every word and action can influence homicidal nutjobs? i don't see anything wrong with the above picture. what's wrong with "targeting" districts where political opponents are perceived as being weak? and this isn't coming from a big palin fan either. hell, television, movies, and video games can give people more ideas than anything sarah palin has done or said.

In short, "Targeting" becomes semantic. When I 'target' ways to improve workplace productivity, for example, I don't do it with the idea in mind of pointing a lethal weapon at people.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:


This feels like an example of why I cannot be a Republican or a Democratic. Hypothetically speaking, if roles were reversed and Barack Obama and all associated victims here were Republican, and Sarah Palin were a Democrat, then political history shows that the Republicans would engage in the same kinds of responses Democrats have here. That, to me, epitomizes the hypocrisy that's so chronically pervasive throughout American politics.

i'm sorry, i think this is bogus. i get what you're saying and in many instances you are correct, but not this one. first of all, you're implying that republicans only care about human life based on party lines. secondly, here's a DNC map featuring targets, yet you haven't heard one mention from anyone about this. not republicans, nor democraps. all you hear is this BS about sarah palin's map.

and if you can't read this, it says "targeting strategy" and "behind enemy lines"



in fact, go to google images and search "democrat target map" and you'll see similar maps from various elections.

what we are seeing in the fallout of this shooting, is demagoguery, and knee-jerk reactions. the left has tried to blame everyone from sarah palin, to talk radio. see, they know that all of the political discourse of late has been targeted (excuse the expression) toward them. that's why you're hearing all about how the rhetoric is out of hand, and how the dissension is too venomous. to me, it's sad.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
When I 'target' ways to improve workplace productivity, for example, I don't do it with the idea in mind of pointing a lethal weapon at people.

you just proved my point, my friend.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:


This feels like an example of why I cannot be a Republican or a Democratic. Hypothetically speaking, if roles were reversed and Barack Obama and all associated victims here were Republican, and Sarah Palin were a Democrat, then political history shows that the Republicans would engage in the same kinds of responses Democrats have here. That, to me, epitomizes the hypocrisy that's so chronically pervasive throughout American politics.

i'm sorry, i think this is bogus. i get what you're saying and in many instances you are correct, but not this one. first of all, you're implying that republicans only care about human life based on party lines. secondly, here's a DNC map featuring targets, yet you haven't heard one mention from anyone about this. not republicans, nor democraps. all you hear is this BS about sarah palin's map.



in fact, go to google images and search "democrat target map" and you'll see similar maps from various elections.

what we are seeing in the fallout of this shooting, is demagoguery, and knee-jerk reactions. the left has tried to blame everyone from sarah palin, to talk radio. see, they know that all of the political discourse of late has been targeted (excuse the expression) toward them. that's why you're hearing all about how the rhetoric is out of hand, and how the dissension is too venomous. to me, it's sad.

I did that google search, and the only political target maps with a Gun Scope's Crosshairs I found with specific and oppositional names on it were Palin's map.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

I'm making a connection to something I feel is worthy of considering with the idea of a less violent future in mind, and those responsible are held accountable. If a thorough investigation proves that victim names and the names on Palins Crosshairs pic are only coincidental, then so be it. Something very bad happened, and I want to see where it's rooted. I feel that to ignore this as a possible connection just because it's politically unpopular to do so is just one more crime on our hands.

An opinion, no matter how worthy one feels it is not cause and effect.

So if one doesn't have the connection, are they "rushing to judgement?"

I mean ... if we want to rush to judgement, we've already got direct, provable connection with this shooter.

For a fact, this guy's favorite books included "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto"  and not Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations."  Are these writings capable of motivating people?  Him>

If this connection is true ... and it is ... shouldn't we instead, be indicting every socialist or communist for inciting this tragedy?  Should we ban "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto?"

OFFLINE

oh, i'm sorry. i thought crosshairs were crosshairs were crosshairs, and mention of going behind enemy lines and such were basically the same.