OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Well considering gun ownership spans both primary political parties,,,, well, whatever I initially intended to say here is all blah,,, it's another reason why I can't be a Democrat or a Republican; they're both so hypocritical at times.

Yes.  It spans both parties.

One party is trying to do away with the right to bear arms.

Big difference.

And Shawn, I think that being hypocritical is one thing that's truly equal-opportunity.

Being Independent does not give one immunity.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Who's he referring to here, fellow Americans or Terrorists?

americans. political enemies. here's the full context.

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

so conservatives basically.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Responding to anger with murder seem very much like a bad thing. But we each respond to our anger uniquely, and not always toxically.

Responding to anger by murdering innocent people is wrong.

Responding to murder by "targeting" anger at innocent people is wrong.

Follow the finger prints

What we know ...

A guy murdered some innocent people this weekend.  No substantitive evidential motives have been presented that ties the murders to anyone but the killer.

So, if one gets angry and tries to cast blame onto others for this guy's acts, in the absence of evidence, those fingerprints are pointing back to the accusers.

(See above)

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Who's he referring to here, fellow Americans or Terrorists?

americans. political enemies. here's the full context.

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

so conservatives basically.

Based on what you've posted, I'd say this is quite a dysfunctional/separatist thing to say. I'm fine with disagreements and addressing them assertively. But I dislike Americans seeing each other as enemies across political lines (which are obviously more like divides).

OFFLINE

regardless, the point is, his words are much more harsh than a map with crosshairs.

he also said to a bunch of bank CEOs that, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

or what about when democratic senator claire mccaskill said, "“It really is time for Americans to take up pitchforks," in regards to the extention of the bush tax cuts? i don't recall any media frenzy over that one.

and when they're not saying stuff like that, they're accusing tea partiers and townhall attendees of being racist, brown-shirted nazis, homophobes, xenophobes, and the like.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Responding to anger with murder seem very much like a bad thing. But we each respond to our anger uniquely, and not always toxically.

Responding to anger by murdering innocent people is wrong.

Responding to murder by "targeting" anger at innocent people is wrong.

Follow the finger prints

What we know ...

A guy murdered some innocent people this weekend.  No substantitive evidential motives have been presented that ties the murders to anyone but the killer.

So, if one gets angry and tries to cast blame onto others for this guy's acts, in the absence of evidence, those fingerprints are pointing back to the accusers.

(See above)

Well, I can't help thinking that if Camp Palin felt genuinely good about their Crosshairs picture and felt absolutely no connection between that pic and what happened, then I don't think they would have immediately removed it from their website right after the shootings. Therefor, I think - follow the fingerprints. And if that results in such images being banned from public display, then I'd feel progress has been made.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Responding to anger with murder seem very much like a bad thing. But we each respond to our anger uniquely, and not always toxically.

Responding to anger by murdering innocent people is wrong.

Responding to murder by "targeting" anger at innocent people is wrong.

Follow the finger prints

What we know ...

A guy murdered some innocent people this weekend.  No substantitive evidential motives have been presented that ties the murders to anyone but the killer.

So, if one gets angry and tries to cast blame onto others for this guy's acts, in the absence of evidence, those fingerprints are pointing back to the accusers.

(See above)

Well, I can't help thinking that if Camp Palin felt genuinely good about their Crosshairs picture and felt absolutely no connection between that pic and what happened, then I don't think they would have immediately removed it from their website right after the shootings. Therefor, I think - follow the fingerprints. And if that results in such images being banned from public display, then I'd feel progress has been made.

of course they removed it, because the corpses hadn't even cooled yet, before people were starting to blame her. and while the left is scurrying about trying to limit free speech, and talking of banning guns, you have to think of the words of rahm emanuel. never let a tragedy go to waste. i'm fairly confident that if congresswoman giffords were coherent, she'd probably be pretty upset that her tragedy were being used as political ammunition. there is absolutely no connection between this guy and the right, but that doesn't stop them. remember when that guy flew a plane into an office building, killing himself. they were immediately saying this guy was a right winger because he flew into an IRS building, yet he signed off his suicide letter with the communist creed. the facts didn't stop them then, and it isn't stopping them now.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
regardless, the point is, his words are much more harsh than a map with crosshairs.

I offer to agree to disagree on this. I think words and pictures can be equally toxic.

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
or what about when democratic senator claire mccaskill said, "“It really is time for Americans to take up pitchforks," in regards to the extention of the bush tax cuts? i don't recall any media frenzy over that one.

Hypothetically speaking; what if a Republican Political Figure was subsequently brutally murdered with some kind of link found, suspected, or blatantly manufactured between the two, wouldn't we then see something similar? I know reverse-hypotheticals are unwelcome in conversations like this because they influence balanced views in toxicities, but other than differing opinions, I see the same kinds of personalities equally in both parties as administrations pass. Regardless, the circumstances are different, but I feel such "Pitchfork" expressions are as equally toxic as Palin's Crosshairs pic.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
of course they removed it, because the corpses hadn't even cooled yet, before people were starting to blame her. and while the left is scurrying about trying to limit free speech, and talking of banning guns, you have to think of the words of rahm emanuel. never let a tragedy go to waste. i'm fairly confident that if congresswoman giffords were coherent, she'd probably be pretty upset that her tragedy were being used as political ammunition. there is absolutely no connection between this guy and the right, but that doesn't stop them. remember when that guy flew a plane into an office building, killing himself. they were immediately saying this guy was a right winger because he flew into an IRS building, yet he signed off his suicide letter with the communist creed. the facts didn't stop them then, and it isn't stopping them now.

I feel removing this particular picture in this fashion is exactly what someone would do if they felt they done something deemed socially unacceptable. That particular picture doesn't just disappear because it's removed from one tiny web page; I'm sure it's archived on countless computers worldwide. So removing it feels like an irrational act of desperation to me.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
but I feel such "Pitchfork" expressions are as equally toxic as Palin's Crosshairs pic.

apples and oranges. see, you're having to INFER what was meant by crosshairs on a map. i don't have to infer anything about what mccaskill said. she said it. right out there in the open. palin has never said it's time to bring out the pitchforks on anyone. this is where there is a difference. if she had openly called for violence, then i would be in agreement with you.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:


I feel removing this particular picture in this fashion is exactly what someone would do if they felt they done something deemed socially unacceptable. That particular picture doesn't just disappear because it's removed from one tiny web page; I'm sure it's archived on countless computers worldwide. So removing it feels like an irrational act of desperation to me.

her folly was in leaving up beyond the last election, because ever since the hub-bub surrounding it's initial posting, the left has been waiting for the opportunity to beat her over the head with it. so it was more stupid than anything for playing right into their hands. and perhaps it would be an admission of guilt if there was any evidence whatsoever that this guy was a follower of palin, and that this map had given him the idea to do what he did.

but now let's look at the facts. this guy had been stalking the congresswoman ever since 07, BEFORE palin's map ever went up. he also blatantly said that the communist manifesto was one of his favorite books, but isn't it funny how the media isn't talking about a communist connection? no, they're too obsessed with a map with crosshairs. c'mon man, are you actually buying into this? you can't see that all this is a witch-hunt? of all the things to point to, you want to point to a map with with absolutely no connection whatsoever?

OFFLINE

What I find really appalling here is how quickly this thread became a political debate rather than staying focused on the issue, which is the murders of six people, including a small child, and the shooting of several others. I tend to believe that the shooter absolutely must be held accountable because HE made a choice, which means there are consequences.  It's about personal responsibility, not political finger-pointing . . .

My heart hurts for the families who are suffering, not for the injured feelings of any political party.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
I know reverse-hypotheticals are unwelcome in conversations like this because they influence balanced views in toxicities, but other than differing opinions, I see the same kinds of personalities equally in both parties as administrations pass. Regardless, the circumstances are different, but I feel such "Pitchfork" expressions are as equally toxic as Palin's Crosshairs pic.

and to address this reverse hypothetical a bit more. if a republican were killed and the media was trying to tie it to the democratic map with targets on it, then i would feel it is equally ridiculous.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Donna Brown:
It's about personal responsibility, not political finger-pointing . . .

My heart hurts for the families who are suffering, not for the injured feelings of any political party.

i agree, personally, which is why i find it abhorrent that so many are seeking to tie it to unrelated things.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Donna Brown:
It's about personal responsibility, not political finger-pointing . . .

My heart hurts for the families who are suffering, not for the injured feelings of any political party.

i agree, personally, which is why i find it abhorrent that so many are seeking to tie it to unrelated things.

Then don't argue about it.  

I just find it hard to believe that it really matters what his political leanings are.  He's the one who made the decision to pull the trigger . . . over and over and over.  He is the one who bears the responsibility for that act.