Arizona shooting
- Thread starter Wiggler
- Start date
Putting aside poltics for just a minute, I think there are some extant conditions we Americans need to start warming up to and put our denial to one side.
a.) There are, and have been for many years, extremists in our midst. Some of them can be pretty well organized and some of them are just a couple of folks who get together in a basement somewhere and decide it would be cool to blow-up a building. This isn't something new, but with the INTERNET you can bet the news gets around the globe a lot faster these days.
b.) The extremists I am speaking of don't wear signs, or shirts or badges identifying themselves as such. Remember the quote about how "men lead lives of quiet desperation"? Well, that guy standing next to you at the bus-stop may well be much closer to the "frosty edge" than his outward demeanor may suggest.
c.) While we can talk about the pain of others being hurt or killed, the folks I am talking about are more along the lines of Timothy McVey and his now-infamous "collateral damage" comment. What I mean is that somewhere along the line, "people" and that natural self-restraint that normal people have in being concerned for the safety of others has probably long-since died in the hearts of these "extremists".
d.) The mentally or emotionally ill have a range of people just like any other population. Not all of the disturbed people are violent, just like not all violent people are disturbed. However, in either case----disturbed or violent or both--- there are individuals who are just looking for a reason (an excuse?) to act out and be able to justify it in some way to others.
e.) Quite recently, the world of the Health Insurance providers witnessed huge increases in many States. As reported in the media, such notables as the Secretary of Health made it clear that there was little or nothing the government could do about this. Such statements only add to the general feelings of individual impotence in the population and easily feeds the tragic acting-out that we are witnessing in Arizona. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
a.) There are, and have been for many years, extremists in our midst. Some of them can be pretty well organized and some of them are just a couple of folks who get together in a basement somewhere and decide it would be cool to blow-up a building. This isn't something new, but with the INTERNET you can bet the news gets around the globe a lot faster these days.
b.) The extremists I am speaking of don't wear signs, or shirts or badges identifying themselves as such. Remember the quote about how "men lead lives of quiet desperation"? Well, that guy standing next to you at the bus-stop may well be much closer to the "frosty edge" than his outward demeanor may suggest.
c.) While we can talk about the pain of others being hurt or killed, the folks I am talking about are more along the lines of Timothy McVey and his now-infamous "collateral damage" comment. What I mean is that somewhere along the line, "people" and that natural self-restraint that normal people have in being concerned for the safety of others has probably long-since died in the hearts of these "extremists".
d.) The mentally or emotionally ill have a range of people just like any other population. Not all of the disturbed people are violent, just like not all violent people are disturbed. However, in either case----disturbed or violent or both--- there are individuals who are just looking for a reason (an excuse?) to act out and be able to justify it in some way to others.
e.) Quite recently, the world of the Health Insurance providers witnessed huge increases in many States. As reported in the media, such notables as the Secretary of Health made it clear that there was little or nothing the government could do about this. Such statements only add to the general feelings of individual impotence in the population and easily feeds the tragic acting-out that we are witnessing in Arizona. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
merrywhiterose
New member
- Mar 23, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 1
I'm flying to Arizona on 18th January to live there permanently (Tempe, not Tucson). All the people I've met during my previous visits were very warm and welcoming. It's a shame such a tragedy happened to such nice people.
Stephbrooke
New member
- Apr 17, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
So a cursory glance at wikipedia indicates that democratic assassinations outnumber republican assassinations by more than ten to one so I'd have to say that this a little bit political.
This guy was all over the map politically.
Politics has alway been passionate and should be. This does leave room for nut cases to go off but no one in there right mind on ether side thinks violence to those on the other side is the right way to go.
If you look back on history politics was just as dirty and sometimes violent as it is now days.
This incident is a tragedy and those that try and make it political on ether side are doing the same they blame the other side for.
Politics has alway been passionate and should be. This does leave room for nut cases to go off but no one in there right mind on ether side thinks violence to those on the other side is the right way to go.
If you look back on history politics was just as dirty and sometimes violent as it is now days.
This incident is a tragedy and those that try and make it political on ether side are doing the same they blame the other side for.
leafnebula
New member
- Mar 6, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
I agree it shouldn't be leveraged for political gain (although of course, it will), but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a very vigorous discussion about whether the violent rhetoric that has been such a key part of American politics since 2008 had an impact on this event and even if it didn't, it still needs to stop.
AlexisInfectious®
Active member
- Apr 17, 2009
- 9,067
- 0
- 36
There should be lines both sides do not cross but this is not something new.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/
dannicus617
Member
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31
- 0
- 6
Absolutely!! I say again that too often politics is used as an "excuse" or a "rationalization" for bad actors to justify what they are doing. In the world of crime it has become an established strategy for a violent crime, or series of violent crimes, to be given a political spin. In this way, then, an everyday street thug attempts to wrap himself in a national or cultural movement. An alternate tactic is to assume the posture of a currently "unpopular" group and plead victimization because of one's supposed affiliation. With the huge numbers of people attempting to live their lives within the law and according to social norms these other folks give me a royal pain in the tail!!
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Best Wishes,
Bruce
horsecrazy8907
New member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
We do not know if this guy was influenced at all by any side, so thinking that he was listening to any one voice is premature. The guy was described as a "lefty", burned the American flag and was violently anti religion. One report said that he was registered to the democratic party. So it is hard to place him listening to folks talking about God in their political speeches.
From what we have seen, this guy was a nut case having been turned down by the military and talking about conspiracies and mind control. Thanks to the internet, these types of folks don't bother listening to what CNN, Fox news or anyone on the radio is saying. They are much more likely to find others on the internet that think like them and encourage each other's world view. Trying to talk about what the political pundits and commentators say is a case of looking in the wrong direction. Everyone on TV and radio could all play real nice and it won't do any good as long as these types have internet access.
From what we have seen, this guy was a nut case having been turned down by the military and talking about conspiracies and mind control. Thanks to the internet, these types of folks don't bother listening to what CNN, Fox news or anyone on the radio is saying. They are much more likely to find others on the internet that think like them and encourage each other's world view. Trying to talk about what the political pundits and commentators say is a case of looking in the wrong direction. Everyone on TV and radio could all play real nice and it won't do any good as long as these types have internet access.
And others say he was a member of right wing hate group. But it's irrelevant. He was anti-government and since 2008 the anti-government rhetoric has been coming from the Republican side of the fence. When someone says something you agree with, it reinforces your own beliefs even if that person is different from you in every other way.
He couldn't have hidden from the views of Beck, Palin, Limbaugh et al if he'd tried. They're pervasive. I'm British and I've been well aware of it happening over the last 18 months.
And I say again, even if this shooting turns out to have nothing to do with the violent political rhetoric, it certainly did not help.
He couldn't have hidden from the views of Beck, Palin, Limbaugh et al if he'd tried. They're pervasive. I'm British and I've been well aware of it happening over the last 18 months.
And I say again, even if this shooting turns out to have nothing to do with the violent political rhetoric, it certainly did not help.
So their views are some sort of a crime? They are opposed to the current president and are vocal about it, is that a crime?
It is fairly clear that someone who was as violently anti- religion, was called a lefty and burned the American flag would not be the typical follower of any tea party figure. So just because they talk trash about the president (not calling for his death or anyone else's) and he is aware that they are saying bad things about Obama, that means that their words are crimes?
If we are talking about things leading to violence, is not that movie that came out when Bush was president that had him assassinated far more likely to encourage nut cases? Or far that matter, all the various comments about killing him that I was aware of even while living in Japan? Right now, there are people saying Sarah Palin should be shot in retaliation. Do you think that is right? Are you doing or saying anything about that?
It is fairly clear that someone who was as violently anti- religion, was called a lefty and burned the American flag would not be the typical follower of any tea party figure. So just because they talk trash about the president (not calling for his death or anyone else's) and he is aware that they are saying bad things about Obama, that means that their words are crimes?
If we are talking about things leading to violence, is not that movie that came out when Bush was president that had him assassinated far more likely to encourage nut cases? Or far that matter, all the various comments about killing him that I was aware of even while living in Japan? Right now, there are people saying Sarah Palin should be shot in retaliation. Do you think that is right? Are you doing or saying anything about that?
KitchenWitch
New member
- Mar 9, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 1
No, it's not their views that are the problem. You can disagree with any issue without using thinly veiled threats of violence and gun metaphors.
No, it means that he is being bombarded with violent rhetoric, which to an unstable mind, might make violence seem like a less extreme measure than it really is. And being a member of an anti-semitic anti-immigration hate group is about as far from liberalism as you can get. If everything that has been said so far is true (a huge if), then it seems that his political views transcended the left-right spectrum. At a guess, I'd say he hates all politicians, and Gabby Giffords just happened to be his politician. That doesn't mean that the violent rhetoric dominating right wing media outlets didn't impact him and it certainly doesn't make that kind of violent rhetoric acceptable.
I vaguely remember that but not in detail. If it was a fictional thing, then it's not quite the same thing, but if it was some kind of documentary or political film, then it's the same kind of rhetoric that I was talking about.
Those comments weren't coming from the media though, were they? I'm pretty sure the secret service would have said something about that. I know that there was some violent rhetoric from the left during the Bush years, and I find that equally deplorable, but it is nothing like the scale of the Republicans today. How many Democratic candidates in 2008 advocated taking up arms if their side didn't win the election?
I've not heard that from anyone with any influence, which is where it matters. Cite it if I'm wrong, but can find someone on the internet saying anything if you look long enough, but they have no influence. That is very different to Sarah Palin telling people to 'reload' or Sharron Angle suggesting that people could use their 2nd amendment rights to settle political disputes.
I'm not saying people can't disagree or even that they can't disagree strongly, but what certain members of the Right have been doing over the last couple of years crosses the line. If it was a Muslim liberal talking about using his second amendment rights to protest the Iraq war, Fox News would be all over it in a heartbeat.
No, it means that he is being bombarded with violent rhetoric, which to an unstable mind, might make violence seem like a less extreme measure than it really is. And being a member of an anti-semitic anti-immigration hate group is about as far from liberalism as you can get. If everything that has been said so far is true (a huge if), then it seems that his political views transcended the left-right spectrum. At a guess, I'd say he hates all politicians, and Gabby Giffords just happened to be his politician. That doesn't mean that the violent rhetoric dominating right wing media outlets didn't impact him and it certainly doesn't make that kind of violent rhetoric acceptable.
I vaguely remember that but not in detail. If it was a fictional thing, then it's not quite the same thing, but if it was some kind of documentary or political film, then it's the same kind of rhetoric that I was talking about.
Those comments weren't coming from the media though, were they? I'm pretty sure the secret service would have said something about that. I know that there was some violent rhetoric from the left during the Bush years, and I find that equally deplorable, but it is nothing like the scale of the Republicans today. How many Democratic candidates in 2008 advocated taking up arms if their side didn't win the election?
I've not heard that from anyone with any influence, which is where it matters. Cite it if I'm wrong, but can find someone on the internet saying anything if you look long enough, but they have no influence. That is very different to Sarah Palin telling people to 'reload' or Sharron Angle suggesting that people could use their 2nd amendment rights to settle political disputes.
I'm not saying people can't disagree or even that they can't disagree strongly, but what certain members of the Right have been doing over the last couple of years crosses the line. If it was a Muslim liberal talking about using his second amendment rights to protest the Iraq war, Fox News would be all over it in a heartbeat.
If that is your real problem, then why in your prior post did you say,
So far, of the three the closest you can find is Palin's reference to "reloading".
Were you even aware of that quote 24 hours ago? Since this guy is probably not a tea party member anymore than Obama, how would he have heard it and decided to follow his leader's orders?
So where is the quotes from the other folks you rail against that constitutes, "thinly veiled threats of violence and gun metaphors"?
So far, of the three the closest you can find is Palin's reference to "reloading".
Were you even aware of that quote 24 hours ago? Since this guy is probably not a tea party member anymore than Obama, how would he have heard it and decided to follow his leader's orders?
So where is the quotes from the other folks you rail against that constitutes, "thinly veiled threats of violence and gun metaphors"?
janeysmithster
New member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 1
Since 2008? I guess violent hate speech against Bush, Republicans and conservatives don't count?
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=663&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=bush+protest+signs&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai
The left has been ramping up their violent hate speech for over 10 years, it just doesn't get the same air time by most media that it should.
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=663&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=bush+protest+signs&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai
The left has been ramping up their violent hate speech for over 10 years, it just doesn't get the same air time by most media that it should.
TheFoster15
Member
- Mar 28, 2008
- 33
- 0
- 6
2008 ? mmmmm to be honest you could say since 2001 if not the 1980s, I can remember a Simpson episode lampooning a rush limbugh type character and that side of politics before I was even old enough to understand what politics was.
what holyhead said is in fact what I "dragged" into it not a political baiting match, trust me if I wanted to call any tea party members out and hold there politics accountable for this id have done it in no uncertain terms, its like holyhead also said this climate of fear and hatred you have allowed to become acceptable tv and radio broadcasting has gotten so bad that we in another country see it quiet often, my point was it was always going to have adverse effects, maybe you (or your fellow tea party comrades) should not be so quick to flock under the banner of the Becks of the world as saviours in the future.
stlcardinalsfan721
New member
- Apr 19, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
excuse me but I have to inform you being anti religious doesn't necessarily make you a leftist, and believe it or not it works the other way to.
hardtokeep
Member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 32
- 0
- 6
Did I say that was the case?
But of course, we do know that the tea party is fairly religious (which is why I do not associate with them) and considered right wing.
So trying to paint the shooter as a member of the tea party despite the fact he was called a "lefty" by someone who knows him and is very anti -religion seems a great deal of a stretching of the facts to serve an agenda.
But of course, we do know that the tea party is fairly religious (which is why I do not associate with them) and considered right wing.
So trying to paint the shooter as a member of the tea party despite the fact he was called a "lefty" by someone who knows him and is very anti -religion seems a great deal of a stretching of the facts to serve an agenda.
osufan00047
New member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
no but it seems your trying to equate his anti religious slant with being a leftist, my opinion is the guy was doing that thing creepy loners do in high school identifying themselves with anything horrific to seem controversial its usually Nazism, in most American high schools identifying yourself with communism is probably just as controversial, point being the guy wasn't anything coherent or meaningful politically, you are misunderstanding me and I believe holyhead as well we are not trying to say he was a right wing radical but we are saying this is what happens when you let right wing hate mongers become an acceptable part of your culture.
You are clearly showing either your bias, or the bias of whatever US media you get exposed to in the UK. The problem is left wing hate mongers have been not only tolerated but accepted and promoted for the last 10+ years. Suddenly in the main stream media it's evil and unacceptable when someone from the right acts similarly. Hollywood actors (why someone would listen to them, or Beck I don't know, but people do) have been spouting hate and violence towards any policy/politician/group/person they don't agree with for year without being censored for it, yet those same people want Beck, Rush and so on taken off the air for the same kind of vitriol from the opposite political spectrum.
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, you don't get to say whatever you like without allowing the other guy his piece too.
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, you don't get to say whatever you like without allowing the other guy his piece too.