AZ Congresswoman in critical condition after shooting

[Crown@club]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOaROFFhpL4&feature=fvsr

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

This sherriff out there making all the noise about talk radio, and angry rhetoric should be relieved of duty.

Whatever for? He's responsible for the safety of his county. He's been the Sheriff there for what, 30-40 years? He's been dealing with violence surrounding politics for a few years, and it's increasing. He just had a freaking mass murder-assassination attempt.

He's certainly entitled to discuss the mood of his county and state, and what could be threatening the safety of those whose lives he's entrusted with protecting. Every good law enforcement officer does that. It's what he is paid to do.

Jim, did you watch the 4-part press conference I posted (which was the first one that day it happened, when things were still in great flux), or did you see it live? Just wondering.

And geesh, don't insult the memory of Uncle Fester with that creepy face!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dell, we are talking about "blaming the right for the murders" directly. Not blaming the right for nasty talk. And no, I'm not asking for "proof" - I've read it! I need no proof. Some very few, and not the mainstream, and not the Sheriff, have indeed blamed the right directly for the murders - that some aspects of the right have "blood on their hands", type of thing. "Sarah Palin, this is all your fault" type of thing.

You guys haven't yet quoted anyone of those people who have said it, and you've (the general you) have false and viciously attacked people, like the Sheriff, who have not said that.

That's the very definition of "hateful rhetoric" right there.

I posted the Sheriff's real quote here. I've posted the video here. All you had to do is click to see what the Sheriff really said. Here it is again, because you are too effing lazy or stupid to do it yourself:

The Sheriff said: "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

And here's the video of him talking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhOE...eature=related

So yes, the quoted part belongs to the Sheriff, the addition of Azizona being, a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups and anti-immigrant posturing." must be Jacksons'.

So, Jackson (not the Sheriff, he never said that) says that Arizona is a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups, and anti-immigrant posturing".

Is that saying those groups are responsible for the murders? No. Where does he say "they must hold blame" or something similar? It only says that Jackson thinks Arizona has alot of nasty rhetoric going on.

If you want to talk about the validity of Arizona being a "cauldron of Tea Party anger, right-wing hate groups, and anti-immigrant posturing", that's a valid discussion to have. But I don't see anywhere Jackson has laid the blame for the killer's actions upon those groups. Which is what you are maintaining.

Geesh, here, I'll do your proof for you, because you can't seem to find it: the title of the article is "hate speech lit blaze in Arizona". But the article fails to flesh that out and make the direct connection or accusation. All Jackson ends up really saying is that there's alot of nasty talk in Arizona. Yes, I think there is. Do you?

First I thought you said that very few if any major media outlets were inferring the acts of Loughner were either 'directly' or 'indirectly' related to what seems to be the new catch phrase 'vitriolic rhetoric' so I included the Rev. Moron's piece.

To your question, yes there is now and always has been nasty talk. Consider the fact that what may be perceived as nasty to some may be the norm for others. For example some may think calling Obama & Co. crooks for using public funds to bail out private companies is nasty just as some think calling the US troops at Gitmo the Gestapo and Bush a murderer and torturer was nasty.

We are in hard times where major movements either have or have the potential to take America on a new course. This raises emotion and thus nasty talk. It's as normal as a dog barking at a perceived danger. To mute the canine or politician is simply asinine. IMO

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

First I thought you said that very few if any major media outlets were inferring the acts of Loughner were either 'directly' or 'indirectly' related to what seems to be the new catch phrase 'vitriolic rhetoric' so I included the Rev. Moron's piece.

To your question, yes there is now and always has been nasty talk. Consider the fact that what may be perceived as nasty to some may be the norm for others. For example some may think calling Obama & Co. crooks for using public funds to bail out private companies is nasty just as some think calling the US troops at Gitmo the Gestapo and Bush a murderer and torturer was nasty.

We are in hard times where major movements either have or have the potential to take America on a new course. This raises emotion and thus nasty talk. It's as normal as a dog barking at a perceived danger. To mute the canine or politician is simply asinine. IMO

I’d also argue that the U.S. politicians, who in some distorted realty, thought that the 9-11 attack was somehow our ‘chickens coming back to roost’ or that Bush, the Jews et al had previous knowledge of, is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.

Sen. Durbin calling the marines stationed at Gitmo the Gestapo would also seem to have more vitriolic gravitas so to speak. Let's also not forget Rev Al Sharpton calling for the murdering of NYC police officers and of course the Rev. Jackson calling for Obama’s balls to be cut off. Amen

[Riot]

is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.

I think Kanjorski's, "Put him against the wall and shoot him." - clearly over the top. You? What about references to violence and guns in general. Yes? No?

Jackson cutting Obama's balls off was a private comment picked up by a mic - what if he had said that at a rally, in public?

[Riot]

What they didn't ask him, and what I would want to know, is would Joe have gone outside if he didn't have a gun on him? I would guess not. He still gets credit for being brave.

Joe Zamudio, was in a nearby pharmacy -- armed -- when the shooting began. He rushed over and helped subdue the killer:

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Zamudio has no professional or military training with weapons. He also, according to the Arizona Daily Star, didn't initially pull out his own weapon because he was afraid of being confused as a second gunman.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think Kanjorski's, "Put him against the wall and shoot him." - clearly over the top. You?

I think when you include the rest of his quote, you know, "He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks" NO!

Wonder why you left the rest of the quote out when you seem like such a stickler for taking things out of context. Simple mistake

[Riot]

I left the quote out because it is here in it's entirety in this thread, and I figured you'd know what I am referring to. Then let's do the whole quote:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Yeah, I think that's definitely over the top, recommending shooting your opponent. Completely out of place, uncalled for, appalling.

"Oh, but I didn't mean it literally!"

Florida did elect someone whose company indeed stole millions of dollars from the US, and had to give it back with fines. Unbelievable. I personally do think he's a healthcare crook. But the best choice out of what was offered. But still that is no reason for a public call for assassination.

You think that is okay to say that? Seriously?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What they didn't ask him, and what I would want to know, is would Joe have gone outside if he didn't have a gun on him? I would guess not. He still gets credit for being brave.

He never took his gun out and didn't because he was afraid of being identified as the gunman and you want to know if he would have gone outside unarmed? What do you think he did? Rely on his holstered gun for a good luck charm? Or for courage a la the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? Does he get more credit unarmed? Or less if he drew? What an odd question. IMO. America is great because of guys like this.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

What they didn't ask him, and what I would want to know, is would Joe have gone outside if he didn't have a gun on him? I would guess not. He still gets credit for being brave.

Arizona has the best gun laws out there (tho very unfortunate that this happened on Saturday). Its too bad an armed grocery store customer wasnt able to take the lunatic out before he shot so many people.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He never took his gun out and didn't because he was afraid of being identified as the gunman and you want to know if he would have gone outside unarmed? What do you think he did? Rely on his holstered gun for a good luck charm? Or for courage a la the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? Does he get more credit unarmed? Or less if he drew? What an odd question. IMO. America is great because of guys like this.

Yeah, Dell, I exactly wonder if he would have gone towards gunshots, if he did not have a loaded gun in his pocket.

That question has nothing at all to do if the gun was visible (drawn) or not. That doesn't matter.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, Dell, I exactly wonder if he would have gone towards gunshots, if he did not have a loaded gun in his pocket.

That question has nothing at all to do if the gun was visible (drawn) or not. That doesn't matter.

I know that personally I'd feel much more comfortable going after a psycho murderer if I was locked and loaded.

But the initial guys who took down the psycho were not armed I believe.. I think one of them had a bullet graze his head too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Arizona has the best gun laws out there (tho very unfortunate that this happened on Saturday). Its too bad an armed grocery store customer wasnt able to take the lunatic out before he shot so many people.

A GOP Republican is going to submit legislation to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1000 feet of any member of Congress. I don't see the point, myself.

What about changing ammunition laws back to what they used to be, so you don't get to get off 30 shots in seconds?

Or maybe having to fill out a permit to carry? It's easier to buy that gun and ammunition than it is to get Sudafed OTC in AZ.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I left the quote out because it is here in it's entirety in this thread, and I figured you'd know what I am referring to. Then let's do the whole quote:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Yeah, I think that's definitely over the top, recommending shooting your opponent. Completely out of place, uncalled for, appalling.

"Oh, but I didn't mean it literally!"

Florida did elect someone whose company indeed stole millions of dollars from the US, and had to give it back with fines. Unbelievable. I personally do think he's a healthcare crook. But the best choice out of what was offered. But still that is no reason for a public call for assassination.

You think that is okay to say that? Seriously?

Of course I do. It may be wrong or asinine but I think it still passes as speech. Then the voters of FL spoke their way.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Of course I do. It may be wrong or asinine but I think it still passes as speech. Then the voters of FL spoke their way.

that race was like trying to decide between Bush and John Kerry.. i think I wrote in a fake candidate or voted for an independent.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Of course I do. It may be wrong or asinine but I think it still passes as speech. Then the voters of FL spoke their way.

I assume you think it's okay because normal people would assume he didn't mean it literally.

But what if he started calling for the guy to be shot at every political stop? What if he repeated that exact paragraph, calmly smiling, shaking hands, at every campaign stop, as a talking point?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, Dell, I exactly wonder if he would have gone towards gunshots, if he did not have a loaded gun in his pocket.

That question has nothing at all to do if the gun was visible (drawn) or not. That doesn't matter.

I guess we'll have to go with the facts. He did go towards gunshots with a gun in his pocket and not in his hand. Call me crazy but even if he had drawn and went towards the gunshots he's a hero in my mind.

To you it somehow matters and that seems even more odd to me now.

[SOREHOOF]

What does it really matter what provoked this guy anyway? There was plenty of "vitriolic rhetoric" from both sides going on in the past election cycle, mostly in their ads against each other. What if he never heard any of it out in his own world somewhere. That's how politics have been in America since the start. I would be just as inclined to believe, if not even more so, that he was incited by too many hours sitting quietly by himself playing violent shoot-em-up video games. He probably watched too many of the blood and guts movies that come screaming out of Hollywood desensitizing himself to violence. He then washed it all down with drugs, alcohol, and a steady dose of Gangsta Rap ( full credit and a big fat thank you from Tipper Gore for the last one). New legislation to ban high capacity magazines promised yesterday by Frank Lautenberg Democrat from N.J. and a longtime anti-gun voter.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

But what if he started calling for the guy to be shot at every political stop? What if he repeated that exact paragraph, calmly smiling, shaking hands, at every campaign stop, as a talking point?

The majority of your input in this thread deals with what the Sheriff did or didn't state you want to now magically transform and deal with a hypothetical?

You don’t find that the least bit hypocritical?

He didn't and I think if he did he'd have about six supporters so the campaign in its entirety would stop. America works if you allow her!

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I’d also argue that the U.S. politicians, who in some distorted realty, thought that the 9-11 attack was somehow our ‘chickens coming back to roost’ or that Bush, the Jews et al had previous knowledge of, is a far better example of ‘vitriolic rhetoric’ as opposed to putting bulls eyes on a poster.

Sen. Durbin calling the marines stationed at Gitmo the Gestapo would also seem to have more vitriolic gravitas so to speak. Let's also not forget Rev Al Sharpton calling for the murdering of NYC police officers and of course the Rev. Jackson calling for Obama’s balls to be cut off. Amen

Wow Al Sharpton actually said that? Jesse Jackson said what he said? I guess those individuals miss being in the limelight again or are bored. At least Jackson said something that was funny.