Question regarding Arizona shooting.

It's as kosher as calling the other party "enemies" while telling a national television audience to bring guns to the fight because "they" (you know the enemy) only have knives.

They are metaphors, plain and simple.


I see we have another film buff in our ranks. Apparently, some low budget British film was about assassinating Bush was hugely popular among the righties but none of them saw The Untouchables. Weird.
 
It's as kosher as calling the other party "enemies" while telling a national television audience to bring guns to the fight because "they" (you know the enemy) only have knives.

They are metaphors, plain and simple.


So Obama is also a time traveller that can himself broadcast events where no national television media are present to a national television audience.

You couldn't mangle the facts to such an extent again even if you tried really really hard.
 
No no no Damo, you are missing the whole screed here. It's only metaphores when they, the metaphores and imagery, are engaged by the left~ When used by the right they are no longer metaphores and gimmick ridden imagery-It's ugly and hateful and violent! It's menacing and causes demented dudes to kill people!


Actually, I'm coming around to that position. I mean, given the lens through which Sarah Palin's audience sees the world vis a vis guns and such and the lens through which the average Democrat sees the world vis a vis guns and such, using the crosshair-RELOAD imagery to the Tea Party types is a more direct invocation of violence even if the words and images used are the exactly the same (even though they aren't).
 
Actually, I'm coming around to that position. I mean, given the lens through which Sarah Palin's audience sees the world vis a vis guns and such and the lens through which the average Democrat sees the world vis a vis guns and such, using the crosshair-RELOAD imagery to the Tea Party types is a more direct invocation of violence even if the words and images used are the exactly the same (even though they aren't).

Geez Louise .... :palm:
 
Well, Pima is a prime example of the flaw in that logic. A documented nut job gets a gun with an extended clip courtesy of the liberal/lax gun laws of AZ, and perpetraits a heinous crime DESPITE the well strapped citizenry. He was eventually taken down by UNARMED citizens.

But hey, you go ahead and provide stats of Pima crime stats in the last decade or so....and then do the gunner shuffle about how those very gun laws are attributed to a lower crime rate but DID NOT do a damned thing to stop this nut from killing 9 people in an open public event (in fact, made it easy).

Was anyone there "strapped"? Since it was a democrat event, most would not have been. Especially since all the flack about people carrying at political events. So some of those who MIGHT have been strapped, may not have due to the whining of people like you. Words have consequences, remember?

And a lunatic is not going to be stopped. In a free society there will always be dangers. Perhaps you see it being worth it trade your freedoms for a false sense of security, but the rest of us dont.
 
Once again, our Super "dumb" freak demonstrates his inability to comprehend what he reads.

I didn't allude to "no" violent crime.....I merely point out that Pima has the system that gunners swore would stop/prevent/lower such crimes as what happened to Gifford and the other victims.

Well, reality check.....IT DIDN'T. What it did result in was a nut job rejected by the Army who easily purchased a weapon with an extended magazine, who killed 9 people and was taken down BY UNARMED CIVILIANS.

But hey, maybe next time it'll happen just like you gunners keep saying it will. :mad:

LMAO... yeah, you did allude to "no" violent crime.

You stated that this incident is proof the gun policies in AZ don't work to stop/prevent/lower such crimes.

ONE incident is not evidence that the laws don't work. If you cited statistics showing the crime rates had increased over time despite the laws... THAT would validate your point.

But your ignorance compels you to continue to spout the same ignorance yet again.
 
:palm: The ideologies of Marx and Hitler are diametrically opposed to each other, you Super Dumbass Freak! And the anti-gov't ravings that his nut has had over the years on his website postings is right up the alley of the Teabagger dogma we've all seen/heard since 2008. And who was the politico that wanted to reduce the federal gov't to a size he could strangle in the bath tub? Not a Dem or Liberal or Progressive, if I remember.

Some college kids opinion doesn't add-up with the evidence. Palin's placating statements and presence at Teabagger rallies were they were spewing all types of off-the-wall paranoid, anti-gov't BS is so reflective of Loughner's ravings that "coincidence" becomes scary.

Yes, Hitler and Marx are opposed, the point is that he read both, told his friend he was fond of Marx. He was more an anarchist than anything if you really want to label him.

Your obsessive need to blame Palin is pathetic. If you actually pay attention to the facts that have been released, it is now known that he has been obsessed with Giffords since 2007. Long before Palin and the tea party.

These were the actions of a lunatic. Period.
 
Ahhh, but the FACTS are that he did obtain his weapon legally...DESPITE being officially rejected by the Army due to mental instability.

A better background check system coupled with a 7 day waiting period would have prevented Loughner from getting his weapon so easily. But now we'll never know.

LMAO.... do link us up to where you found out the Army rejected him due to mental instability.

What I heard reported was that they rejected him because he failed a drug test.
 
Actually, I'm coming around to that position. I mean, given the lens through which Sarah Palin's audience sees the world vis a vis guns and such and the lens through which the average Democrat sees the world vis a vis guns and such, using the crosshair-RELOAD imagery to the Tea Party types is a more direct invocation of violence even if the words and images used are the exactly the same (even though they aren't).

Yet another example of Nigel drinking his masters kool-aid.

Your training is complete. You are now a hack master.
 
I see we have another film buff in our ranks. Apparently, some low budget British film was about assassinating Bush was hugely popular among the righties but none of them saw The Untouchables. Weird.

Seeing the 'untouchables' doesn't change the fact that a 'crazy' person could hear the President repeat the quote and unhinge them enough to set them off. Isn't that your argument? That we can't say things like that because a 'crazy' person may misinterpret them?
 
I see we have another film buff in our ranks. Apparently, some low budget British film was about assassinating Bush was hugely popular among the righties but none of them saw The Untouchables. Weird.

It is also very comical that you continue to pretend the assassination movie wasn't publicized here. Just because it was a complete flop, doesn't mean the idiots on the left didn't try to publicize it here.
 
Yeah, because he put it here I looked into it. The same department that had no less than 16 reports of this same man threatening to kill people. Yup. True.

Did you know that even in AZ had he been forced in for a psych eval he could not have purchased the gun legally? Yeah. Somebody wasn't doing their job, and that somebody may be trying to deflect from his own responsibility. Sarah never had direct knowledge of a lunatic threatening to kill people, the Sheriff did. The guy threatened bloggers, radio personalities, teachers and students at the community college, and nobody had him checked for a psych eval...

These people died, not because of "political rhetoric" but because nobody took responsibility for this guy's clear and direct threat to others.

I think both sides are jumping to conclusions, he hasn't said anything about what influenced him at this point. You don't know if it was or wasn't Sarah Palin. Seems both sides are jumping on the blame the other guy bandwagon when everyone should take responsibility. It seems to me we all failed this guy and Gabby Giffords.
 
So now the tea party has been around for 4 years?

Do provide us with examples of the 'threatening rhetoric'

Oh, come on, surely you are aware of the threatening rhetoric. The language both sides uses is used purposely to fire up their bases. It may not be used to incite violence, but that is what happens. The mob mentality takes over at times. It is why there were lynch mobs in our past. It is why Jesus was crucified, the crowd chose him over Barabas. There are examples on both sides as has been presented in other threads.
 
So now the tea party has been around for 4 years?

Do provide us with examples of the 'threatening rhetoric'

What do you credit the violent threats against Judge Rollins to? In one article it stated that he had just come off high security protection,

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/09/20090709threats0709.html

thanks, I am just curious as to why you are so sure this isn't about rhetoric at this point when we really haven't heard from the shooter and probably won't until he is in prison for several years and wants to get attention once again, like so many before him.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's the law in Pima regarding citizens carrying weapons openly (with permit) or CCWP?

And why is the neocon radio bullhorn's losing their minds over the Sheriff simply stating the obvious, since he didn't mention anyone person or political affiliate specifically?


When the sheriff states that "one party is trying to make it better for the people and the other party is blocking them all the time" (paraphrasing)
it leaves little doubt what and who he is blaming....:fu:

Maybe you need things spelled out for you, but the rest of us know what he is implying...

I'm not interested in the "para-phrasing" by an intellectually impotent neocon parrot like yourself, Bravo. Give the full quote of what the man said....or be your ususal false Bravo self and bluff about it's not your job to provide accurate information when you start BS'ing.

The Sheriff is stating FACT....and the heavy documentation of the neocon driven GOP's panic inducing rhetoric since 2008 is parallel to the rantings of Loughner...the coincidence is frightening.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by bravo
When the sheriff states that "one party is trying to make it better for the people and the other party is blocking them all the time" (paraphrasing)
it leaves little doubt what and who he is blaming....

Maybe you need things spelled out for you, but the rest of us know what he is implying...


It was an irresponsible statement that he made-especially in light of the aftermath fallout!

The only "fallout" is that the neocon driven GOP are scrambling like roaches to try and distance themselves from their panic inducing, confrontational anti-Obama/gov't rhetoric for the last 3 years that is so scarily similar to Loughner's rantings. The Sheriff just stated a matter of fact.....and you don't like it.
 
holy balls, Touchie, was that really eleven posts in a row?....must be a new record.....(by the way, I didn't read any of them and I feel great)......

that this post modern fool took the time and effort to essentially say nothing is a sad testament to his petty, childish mentality.
 
Originally Posted by NigelTufnel
So "Dont retreat. Instead -- RELOAD" is kosher but pointing out the hostile atmosphere in which it was stated is irresponsible because the very people that created that environment have now given him a taste of it?

Nice.



It's as kosher as calling the other party "enemies" while telling a national television audience to bring guns to the fight because "they" (you know the enemy) only have knives.

They are metaphors, plain and simple.

Post #72 & #73. Comparing a metaphor in a speech to constant, repeated mantras in the face of an audience echoing veiled threats are two different things.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal

Well, Pima is a prime example of the flaw in that logic. A documented nut job gets a gun with an extended clip courtesy of the liberal/lax gun laws of AZ, and perpetraits a heinous crime DESPITE the well strapped citizenry. He was eventually taken down by UNARMED citizens.

But hey, you go ahead and provide stats of Pima crime stats in the last decade or so....and then do the gunner shuffle about how those very gun laws are attributed to a lower crime rate but DID NOT do a damned thing to stop this nut from killing 9 people in an open public event (in fact, made it easy).



Was anyone there "strapped"? Since it was a democrat event, most would not have been. Especially since all the flack about people carrying at political events. So some of those who MIGHT have been strapped, may not have due to the whining of people like you. Words have consequences, remember?


Wrong again. Please take note:

"I almost shot the man holding the gun." (update)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/935249/-I-almost-shot-the-man-holding-the-gun.-(update)


And a lunatic is not going to be stopped. In a free society there will always be dangers. Perhaps you see it being worth it trade your freedoms for a false sense of security, but the rest of us dont.

Your regurgitating the gunners rhetoric won't change the FACTS that the societal situation YOU advocated EXISTED in Pima....and it DID NOT work out as folk like you always assert it should. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top