Rep. Giffords of Arizona shot

#651
#651
azVolFan said:
Just because I think it meant that she wants to rub his big gun and take him out to dinner but I can't find anyone on volnation to contradict does not mean I'm right.

Good try though. :good!:
Click to expand...


You're in Arizona, what's the sentiment out there? Is this a byproduct of the rhetoric? Or purely conicidence that the anti-government nutjob went after a Democrat who just narrowly defeated a Tea Party candidate?
 
#652
#652
utvolpj said:
maybe inhibiting is a better word? Not for it either way
Click to expand...

PJ, I have developed nothing but respect for you since I've been on the VN Political Forum. But I disagree with this comment. The rancor coming from all sides reminds me of puffed up teenagers oozing testosterone arguing over a girl. It's become a game of oneupsmanship. I believe in American exceptionalism. We should expect vigorous, robust, responsible debate from our politicians and from ourselves. I am guilty of venom here. I am no saint, but I feel we better are as a people when we don't try to villianize those that have opposing views and present ourselves as the victim. Once again, I mean no disrespect to you or any other VN poster.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#653
#653
JayVols said:
PJ, I have developed nothing but respect for you since I've been on the VN Political Forum. But I disagree with this comment. The rancor coming from all sides reminds me of puffed up teenagers oozing testosterone arguing over a girl. It's become a game of oneupsmanship. I believe in American exceptionalism. We should expect vigorous, robust, responsible debate from our politicians and from ourselves. I am guilty of venom here. I am no saint, but I feel we better are as a people when we don't try to villianize those that have opposing views and present ourselves as the victim. Once again, I mean no disrespect to you or any other VN poster.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Even as someone who abhors the rhetoric of the far right and thinks it is irresponsible, I also disagree with proposals to try to regulate it.

OTOH, nothing wrong with Palin, Beck et al taking a good look in the mirror and deciding on their own to dial it back a little and encourage others to do the same.
 
#655
#655
lawgator1 said:
Even as someone who abhors the rhetoric of the far right and thinks it is irresponsible, I also disagree with proposals to try to regulate it.

OTOH, nothing wrong with Palin, Beck et al taking a good look in the mirror and deciding on their own to dial it back a little and encourage others to do the same.
Click to expand...

and by others you include the President right?
 
#656
#656
lawgator1 said:
Even as someone who abhors the rhetoric of the far right and thinks it is irresponsible, I also disagree with proposals to try to regulate it.

OTOH, nothing wrong with Palin, Beck et al taking a good look in the mirror and deciding on their own to dial it back a little and encourage others to do the same.
Click to expand...

Really? I have never once heard either of them approve of violence in any way whatsoever.
 
#657
#657
JayVols said:
PJ, I have developed nothing but respect for you since I've been on the VN Political Forum. But I disagree with this comment. The rancor coming from all sides reminds me of puffed up teenagers oozing testosterone arguing over a girl. It's become a game of oneupsmanship. I believe in American exceptionalism. We should expect vigorous, robust, responsible debate from our politicians and from ourselves. I am guilty of venom here. I am no saint, but I feel we better are as a people when we don't try to villianize those that have opposing views and present ourselves as the victim. Once again, I mean no disrespect to you or any other VN poster.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

thanks, wouldn't take it that way as you have always added good stuff to debates

yes it gets dirty at times but that's the nature of the game. It's never been pretty in the history of this country and the reason the press was included in the Constitution. Can people choose their words better? Sure, but I just don't want anyone choosing them for me
 
#659
#659
lawgator1 said:
Even as someone who abhors the rhetoric of the far right and thinks it is irresponsible, I also disagree with proposals to try to regulate it.

OTOH, nothing wrong with Palin, Beck et al taking a good look in the mirror and deciding on their own to dial it back a little and encourage others to do the same.
Click to expand...

I never said to regulate any speech. You completely missed my point. I was implying that we, as Americans, should be able to have robust candid debate without resorting to looking like a bunch of roosters puffing up. Where did I say anything about regulating? We can be mature enough to act like adults. Why does everyone automatically jump to the regulation line? We as members of a free society should be able to handle ourselves responsibly without passing a law trying to force us to do so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#660
#660
BeecherVol said:
Political ground to be had from a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Even before the bodies were cold, (including a nine year
old girl) commies such as Jane Fonda, Michael Moore,
Roger Ebert and Paul Krugman of the NY Slimes all
blamed Sarah Palin, the tea party, conservative
talk show hosts Limbaugh and Beck for the crime
when the facts pointed to a left wingnut, mentally
deranged (oops didn't mean to be redundant) kook
as the perp.

Now The National Organization for Women (NOW for short) has a different approach. Instead of condemning Loughner outright, they are using his senseless acts as political hay, equating conservatives to his hateful rampage and blaming the deaths of innocent people on figures like Sarah Palin.

The very same day that Loughner unleashed a barrage of bullets into a crowd, before it was even known who even committed this atrocity, NOW decided to blame the right for these crimes. Quickly releasing a statement, NOW President Terry O'Neill released the statement below:

"NOW condemns the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that stole six lives and seriously injured 12 today. We condemn, equally, the culture of hate and violence increasingly reflected in extreme right-wing opponents of those who support progressive solutions to our country's challenges...

Giffords, whose office was vandalized after she voted for the federal health care reform law last year, was also named on Sarah Palin's "Targeted" list. Giffords (who has been consistently endorsed by NOW's PAC) herself understood the not-so-well veiled threat, stating "the thing is that the way she [Palin] has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action..."

This slant has been parroted by the left since the assination of JFK when the media blamed right wing conservatism in Dallas for the murder, never mind the crime was committed by a disgrunteled communist.

reagan_to_palin_logo.jpg
 
#661
#661
utvolpj said:
thanks, wouldn't take it that way as you have always added good stuff to debates

yes it gets dirty at times but that's the nature of the game. It's never been pretty in the history of this country and the reason the press was included in the Constitution. Can people choose their words better? Sure, but I just don't want anyone choosing them for me
Click to expand...

Agreed. Neither would I.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#662
#662
lawgator1 said:
You're in Arizona, what's the sentiment out there? Is this a byproduct of the rhetoric? Or purely conicidence that the anti-government nutjob went after a Democrat who just narrowly defeated a Tea Party candidate?
Click to expand...

When you look in the mirror what do you see because it sure isn't you.
 
#663
#663
gsvol said:
This slant has been parroted by the left since the assination of JFK when the media blamed right wing conservatism in Dallas for the murder, never mind the crime was committed by a disgrunteled communist.
Click to expand...

And nothing has changed.

I am just about convinced that it was done because the Rep didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The kid is a committed communist, not even slightly leaning right.
 
#667
#667
WillisWG said:
Toning it down = inhibiting. Sorry, not seeing it. But if you're ok with the tenor of our current political discourse then fine.
Click to expand...

Would that include the president referring to the opposing party as "the enemy", to a potential voting base?
 
#669
#669
lawgator1 said:
OTOH, nothing wrong with Palin, Beck et al taking a good look in the mirror and deciding on their own to dial it back a little and encourage others to do the same.
Click to expand...

Say what??

VIOLENCE.jpg


And that's nothing to compare with his guy
that lives in the neighborhood Billy Ayers who
recommends for kids to kill their own parents.
 
#670
#670
gsvol said:
Even before the bodies were cold, (including a nine year
old girl) commies such as Jane Fonda, Michael Moore,
Roger Ebert and Paul Krugman of the NY Slimes all
blamed Sarah Palin, the tea party, conservative
talk show hosts Limbaugh and Beck for the crime
when the facts pointed to a left wingnut, mentally
deranged (oops didn't mean to be redundant) kook
as the perp.

Now The National Organization for Women (NOW for short) has a different approach. Instead of condemning Loughner outright, they are using his senseless acts as political hay, equating conservatives to his hateful rampage and blaming the deaths of innocent people on figures like Sarah Palin.

The very same day that Loughner unleashed a barrage of bullets into a crowd, before it was even known who even committed this atrocity, NOW decided to blame the right for these crimes. Quickly releasing a statement, NOW President Terry O'Neill released the statement below:

"NOW condemns the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that stole six lives and seriously injured 12 today. We condemn, equally, the culture of hate and violence increasingly reflected in extreme right-wing opponents of those who support progressive solutions to our country's challenges...

Giffords, whose office was vandalized after she voted for the federal health care reform law last year, was also named on Sarah Palin's "Targeted" list. Giffords (who has been consistently endorsed by NOW's PAC) herself understood the not-so-well veiled threat, stating "the thing is that the way she [Palin] has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action..."

This slant has been parroted by the left since the assination of JFK when the media blamed right wing conservatism in Dallas for the murder, never mind the crime was committed by a disgrunteled communist.

reagan_to_palin_logo.jpg
Click to expand...


1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gif
 
#672
#672
You know, whenever my Dad says, "We're on the verge of a revolution, son! It's coming!" I kinda just roll with it, and tell him he may be right without really being convinced.

I think, in this case, maybe I should take a longer, closer look at the real world outside my backdoor.

We've got VolDad - like Reagan about the Taliban - saying the Tea Party is "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers." We've got BPV suddenly saying the political spectrum "is relative." I'll be honest, I did not know there were actual politicians citing "2nd Amendment remedies" openly.

I find it fascinating that an embryonic revolution might be hatching from the Right. The Right has enjoyed unparalleled power and privilege certainly since the early 1970s - epitomized by Clinton and New Labour in the UK - former Left parties far more effective at promoting the neoliberal, far-right wing agenda than their counterparts on the Right. Why on earth is the Right angry?

Then you see the 800lbs gorilla tolling the bell. Then you see a lot of folks who have been voting against their self-interests since the 1970s. Republican politicians = big government, big deficits, tacit approval of illegal immigration to drive down wages, absolutely unconcerned about unemployment, corporate welfare and big financialization of the economy, free trade and the free mobility of Capital (Capital often created by the taxpayer and the government). Then you see the powerful and scientific forces of the toothpaste men - the marketers - able to exploit this alienation, anger. They provide a "target," a scapegoat for this rage. In Arizona, it's the dirty Mexicans and the liberals who won't defend the border (when it is actually big business and the neocons who won't). And the uniquely American frontiersman character, the "Wild West" sets in motion this rage unlike any fully developed country that has been pulling resources out of the third world for over 150 years. It looks more like OK Corral every day with the open gun laws.

We deserve the full censure of history. Future generations will look upon those three or four generations after WWII, and very un-Tom Brokaw like, label them "the worst generations." And it is richly deserved, IMHO.
 
#673
#673
utgibbs said:
You know, whenever my Dad says, "We're on the verge of a revolution, son! It's coming!" I kinda just roll with it, and tell him he may be right without really being convinced.

I think, in this case, maybe I should take a longer, closer look at the real world outside my backdoor.

We've got VolDad - like Reagan about the Taliban - saying the Tea Party is "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers." We've got BPV suddenly saying the political spectrum "is relative." I'll be honest, I did not know there were actual politicians citing "2nd Amendment remedies" openly.

I find it fascinating that an embryonic revolution might be hatching from the Right. The Right has enjoyed unparalleled power and privilege certainly since the early 1970s - epitomized by Clinton and New Labour in the UK - former Left parties far more effective at promoting the neoliberal, far-right wing agenda than their counterparts on the Right. Why on earth is the Right angry?

Then you see the 800lbs gorilla tolling the bell. Then you see a lot of folks who have been voting against their self-interests since the 1970s. Republican politicians = big government, big deficits, tacit approval of illegal immigration to drive down wages, absolutely unconcerned about unemployment, corporate welfare and big financialization of the economy, free trade and the free mobility of Capital (Capital often created by the taxpayer and the government). Then you see the powerful and scientific forces of the toothpaste men - the marketers - able to exploit this alienation, anger. They provide a "target," a scapegoat for this rage. In Arizona, it's the dirty Mexicans and the liberals who won't defend the border (when it is actually big business and the neocons who won't). And the uniquely American frontiersman character, the "Wild West" sets in motion this rage unlike any fully developed country that has been pulling resources out of the third world for over 150 years. It looks more like OK Corral every day with the open gun laws.

We deserve the full censure of history. Future generations will look upon those three or four generations after WWII, and very un-Tom Brokaw like, label them "the worst generations." And it is richly deserved, IMHO.
Click to expand...


:popcorn:
 
#674
#674
If a "revolution" ever occurs it will be with those making between $250,000 and $2,000,000. IMO it will be a tax revolution. One day enough of them are going to wake up and refuse to carry the burden anymore.

In the scope of things, it is reasonable to eliminate "cross hairs" from political dialogue, but pinning violence on the right is simply intellectually dishonest. I don't really know any other way to classify it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top