Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

Gifford Shooting and Sarah Palin

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am not sure how many of you are aware of the fact that a US Congresswoman - Gabrielle Giffords - has been shot today in Arizona.

Firstly let me say that my thoughts are with her, her family and those of the other people shot. It appears to be yet another rampage. So sad.

Anyway, Twitter was pretty much instantly alive with reports of the Sarah Palin website carrying a call to her supporters to target specific seats in the next election. Giffords' was one of those. The issue which exorcised Twitter was the picture that associated it using "gun sights":

sarahpac_0.jpg

That and the fact that Palin tweeted "Don't retreat - RELOAD"

So, do you think that Palin should bear any responsibility are you, like me, of the belief that the only person to blame is the gunman?


ETA - reports also now claiming that 9-y-o girl is amongst the dead. So, so sad.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    I am not sure how many of you are aware of the fact that a US Congresswoman - Gabrielle Giffords - has been shot today in Arizona.

    Firstly let me say that my thoughts are with her, her family and those of the other people shot. It appears to be yet another rampage. So sad.

    Anyway, Twitter was pretty much instantly alive with reports of the Sarah Palin website carrying a call to her supporters to target specific seats in the next election. Giffords' was one of those. The issue which exorcised Twitter was the picture that associated it using "gun sights":

    sarahpac_0.jpg

    That and the fact that Palin tweeted "Don't retreat - RELOAD"

    So, do you think that Palin should bear any responsibility are you, like me, of the belief that the only person to blame is the gunman?


    ETA - reports also now claiming that 9-y-o girl is amongst the dead. So, so sad.

    The gunman - it seems blatantly obvious that Palin isn't actually talking about really assassinating political rivals

    In fact Sarah Palin's reaction to it is
    My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. *

    On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12144057

    * I assume she said this when the report was that Gabrielle Giffords was dead, the BBC now seems to have retracted that report and said she's in surgery.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She's critical at the moment isn't she? She's pretty popular where I live in Mexico, having challenged SB1070... kind of.

    Very sad news, though. Thoughts are with the families.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Palin often uses gun imagery, unless it can be demonstrated that the image was uploaded in reaction to news about the shooting there isn't any connection.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She was shot in a pretty bad way to the head if reports I have read are correct. I got a fast ball about this from a bloke in the USAF I know who is stationed in that area.

    I don't think Palin is to blame for this, its the constitution. With no offence intended towards users of thesite who are from the USA, having a gun might make you feel safer, but if the other person who has a constitutional right to bear arms shoots you first, then there isnt much you can do about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have a few friends who like me are on their year abroad, only they're in Tucson. They and their friends are all ok but they're fairly shaken up by it. It's so sad that anybody would do that but I don't think Sarah Palin is to blame, I just think she's an idiot who doesn't choose the right words for the situation.

    Part of me is now glad that I didn't decide to visit my friends in Tucson but most of me is rational enough to realise that this could've happened anywhere, it just happened to be there.

    After the all the advances humanity has made, we're still blowing each others brains out :no:

    Off topic but the second amendment always makes me think of people walking around in tank tops...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As always, theres some interesting comments over at Slashdot.org
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Palin often uses gun imagery, unless it can be demonstrated that the image was uploaded in reaction to news about the shooting there isn't any connection.

    Its inconceivable that her campaign team would not have considered the possibility of one of their more insane supporters acting on the gun imagery.

    I imagine they were more amused than worried, the partisan politics of the US fosters hatred and violence and discourages co-operation to improve their country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its inconceivable that her campaign team would not have considered the possibility of one of their more insane supporters acting on the gun imagery.

    Inconceivable? :confused: As possibly tasteless any gun imagery might be, I doubt most people would think that someone might actually go out and shoot someone. Or are you saying that they did conceive the possibility and chose to ignore it? In that case, Palin and all her team would certainly be guilty.

    Palin is pretty unintelligent so I would say that they had no idea that her campaign would have this outcome.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Inconceivable? :confused: As possibly tasteless any gun imagery might be, I doubt most people would think that someone might actually go out and shoot someone. Or are you saying that they did conceive the possibility and chose to ignore it? In that case, Palin and all her team would certainly be guilty.

    Palin is pretty unintelligent so I would say that they had no idea that her campaign would have this outcome.

    If it did have any impact as it seems like a nutter to me and it's not like that hasn't happened in the UK

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8683596.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/622602.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's nothing to do with Sarah Palin, per se. Unfortunately, the American extreme right does seem more prone to attracting the lone-nutter-with-gun types. Apparently Gifford's offices had already been vandalised because of her support for Obama's health bill. The Tea Party have a lot to answer for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I imagine they were more amused than worried, the partisan politics of the US fosters hatred and violence and discourages co-operation to improve their country.

    Palin herself is in no way responsible for this, but there has certainly been rhetoric involving taking up arms against the government among the more insane members of the tea party movement (and "the more insane members" refers to quite a sizeable chunk). It's not massively surprising when rhetoric like this leads to violence, just like it isn't when any other movement has similarly extremist rhetoric or literature. We ban incitement to violence for a reason, after all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If, and it's a big if, it were to transpire that the gunman got his motivation from the Palin campaign it would be very damaging for the political life of Sarah Palin and would almost certainly end any hopes she has (however marginal they may be just now) of running for President of the United States of America.

    It is all very embarrassing for Palin and her campaign team and I would not like to be one of her political advisers at this time (assuming I could ever be in the same room as her long enough to be a political adviser, but that's beside the point)

    Ultimately the criminal responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger, but if Palin's campaign was in anyway motivation for the perpetrator I cannot see how Palin could come out of this totally unscathed. I’m no expert on US Law, but looking at some of the totally crazy decisions that come out of the courts over there it wouldn’t surprise me if there were successful civil actions against Palin were her campaign to have motivated the offender.

    There really are too many ifs, buts and maybes around this case just now. We shall all have to wait and see what happens as the criminal legal system in the US takes its course and due process is completed. I’m sure by the time criminal proceedings have concluded we will know whether Palin’s campaign was any sort of motivation for the offender or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's already becoming fairly clear that the gunman was a raving whackjob, but that he was a raving whackjob with links to plenty of far-right and white supremacist groups. The sorts of groups that Palin and her teabaggers target with their vitriol and their bile.

    Other than that, I think the Daily Mash has hit the nail right on the head, in a far more witty and satirical way than I could.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/america-one-step-closer-to-realising-life-is-not-a-film-201101103410/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I don't think Palin is to blame for this, its the constitution. With no offence intended towards users of thesite who are from the USA, having a gun might make you feel safer, but if the other person who has a constitutional right to bear arms shoots you first, then there isnt much you can do about it.

    That constitutional right to which you refer was heavily influenced by the then century old 1689 Bill of Rights which reasserted the common law right to bear arms.

    As far as my knowledge extends, the Bill of Rights has not been repealed over the last 300+ years.

    If your "blame-thrower" is directed at the guilty party (the Constitution) then I suggest that the MPs of the United Kingdom start to take cover, as you, and the rest of the UK population too, still have that individual right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's a little background on the shooter. There's a link in the article which connects you to what supposedly is Loughner's youtube channel. After watching the videos it appears to me that he isn't that strongly influenced by the militancy of right wing rhetoric, he is just plain old crazy.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145117
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I like how Palin felt she "had to" say something. Should have just kept her mouth shut.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why does Palin get so much airtime? Isn't it widely accepted that if her mouth is open then dumb shit it coming out of it? She's not planning on standing for president, is she? Ha, that'd be awesome - if the Republicans mandate was to try field a candidate more fucking stupid than Bush, then I guess Palin's not a bad shot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sarah Palin is no more responsible than Barack Obama for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tuscon.

    Post-script: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’ -- Barack Obama

    Jared Lee Loughner was neither Conservative nor Liberal, Libertarian nor Populist, fan of neither Obama nor Palin. He was just a lunatic. To paint anyone as being responsible for this tragedy other than the lunatic who pulled the trigger is dishonest and Sarah Palin accurately described it as "blood libel". He was, in fact, obsessed with Gabrielle Giffords long before the shooting and, strangely enough, she was a fan of his channel on Youtube prior to the shooting.

    Truly revolting statements? Came after the shooting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, the use of the expression "Blood Libel" carries significant offence. Either she is too dumb to realise that, or she doesn't care.

    Definition and background
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My thoughts on significant offense.

    I'm well aware of what blood libel is. I fail to see how it is not analogous or how application of it could even be deemed offensive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My thoughts on significant offense.

    I know, I just read it.

    It misses a key moral point. Freedom of Speech is, for me, one of those rights which people take for granted. They seem to think that it absolves them of any moral obligations - the biggest irony is the level by which the "Christian" right seem to forget morality.

    Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom to be rude.
    I'm well aware of what blood libel is. I fail to see how it is not analogous or how application of it could even be deemed offensive.

    So you think that being accused of possibly inciting another to kill is analogous to being accused of actually killing children to use their blood in your religious feasts or to justify a holocaust?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't stand all of the people trying to push blame onto others (both individuals such as Palin, and the right wing in general). Anyone looking at the facts can see that Loughner was just plain nuts. His own friends said that he didn't even pay attention to the news or listen to political radio, which puts the "he was influenced by crazy far right extremists" theory into question. As the Chief pointed out, he had also had an obsession with Giffords for years. Which right wing politician advised him to do that, I wonder?

    It's all just a bunch of jumping to conclusions, and it's done nothing but serve to further a few political agendas.
    MoK wrote: »
    It misses a key moral point. Freedom of Speech is, for me, one of those rights which people take for granted. They seem to think that it absolves them of any moral obligations - the biggest irony is the level by which the "Christian" right seem to forget morality.

    Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom to be rude.

    Freedom of speech isn't about morality, it's about legality. People should think before they speak, sure, and depending on your views there may be a plethora of things that you believe people "shouldn't" say. Legally, though, freedom of speech allows you or I to say things even if someone might possibly be offended by them, and to not constantly walk on eggshells.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't about walking on eggshells. It's about not saying something that you know will cause offence, just because you can.

    There is a big difference between accidental offence and indifference.

    Also, if yo think that there is no link between morality and legality then you live in a much different world to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know, I just read it.

    It misses a key moral point. Freedom of Speech is, for me, one of those rights which people take for granted. They seem to think that it absolves them of any moral obligations - the biggest irony is the level by which the "Christian" right seem to forget morality.

    Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom to be rude.

    First of all, yes, it does. See my response here.

    Second, what do you mean by "absolve them of moral responsibilities"? And what do Christian Conservatives have to do with anything?
    So you think that being accused of possibly inciting another to kill is analogous to being accused of actually killing children to use their blood in your religious feasts or to justify a holocaust?

    Yes, I believe that accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents is the same as accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents. All one needs to do is look at the video calling for Sarah Palin's death to realize that it is analagous to blood libel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Yes, I believe that accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents is the same as accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character in the eyes of one's constituents. All one needs to do is look at the video calling for Sarah Palin's death to realize that it is analagous to blood libel.

    Did you just repeat yourself there mid sentence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I did. And it wasn't unintentional.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I believe that accusing someone of murder for the sake of damaging their character

    She hasn't been accused of murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    It isn't about walking on eggshells. It's about not saying something that you know will cause offence, just because you can.

    There is a big difference between accidental offence and indifference.

    Also, if yo think that there is no link between morality and legality then you live in a much different world to me.

    If I avoid saying something because I know that someone may be offended, then I'm walking on eggshells. I'm allowed to say what's on my mind even if someone else will find it less-than-pleasant to hear. I don't think that one should be rude just for the hell of it, but I acknowledge that they're legally free to do so.

    I'm also not saying that there is no link between the law and morality, not at all. It's just that one person may find it "wrong" to be rude to someone in a certain situation, whereas another will find it acceptable. Freedom of speech doesn't concern itself with what your personal definition of "rude" is, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If I avoid saying something because I know that someone may be offended, then I'm walking on eggshells.

    I disagree. Walking on eggshells would be you avoiding saying something just in case it offends.

    Not saying something because you know it would offend is just being polite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She hasn't been accused of murder.

    She's been accused of responsibility for the murder (charges no different than John Gotti hiring Sammy the Bull to cement some poor mamaluke's feet.)

    MoK, I'm curious. What is your position on equating Bush, his administration or any of his supporters to Hitler? Is that not protected speech because someone can find it offensive? Personally, I'd like the freedom to say that both Bush and Obama are goons.
Sign In or Register to comment.