Congresswoman shot.

[franklin]

I'm from the state involved and I speak with at least one person presently residing in the state every day. To say that the area is unusually polarized is true. It just is. And the politics there have been aggressively ugly.

I understand that it is not the case that he's what we think of as a prototypical tea partier but I think the other side is pushing too far in saying that there is no possible way there's an influence or an undercurrent involved. I mentioned earlier that there's some recognizable strands, particularly in relation to his beliefs regarding hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution. In an effort to demonize those who said there was a link I've seen literally no discussion from the right side, here or anywhere else, about these parallels.

Here's the thing: political violence is not a random occurrence except in the rarest of instances. Loughner was not trying impress Jodie Foster. He had specific beliefs and went after Giffords, at least in part because she's a government representative. The track record on him having paranoid ramblings about government control of his grammar and, by extension (according to him), his very thoughts is irrefutable. (I'm coming around to the idea this was probably influenced by Derrida, but that's another discussion).

That the threat of political violence against government officials, particularly those on the left, has escalated dramatically during a period of time where one side's rhetoric has tended towards the idea that a Democratic-Party controlled government is, in and of itself, illegitimate and the enemy of the people is unlikely to be a coincidence. When Steve King empathizes with a guy who runs his plane into an IRS building, the message is that the government is your enemy. When Eric Cantor emonizes Democrats for even mentioning they're subject to unprecedented levels of death threats, the implicit message is that those threats are acceptable. Those expectations that some level of political violence was inevitable have been building for at least 10 months since it was revealed that Democratic congresspersons were subject to very high threat levels.

Some want this to be a teachable moment. That so many were unsurprised something like this happened says almost as much about the climate as if he had actually been purely motivated by right-wing politics. This is an instance where overheated speech creates expectations and those expectations inform how we process events. The other side is trying their damnedest to say "not only do we learn nothing, but we refuse to acknowledge we need to learn anything." That removes what little bit of optimism I had about how this would shake out in the medium to long term.

Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum. Context does matter, and we have strands and pieces that indicate Loughner was at least cognizant of particular messages portrayed by one side of the aisle. That he was more nut than political agent doesn't absolve one side entirely. But that's the way it looks like things are going to shake out in our consensus-based group think.

Quite unconvincing.

Why would anyone be surprised this happened? Things like this always happen.

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right. You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

 

[LogGrad98]

Quite unconvincing.

Why would anyone be surprised this happened? Things like this always happen.

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right. You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

+4 especially for the statement in bold.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right.

False balance at its finest.

You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

Quick answer, in the last 2 years which side of the aisle has emphasized:

1) The gold standard;
2) Embracing "government control" style conspiracy theories (those expressed by Loughner);
3) The Primacy of the Constitution as a document with defined and specific meanings that are universally ascertainable?

If you say both sides you're lying.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Yes. Have you watched the videos and made any determination that he was totally divorced from reality? Personally, I think there's significant evidence that he knew what he was doing, and even knew that what he was doing was unacceptable.

I know from a legal perspective his "please don't be mad at me" message is devastating to his inevitable insanity defense.

EDIT: Closer to my original point that the ways in which mental illness is expressed are not completely removed from surrounding context, you can look, for example, at: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/12/elliott.htm

The article is long, but supports my general belief that psychiatric illnesses tend to be expressed in ways that are molded by the social norms of the culture in which the person lives. Madness isn't totally unreceptive to input.

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

I suspect you'll give me one regardless of my level of interest. Just wanted to step in before the echo chamber got solidified on one side.

And now I'll go back to trying to find William Powell and Myrna Loy memorabilia.

 

[The Pearl]

I'm from the state involved and I speak with at least one person presently residing in the state every day. To say that the area is unusually polarized is true. It just is. And the politics there have been aggressively ugly.

I understand that it is not the case that he's what we think of as a prototypical tea partier but I think the other side is pushing too far in saying that there is no possible way there's an influence or an undercurrent involved. I mentioned earlier that there's some recognizable strands, particularly in relation to his beliefs regarding hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution. In an effort to demonize those who said there was a link I've seen literally no discussion from the right side, here or anywhere else, about these parallels.

Here's the thing: political violence is not a random occurrence except in the rarest of instances. Loughner was not trying impress Jodie Foster. He had specific beliefs and went after Giffords, at least in part because she's a government representative. The track record on him having paranoid ramblings about government control of his grammar and, by extension (according to him), his very thoughts is irrefutable. (I'm coming around to the idea this was probably influenced by Derrida, but that's another discussion).

That the threat of political violence against government officials, particularly those on the left, has escalated dramatically during a period of time where one side's rhetoric has tended towards the idea that a Democratic-Party controlled government is, in and of itself, illegitimate and the enemy of the people is unlikely to be a coincidence. When Steve King empathizes with a guy who runs his plane into an IRS building, the message is that the government is your enemy. When Eric Cantor emonizes Democrats for even mentioning they're subject to unprecedented levels of death threats, the implicit message is that those threats are acceptable. Those expectations that some level of political violence was inevitable have been building for at least 10 months since it was revealed that Democratic congresspersons were subject to very high threat levels.

Some want this to be a teachable moment. That so many were unsurprised something like this happened says almost as much about the climate as if he had actually been purely motivated by right-wing politics. This is an instance where overheated speech creates expectations and those expectations inform how we process events. The other side is trying their damnedest to say "not only do we learn nothing, but we refuse to acknowledge we need to learn anything." That removes what little bit of optimism I had about how this would shake out in the medium to long term.

Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum. Context does matter, and we have strands and pieces that indicate Loughner was at least cognizant of particular messages portrayed by one side of the aisle. That he was more nut than political agent doesn't absolve one side entirely. But that's the way it looks like things are going to shake out in our consensus-based group think.

Kicky,

I think I yielded earlier in the thread there is certainly some political connection. Any reasonable person can rule out randomness as Giffords being the target. As far as the constitutional ramblings and hard currency references, so what? If you want to take solace in the fact that some strands of this dude's ramblings he picked up from the far extreme "right wing" than you are free to do so. Let's for a moment pretend he is a tea bagger through and through. So what. What if a black member of the NAACP with a history of mental illness kills a white Congress person? Shall we shut down the NAACP? This rational is a complete illogical flip of the Muslim terrorist dilemma of not grouping all Muslims as terrorists.


So what is the solution? Perhaps the target of the reactionary left should be Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. What portion of the young man's political ideology contributed to the event when balanced against his home environment, his parents, his mental illness, the types of violence he consumed, the types of music he listened to, etc? Are we going to have a rhetoric color coded alert system for every political debate now? Perhaps if an issue gets too heated, Homeland Security can go to alert level RED and we can freeze the cable TV, blogs, and talk radios and pull them off the air for a cooling off period. Shall little johnny only listen to Glenn Beck or Ed Schultz for 15 minutes a day?

If you are going to moderate debate, even heated over the top rhetoric debate, because you think some psycho might take action, than you are going to have bleed over in every aspect of society. The fringe tail is going to wag the dog.

As far as threats on politicians go, call me cynical, I am not up on the reports other than it has been "reported." Is there hard statistical data? Perhaps there is if so, if valid, than I will accept it. Short of that it seems a tad bit too convenient as after the fact info to justify reactionary jumping to conclusions. How many congress people have recently taken increased security measures above and beyond what they already take? How many have cut back thier activities, changed their routine if the threats were serious? Are the nature of the threats different than normal? Has the government agencies upped their activities in response? Why are Congress people now going to have to increase their security when the threats were so overwhelming? Shouldn't they already have done it? Why didn't House leadership provide for Giffords protection? How have those threats compared to the Bush Administration when the left fringe was screaming that Bush was illegitimate after the Florida incident?

If the rhetoric and the people spouting the rhetoric are so violent, where is the violence? Where is the police blotter reports from the massive tea bagger violence running rampant through the country?

There is no such thing as overheated speech. What is next, overheated movies? Overheated music? Overheated anti-war speech from the left was at the time lauded as "patriotic". Many leaders on the left called it "our duty" to speak out.

As you know I am no Tea Bagger fan nor Euro Pacific Brokerage groupie, however, the left simply does not get to take an incident, create their own narrative, frame a debate that doesn't exist, exaggerate facts, and draw conclusions that don't exist in attempt to quell dissent against their own ideas, trample on others rights because they don't agree with their views, and try to smooth the path of resistance going forward. If the right tried to exploit an incident in similar matter the left would go orbital.

If you buy the poll numbers, 60% of the country is not buying it. They smelled the ole flea flicker right out.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

You're the cop. Please answer the question when you find time. Thanks.

If you're looking for an open discussion into the disorderly conduct statute then I am happy to oblige. If you're wanting to bait me (and judging in the sarcastic way you worded your question, you are) into some type of "this is why I dislike cops" back-and-forth, then what's the point? You will still have your viewpoint and I will still have mine.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Are you serious? You don't see the distinction between Limbaugh and Dupnik? Suppose your neighbors 16 year old daughter falsely accuses you of raping her. As they are arresting you, in front of whatever hot reporter KSL news sends to cover the story, Sheriff Dupnik rolls up and goes on a political rant about how he is not surprised given the level of internet porn that people like you watch and surf on the internet all day. Not to mention you listen to that crazy music you kids listen to today, raping your neighbor is a natural extension.

I mean He is just saying some real **** right?

Come dude, stop and think instead of reacting emotionally. You hate this political crap yet you are falling for the trap.

The only portion of the quote that I saw was the one that I posted in this thread, which I happen to agree with. If somewhere he stated that the media hate directly caused the violence (similar to the hypothetical scenario you wrote) then I agree that he was absolutely in the wrong. I'm sure that I did react, in part, emotionally to a statement that I read and agreed with. I dunno Pearl, I'm just at a point right now where I am utterly frustrated with politics as everytime I turn on the TV I'm being told by a talking head why liberals/conservatives are wicked. I can't think of anytime in recent memory where a Politician was truly able to reach across the aisle and compromise.

 

[The Pearl]

The only portion of the quote that I saw was the one that I posted in this thread, which I happen to agree with. If somewhere he stated that the media hate directly caused the violence (similar to the hypothetical scenario you wrote) then I agree that he was absolutely in the wrong. I'm sure that I did react, in part, emotionally to a statement that I read and agreed with. I dunno Pearl, I'm just at a point right now where I am utterly frustrated with politics as everytime I turn on the TV I'm being told by a talking head why liberals/conservatives are wicked. I can't think of anytime in recent memory where a Politician was truly able to reach across the aisle and compromise.

The system is not designed to comprise. This compromise myth is garbage and total nonsense. Everybody buys into it because the politicians spout it and than do everything to foil it. If there were rampant compromise there would be no need for elections and there would be literally thousands and thousands of laws. The system is designed to be deliberative and glacial.

You have the majority and the votes, you make the laws. That is is it, nothing more, nothing less. If you are the majority and the public feels you abuse your authority, the voters will change the mix.

 

[PearlWatson]

Once again, not knowing the man I couldn't say how much he knew or did not know about Loughner. I attempted to look it up, but all I could find were allegations that Dupnik knew that Loughner had past involvements with law enforcement. Even though Loughner had been making death threats, you would be surprised at how hard it is to get someone institutionalized. Sometimes the best that law enforcement can do is involuntarily commit someone to a local hospital until that hospital staff approves of their release into the community (which is usually a week, sometimes more, sometimes less), and that takes a type of "probable cause".

As for "unprofessional", I'm not going to fault the man for speaking his mind on what he feels is part of the problem. I didn't take from his quote that he was blaming radio personalities for the murders specifically, but that they, in a way, are part of the problem of the political mood in this country. Do you feel that the various radio personalities that I mentioned above are helping the situation?

Also, not sure if you live in the Tucson area or not, you may be informed on the Sheriff's political platform then I am. I, like most of the country, learned of him through this tragic event. However, I found truth in the aforementioned quote. Whether it comes from a caring civil servant or a transparently pandering politician, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

The timing (<---before the victims even made it to the hospital) of the Sheriff's opinion on the state of the political mood sure makes it appear he was blaming them for the murders...and follow up interviews confirmed it. I wasn't aware of him (or Giffords) before this happened, but I didn't know Kanye West before he said Bush hated black people either. They are both equally insufferable for their posturing.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

The system is not designed to comprise. This compromise myth is garbage and total nonsense. Everybody buys into it because the politicians spout it and than do everything to foil it. If there were rampant compromise there would be no need for elections and there would be literally thousands and thousands of laws. The system is designed to be deliberative and glacial.

You have the majority and the votes, you make the laws. That is is it, nothing more, nothing less. If you are the majority and the public feels you abuse your authority, the voters will change the mix.

Granted. And I'm not expecting everything to be a compromise. It would just be refreshing if someone could reach across the aisle once in a while.

 

[Stickler]

The timing (<---before the victims even made it to the hospital) of the Sheriff's opinion on the state of the political mood sure makes it appear he was blaming them for the murders...and follow up interviews confirmed it. I wasn't aware of him (or Giffords) before this happened, but I didn't know Kanye West before he said Bush hated black people either. They are both equally insufferable for their posturing.

Hey. Whoa. Slow your roll, my friend. Kanye is not equally as insufferable: have you heard his latest record? Kanye is sufferable. Plus, George Bush, I mean. What can you say? Katrina was not handled well.

 

[moevillini]

...I can't think of anytime in recent memory where a Politician was truly able to reach across the aisle and compromise.

maybe it's because horse trading is a lost art



I don't like the rhetoric of vehemence no matter which side is spouting off, but I don't blame it for this incident. But I do think that such overheated dialog and graphic images can create a climate that feeds the ideas of the less rational. I think a group like those who participate in the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church feed off the vehement rhetoric and images of violence and use it as justification for their actions.


I also don't think that "lawlessness" is necessarily measured just in reported acts of violence that make national headlines.

And Pearl, when you mention "overheated anti-war speech" that was lauded as patriotic, you're referring to the current action in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the Viet Nam war, right? My first thought was back to the days of the SDS - and that certainly was not lauded as patriotic by anyone other than those on the fringes.

 

[PearlWatson]

Hey. Whoa. Slow your roll, my friend. Kanye is not equally as insufferable: have you heard his latest record? Kanye is sufferable. Plus, George Bush, I mean. What can you say? Katrina was not handled well.

Hey now, I wasn't talking about his music, so you can step down off.

Do tell about his latest record, my friend.

 

[moevillini]

also, what's interesting when you compare the SDS and the Black Panthers and their own rhetoric of violence from the 60's & 70's, and the violent actions they initiated across the country, and you look at those who were involved in those movements and where they ended up, many of them eventually found their way into the mainstream and worked in more "acceptable" ways to reform society (ie, Tom Hayden, Bobby Seal, Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers etc) - - yet somehow I can't see any of the current crop of "radicals" ever becoming willing to "work within the system"

But who knows.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Hey. Whoa. Slow your roll, my friend. Kanye is not equally as insufferable: have you heard his latest record? Kanye is sufferable. Plus, George Bush, I mean. What can you say? Katrina was not handled well.

I hear you on that. I've been listening to "All of the Lights" a lot recently.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kicky,

I think I yielded earlier in the thread there is certainly some political connection. Any reasonable person can rule out randomness as Giffords being the target.

Well Pearl, I think you're being more reasonable than a lot of people.

As far as the constitutional ramblings and hard currency references, so what?

Well you already conceded the only thing that was designed to show: that it's not some totally random assault. So I don't know what else you expected from me here.

If you want to take solace in the fact that some strands of this dude's ramblings he picked up from the far extreme "right wing" than you are free to do so. Let's for a moment pretend he is a tea bagger through and through. So what. What if a black member of the NAACP with a history of mental illness kills a white Congress person? Shall we shut down the NAACP? This rational is a complete illogical flip of the Muslim terrorist dilemma of not grouping all Muslims as terrorists.

Ok. Here's where you're going to have to separate me out from the arguments other people are making. What I am concerned with this the simple fact that when the assassination attempt occurred that people were not totally stunned. When I spoke with a lot of AZ folk the overwhelming impression is that something like this was inevitable in the area.

Now, to make this perfectly and undeniably clear, this is an entirely separate issue from the exact extent to which Loughner actually fulfilled the exact nature of the expectations of political violence that exists or existed. In the moment of the shooting what you "saw" was the explication of an expectation about what was presently possible or even expected as sort of an asymmetrical political response. That some level of violence is actually and truly expected says more to me about where we are than any particular factor about the actual shooting itself. That expectation creates a legitimate climate of fear and that is corrosive to healthy democracy.

To that extent, part of the reason I'm totally unmoved by arguments relating to individuals saying "kill Bush" on a sign or whatever is because I simply do not recall feeling as if political violence was inevitable in 04-07 when the anti-Bush stuff was at its peak. In that sense I do not think the threats are same thing only because there is a total credibility difference in the sense about what feels both possible and inevitable.

Let's put it this way: if someone shot Obama tomorrow would that really feel unthinkable to you?

I'd be shocked, but less so than when Stockton hit the shot in 97.

So no Pearl, I'm not saying the Republican party doesn't get to speak. That brush simply does not apply. I think the root cause here is that there is a certain branch of this country that believes truly crazy things; for whom any liberal government is illegitimate regardless of the method by which it came to power. What is unfortunate is that I think one party has decided to actively court and, in some instances, pander to that crowd for political gain. At some point in time they've become a virus that infected to the party to the point that Presidential candidates have to actively pander to them. The dangerous part is to the extent that virus threatens to undo one of the social compacts of the way we relate to one another politically: that people who win the election legitimately hold the office they obtain through the electoral process.

Thus, I think all I would say is that the rhetoric we should calm is not "the NAACP can't speak" style stuff it is simply that it's time to recognize that it's irresponsible to behave as if the other party can never hold power legitimately. Frankly, if one person had come out and said that rather than vociferously deny that there were any lessons to be learned I would have been really impressed because that would have been leadership.

As far as threats on politicians go, call me cynical, I am not up on the reports other than it has been "reported." Is there hard statistical data? Perhaps there is if so, if valid, than I will accept it. Short of that it seems a tad bit too convenient as after the fact info to justify reactionary jumping to conclusions. How many congress people have recently taken increased security measures above and beyond what they already take? How many have cut back thier activities, changed their routine if the threats were serious? Are the nature of the threats different than normal? Has the government agencies upped their activities in response? Why are Congress people now going to have to increase their security when the threats were so overwhelming? Shouldn't they already have done it? Why didn't House leadership provide for Giffords protection? How have those threats compared to the Bush Administration when the left fringe was screaming that Bush was illegitimate after the Florida incident?

I don't think you actually expect answers to all these questions given that you put them all in a string. To get to the general themes, I don't have hard access to rates of threats. What I will say is that the "threats are way up" claim is not new or fabricated in response to this incident specifically.

For example here's a piece from March of 2010: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26threat.html

The story does answer some of your questions, for example indicating that security had been stepped up for some members of Congress and that some specific actions had been taken such as the attempt to cut a Congressperson's gas line at their home.

Another story indicates that Obama was facing so many death threats in 2009 that it was taxing the resources of the Secret Service, certainly implying a comparative increase: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...reats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

And even when Obama was still candidate Obama, the Secret Service specifically linked the volume of threats against him as coinciding with specific statements by Palin regarding his "palling around with terrorists." I don't think it's a coincidence that those are the kind of statements that attack the legitimacy of him as a validly elected leader of the country: a strain of thought that has been omnipresent and most literally expressed through the Birthers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...e-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html

As you know I am no Tea Bagger fan nor Euro Pacific Brokerage groupie, however, the left simply does not get to take an incident, create their own narrative, frame a debate that doesn't exist, exaggerate facts, and draw conclusions that don't exist in attempt to quell dissent against their own ideas, trample on others rights because they don't agree with their views, and try to smooth the path of resistance going forward. If the right tried to exploit an incident in similar matter the left would go orbital.

We literally live in a world where a Democratic Congresswoman got shot in the head and a sizable segment of the media and the country has decided Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are the victims. Excuse me if I withhold my outrage at the liberal media and the predictable responses of the left.

 

[sirkickyass]

BTW: The reason my posts on this subject are somewhat long and squishy is because my thoughts on the subject are still evolving and not fully crystalized.

At this point I feel like I'm eating around the edge of what I'm trying to say but I feel like the present discussion of "civility" is something of a red herring. It's much more nuanced than that. Just like the reality of Loughner's inputs/response is a lot more complicated than the false binary of totally crazy or completely politically motivated.

In any event, please be aware that this is not a knee jerk response. What I'm writing is sincerely meant and expressed as best I can given the limitations of my capacity for the use of written language and where I presently am in the thought process on the event.

 

[Get Down]

i haven't made an effort to pick through loughner's videos or writing or anything else but is there anyone who doesn't feel helpless or frustrated over the legal avenues we have to effect change in this country? i don't see any reasonable path to true universal health care, for instance, no matter who i vote for or what i buy. and remember obama extending the bush tax cuts and + some? i do think there is something fundamentally broken with our political system, given that nobody seems to feel they are being represented, or that they even have avenues to be represented by. i fully detest people like glenn beck and sarah palin who dishonestly exploit this helplessness for personal gain by shaping a narrative that possibly leads to an outcome like this. but in an abstract way that ends with me landing far away from any tea party member, i understand the rage. that someone feels this is an appropriate or helpful expression of that rage, though, should ally us all against whatever system of manipulation or ignorance that created his disordered thinking.

the obstacles are too high, though, and the thinking is too taxing. even this morning on the radio, i heard orrin hatch pleading for americans to be more reasonable, before spewing a bunch of ******** about how obama's health care reform is poison for the economy, and how the conservatives in congress desperately wanted to compromise but those mean liberals wouldn't listen and well, here we are, look at the result. there was literally a single breath between the two thoughts. he did his political duty by speaking out against the shooting, then went right back to selling the ignorance that led to it in the first place. as long as there's no convenient way for americans to defend themselves against this type of rhetoric, i don't hold much hope that things will get better. nobody's learned a ****ing thing from this.

also lol @ "the left going orbital". in terms of politicians, the american left is comprised of bernie sanders and maybe dennis kucinich. richard nixon's proposed health care reform was infinitely more "progressive" or "liberal" than the wet noodle bandaid passed by obama and a congress full of democrats. i don't think people realize how our far our country has drifted to the right outside of maybe a few social issues. in fact double lol at the left going orbital because what are americans who hold true progressive values going to do? furiously type out comments of indignation on their favorite feminist blog? our society has done a pretty good job of marginalizing us, thanks.

 

[Get Down]

also here's a fun and uplifting read that's probably already been posted in this thread: https://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

 

[Scat]

BTW: The reason my posts on this subject are somewhat long and squishy is because my thoughts on the subject are still evolving and not fully crystalized.

At this point I feel like I'm eating around the edge of what I'm trying to say but I feel like the present discussion of "civility" is something of a red herring. It's much more nuanced than that. Just like the reality of Loughner's inputs/response is a lot more complicated than the false binary of totally crazy or completely politically motivated.

In any event, please be aware that this is not a knee jerk response. What I'm writing is sincerely meant and expressed as best I can given the limitations of my capacity for the use of written language and where I presently am in the thought process on the event.

My knee jerk reaction was to call you a flip flopper but upon more reasoned thought I can appreciate your position. I don't envy those that are directly affected by this. It's easy to throw out an opinion when you are not directly involved but once sucked into the mess on a personal level, positions change drastically regardless of your political philosophy. Sadly, the only people that will gain a better understanding are those that are directly involved with such tragedies. One can only wonder how Olberman, Limbaugh, Madow and Hannity would react if they were involved personally in such a tragedy. If any of the above "stayed the course" they would be miserable examples of the human race as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I can understand Dupnik's position but he should shut up and do his job. He's not paid for his opinion. He's paid to sort out the facts and uphold the law. You take on certain jobs and you limit your personal input. Sadly, he's failed in this regard.

 

[franklin]

If you're looking for an open discussion into the disorderly conduct statute then I am happy to oblige. If you're wanting to bait me (and judging in the sarcastic way you worded your question, you are) into some type of "this is why I dislike cops" back-and-forth, then what's the point? You will still have your viewpoint and I will still have mine.

I was interested in your professional perspective and may have further inquired into your answer but I was not planning on challenging it or trashing you. I hope this clears this up. Thanks.