*This Women Didn't Deserve This: Gifford*

[MaggieMae]

Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.

I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".

I am truly sorry this happened and every day I hope and pray for more civility in our future. But I can't do it alone. Thoughts such as these need to be from all Americans across the country and that just ain't gonna happen.

I'm actually pretty proud of the way the leadership has come together. Did anyone watch the testimonials on the House floor yesterday? It is THEY who will set the tone and lead the way to civility. We, the public, take our cues from them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Mebbe we can change what is "acceptable" by criticisizing our OWN public figures if they go off the reservation. And by guarding our own tongues.

While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?

-Government?
-Political parties?

And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?

We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.

And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.

I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a ******* old hag for it.

 

[MaggieMae]

There she is laying in the hospital holding onto life, while the liberal media drags her through the mud, using her shooting as a political football, stomping all over her while she clings to life, smashing her face into mud holes as they constantly attack the Republicans over her peril, her life is in the balance, and her party is on the war path using her limp body as a pole to ram the doors at the gates of the Republican Party, smashing her limp head into the Republican Castle, relentlessly hammering her head into the doors



Fortunately it looks like she may be able to tell us what she thinks when she is recovered well enough.


She did ask for a better poltical dialogue before she was shot.

I think she will likely do the same after she recovers well enough.

Will you listen to her?

Let's hope EVERYONE listens to her, and also understands that mere differences DO NOT equal "course dialogue", "hate speech", "incivility" and the like. JFK himself said:

“So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof”

We've somehow, all of us, been brought to a point in time when simple differences of opinion and policy equal absolute intolerance from many on the other side. Granted, I'm all for standing one's ground on that which they hold dear (for me, that would be maintaining things such as our constitutional republic, freedom & liberty). But, we get too bogged down in distasteful rhetoric. One side launches a charge at the other side...Then, if false, the other sides answers the charge and often times is critical of the other side for making such a charge. THAT scenario IS NOT a bad one. What is bad is when, 3 days later, after the charge has either been proven true or false, both sides continue to spew at each other in a heated fashion, and the argument grows out of control. It's kids on a friggin' play ground.

There are, understandably, MANY instances where the charge is so monsterous or the subject-matter so serious, that 'heated' rhetoric CANNOT be avoided. But, we would all do well to take a chill pill and remember that famous line from Will Smith in the first "Men In Black" movie:

"Don't start nothin'...Won't be nothin'".

We are humans. We are born with a natural reactionary and defensive instinct. When we feel threatened, we often times shoot from the hip (no pun intended). It's hard NOT to react. But, if we all claim we want more civility in politics, we'd better start thinking about NOT reacting.

Excellent analysis. I'm glad that more and more of us are beginning to recognize what we've been doing. And notice I said "we."

 

[Meister]

At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.

 

[Sallow]

At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.

The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?

 

[MaggieMae]

The interesting thing about the vid that Sallow posted....Giffords is poised and on-point. Granted, I would disagree with her vote FOR obamacare, but, she doesn't take the 'bait' the female MSNBC host dangles in front of her, early on.

She does make mention of the Palin "map", and the "crosshairs" (and although she makes no mention of DK using virtually the same "crosshairs" map), but then goes on to say that she would not speak for Sarah Palin in terms of whether or not she really thought Palin meant for the "map" to be taken as an incitement to violence.

I know I would disagree with her on a few things but, she seems to be a rather poised individual. And she equally calls out the rhetoric and actions of extremists on the left, as she notes the same of extremists on the right.

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.

 

[Talismen]

Mebbe we can change what is "acceptable" by criticisizing our OWN public figures if they go off the reservation. And by guarding our own tongues.

While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?

-Government?
-Political parties?

And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?

We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.

And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.

I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a ******* old hag for it.

It someone disagrees with what you've posted, and wants to claim the mantle of civility, they should say:

"Maggie, while I agree you have a right to your own opinion, I must disagree. Here's why..."

I'd bet you won't see that though.

 

[Meister]

At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.

The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?

What does this have to do with my post?

 

[masquerade]

Nobody has forgotten the people who died and their families, Jimmy. Nice try at demonizing the left, though.

I wish just ONE of you on the right would say "I hope we will be more civil in future" or "I am so sorry this happened".

I am truly sorry this happened and every day I hope and pray for more civility in our future. But I can't do it alone. Thoughts such as these need to be from all Americans across the country and that just ain't gonna happen.

I'm actually pretty proud of the way the leadership has come together. Did anyone watch the testimonials on the House floor yesterday? It is THEY who will set the tone and lead the way to civility. We, the public, take our cues from them.

Lead by example. I'm all for it.

In a meditation disc I often listen to, the woman speaking suggests I do daily affirmations for our government. She suggests that our belief in a negative government produces just that and that if I wanted, I could bless our government with love. If we the people want to, we could believe our government is loving, honest, honorable and truly working for the bettement of all people.

Let me just say that my meditation is a work in progress.

I did watch some clips of the testimonials. The main reason I started my http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/150339-men-who-need-to-grow-a-set.html thread.

 

[Talismen]

The interesting thing about the vid that Sallow posted....Giffords is poised and on-point. Granted, I would disagree with her vote FOR obamacare, but, she doesn't take the 'bait' the female MSNBC host dangles in front of her, early on.

She does make mention of the Palin "map", and the "crosshairs" (and although she makes no mention of DK using virtually the same "crosshairs" map), but then goes on to say that she would not speak for Sarah Palin in terms of whether or not she really thought Palin meant for the "map" to be taken as an incitement to violence.

I know I would disagree with her on a few things but, she seems to be a rather poised individual. And she equally calls out the rhetoric and actions of extremists on the left, as she notes the same of extremists on the right.

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.

Although Palin's "crosshairs" map, IMO, was meant to be perceived (in a sane world) metaphorically, as in "yeah boy, we got 'em in our crosshairs now! we'll vote 'em out come next election time"....

And although any sane individual would hope and pray this type of horrific event would never happen again....

I think it ironically says something clearly and boldly (although oddly) that the other "targets" on Palin's map are all alive and well, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning: If 'heated political rhetoric' inspires violence that much (which I don't believe), and if the mere sound of Sarah Palin's voice switches on some inate behavior in humans to kill each other (which again, I don't believe),...then those other "targets" would've already been "taken out" (so to speak), no?

 

[Sallow]

At the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.

The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?

What does this have to do with my post?

Because you're attempting to make this seem like a "normal" event. It was not. And the number of crimes committed in this country..especially murders..were on the decrease.

And "normalizing" violence..what ever the source..as a part of political discourse is an extremely dangerous path.

And it's one that needs to be stopped.

 

[JScott]

In the end, people who willingly kill people are a little disturbed. Even if the killer said it was politically motivated, they would still be considered "deranged".

Our politicians are responsible for motivating us to war on other nations, why couldnt they motivate to kill? The rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides.

Calling people names for their political beliefs means the debate is finished. The name caller is the loser. Lets all remember that. When the name calling starts, stop responding.

 

[Meister]

The last time a Representative or Senator was gunned down..was when?

What does this have to do with my post?

Because you're attempting to make this seem like a "normal" event. It was not. And the number of crimes committed in this country..especially murders..were on the decrease.

And "normalizing" violence..what ever the source..as a part of political discourse is an extremely dangerous path.

And it's one that needs to be stopped.

If murder was on the decrease, it still will be on the decrease. Murders and crime happen all the time....free will of Man. Before all the vile rhetoric that we now face, there still was crime and murder. I'm just pointing out that what is, is, and no matter how the rhetoric is....it's still not going to stop the crime and murder, Sallow.

 

[Madeline]

Nothing can prevent violence altogether, Meister. But screaming hysterically at one another MAY aggravate some deranged person, and has no value.

 

[MaggieMae]

While it's a noble idea, and one that would hopefully take root....WHO gets to define what is acceptable and what is not?

-Government?
-Political parties?

And how would that jive with the 1st amendment?

We can dislike the fact that BEFORE the kid pulled the trigger, he was merely a nutjob unto himself, who apparently plagued many with his insanity. But, there is no constitutional right to sanity. People can be as screwed up as they like, so long as they don't willfully cause harm to another. He did that, and that's where he went wrong.

And there's another good question....Who gets to decide what "harm" is?
Just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean they've been "harmed", despite what many lawyers and the general 'tone' of society would have us all believe. No one has a right to be offended. It is a choice.

I'll try to remember that the next time I post some ubiquitous fact and then get called a ******* old hag for it.

It someone disagrees with what you've posted, and wants to claim the mantle of civility, they should say:

"Maggie, while I agree you have a right to your own opinion, I must disagree. Here's why..."

I'd bet you won't see that though.

No, comments don't even need to be that kind. It doesn't bother me when someone calls me an idiot, because I probably DO appear to be an idiot if I'm not getting their explanation. But some of the insults show "Jersey Shore" mentality--immature, classless, and above all, illiteracy.

 

[MaggieMae]

What I noticed however...
She was asked whether or not she believed Palin intended it to incite violence.
I was disturbed with her answer...saying "I can not speak for Palin" does not answer the question of her opinion.....so an answer like that is the same as saying "yes, it is quite possible Palin intended to incite violence"
Otherwise, she would asnwer "of course not, but it doesnt mean someone may take it that way"
So I am curious as to whether she truly believes it was intended by Palin to incite violence.
If she did believe that, something is serious wrong.

The crosshairs thing targeted Giffords' district. Anyone else would have just said, yes, that kind of thing does incite violence, so I think she responded perfectly by prefacing her remark that way. Palin could have chosen any number of graphics to "target" certain districts--even a red dot would have gotten the point across. But anyone who owns a gun knows what "crosshairs" means, even the mentally disturbed.

Although Palin's "crosshairs" map, IMO, was meant to be perceived (in a sane world) metaphorically, as in "yeah boy, we got 'em in our crosshairs now! we'll vote 'em out come next election time"....

And although any sane individual would hope and pray this type of horrific event would never happen again....

I think it ironically says something clearly and boldly (although oddly) that the other "targets" on Palin's map are all alive and well, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning: If 'heated political rhetoric' inspires violence that much (which I don't believe), and if the mere sound of Sarah Palin's voice switches on some inate behavior in humans to kill each other (which again, I don't believe),...then those other "targets" would've already been "taken out" (so to speak), no?

There's nothing wrong with metaphoric messages, and heated political exchanges are historic. The difference, however, is the speed with which "messages" are sent and received, and erroneously perceived by unhinged people. In a matter of hours, an innocent [subtle] message might be seen by thousands of people with specific personal grudges, who pass it on to others with different grudges, and before you know it, a mob mentality has emerged. Ironically, that's exactly what happened with Palin's subtle "crosshairs" message. The extremists took it seriously: From the left it was a warning signal that there would be blood, and from the right it was encouragement to shoot if necessary.

 

[MaggieMae]

In the end, people who willingly kill people are a little disturbed. Even if the killer said it was politically motivated, they would still be considered "deranged".

Our politicians are responsible for motivating us to war on other nations, why couldnt they motivate to kill? The rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides.

Calling people names for their political beliefs means the debate is finished. The name caller is the loser. Lets all remember that. When the name calling starts, stop responding.

I try to do that, but I'm human just like the rest of you. Everybody's buttons get pushed too far at times, and when the ol' fight or flight option kicks in, it's often more satisfying to stay and fight. Especially when someone tries to take you down in a posting and neg reps you too. Or just neg reps you every chance they get. It literally means nothing, but people that do that are just itching for a fight and it becomes almost a sign of weakness to not fight back.

Hey, since there are a LOT of people on both "sides" who have posted similar opinions such as yours, I wonder how many would object to removing that "reputation" crap altogether since it's a bone of contention for just about everyone. Why not just a simple thumbs up/thumbs down reaction to a posting? Nice and civil.

 

[Ozmar]

Nothing would be more civil than MSNBC going off the air for a week.

Or you, for that matter.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

at the end of the day....hypothetically speaking, if everyone became civil in their rhetoric....we still would have just as many shootings and murders as we do now.
It's just that we would have the morality police to deal with.

the last time a representative or senator was gunned down..was when?

1978

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Nothing would be more civil than MSNBC going off the air for a week.

1. I haven't heard one liberal person say they agree with me about what MSNBC is doing on thier network, or CNN, or the others.
2. Or that I'm a lying bastard.
3. Just click on MSNBC and take a look if you have cable, its on and on.
4. One reporter finishes then another goes afterwards, then he/shes done, then another takes the football, I watched it for an hour, and it was non-stop, hammering on Sarah Palin.
5. I shit you not folks, I shit you not!, anyway you're too big to shit!
6. Now we have a huge anount of liberals here claiming all this banntering needs to stop here on this site, and there on the liberal networks, they want Rush to stop, and Sarah Palin to STFU.
7. While the liberal networks, they keep hammering us Republicans. * lets not and just say we did, is my answer! *
8. I say we have to throw it back at the liberal media, and liberals in general., we can't just roll over, don't be silly.
9. This isn't some game the liberals can call time out whenever thay want too, attack Rush, then attack Sarah Palin, we will come after all you bad asses.
10. I've heard all kinds of talk about the fairness doctinre, how its needed to make Rush and Sarah Palin STFU, I say you people who keep draging this up too STFU!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas