Arizona Shooter ALLEGED To Be A Member Of Racist Website "American Renaissance"

[shiner]

Don't agree.

Politicians should not be spared because they're politicians.

Each and every politician, stock broker, and CEO should have an inate fear of the people they lead. If any one had that, maybe we wouldn't have the political, economic, and corporate machines we have now.

Like I said before: I don't know if this politician deserved to be shot. However, if this guy was not a nutcase, had exhausted all options available to him to address his issues with her, then I think it's a healthy thing for a country to have people take the step he took.

Sux for her if she's a through and through honest politician, who works to represent all in her state (just not those who voted for her), and this guy is just a fruitcake who just up and shot her.

Sometimes bad sh1t happens to good people....don't know if she was a good person though...

Chuck

Someone should find out where chucky works and forward this to his boss. I mean just in case the ol chuckster decides the man is keeping him down.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

However, if this guy was not a nutcase, had exhausted all options available to him to address his issues with her, then I think it's a healthy thing for a country to have people take the step he took.

Really?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm going to stop disagreeing with you before I get popped. Carry on.

 

[Bowfinger]

I disagree.

Then you are very much part of the problem.

 

[chucky2]

Haha, I doubt I'd ever take anything to that extreme. I try and enjoy life, spending it in prison, or being dead, doesn't lend to much enjoyment.

But I'd never advocate against someone else having that option if they were so completely dissatisfied and dismissed by their political leadership.

These entities only get away with what they get away with because the populace is entirely to complacement and/or nice with them. That's why nothing ever changes. Yet, they have no problem making decisions that F over the people they're representing...all while collecting a fat paycheck and being 'elite'.

Something eventually needs to check these entities...and unfortunately for them, what will end up eventually checking them will be a bullet. So be it, it's what they (and their predecessors) have chosen by their actions.

Chuck

 

[Texashiker]

/facepalm

I suggest that you read up on your American History.

It was in reply to rudders statement that if people have the right to vote, there is no need in armed violence.

 

[chucky2]

Really?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm going to stop disagreeing with you before I get popped. Carry on.

Come now...I have no problem disagreeing with someone...it's not like I'm going to eHunt you down, yeesh.....

Chuck

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Wow........psycho alert.

 

[skyking]

What if he was an Islamic extremist? Would you say he was an individual loony toon, a complete nutcase, and that Islamic extremism wasn't to blame?

you bet! we had one of those nutcases up here in Seattle. That is what he was. Nutcase first and foremost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting

 

[chucky2]

Wow........psycho alert.

I'll assume you're talking about me...

...why would you call me that?

Political groups (Congress, Executive, Judicial), Board of Directors, etc. should not be held accountable for their actions?

And how to hold them accountable? Voting?

Vote for a quality replacement....how? By far and large, you have two options: A Dem who toes the Dem line, or, a Rep that toes the Rep line. All others are squelched out, by the media, or the entrenched political machine.

And if by chance someone not a Rep or Dem is elected in? Well...they have an extremely low likelihood of ever making a dent: And that's if the Ind even tries to.

So when someone watches Congress F the US up, year after year, decade after decade, never getting the message that America is tired of multi-Trillion deficits, and the myrid of other issues they just happen to never tackle (or, tackle so horribly another tackle needs to be made to fix their "tackle"), exactly what recource does one have to fix the issue?

You advocate to.....what? Vote? It's already been established that does nothing.

So since your vote means nothing, what then? Remember, at that point, you want something done. Now. You've already waited for years at that point, all to no avail.

You're telling me someone should feel bad about rationally identifying true players who've caused the issue, and laying down their life to remove those issues from the equation?

If they truly did that, and the person was truly someone who needed to be removed, then why in effect go postal on that person who laid down his/her life for their belief?

I salute that person, you piss on him. The founding fathers would be disgusted (you'd be pissing on them btw)...

Chuck

 

[werepossum]

Don't agree.

Politicians should not be spared because they're politicians.

Each and every politician, stock broker, and CEO should have an inate fear of the people they lead. If any one had that, maybe we wouldn't have the political, economic, and corporate machines we have now.

Like I said before: I don't know if this politician deserved to be shot. However, if this guy was not a nutcase, had exhausted all options available to him to address his issues with her, then I think it's a healthy thing for a country to have people take the step he took.

Sux for her if she's a through and through honest politician, who works to represent all in her state (just not those who voted for her), and this guy is just a fruitcake who just up and shot her.

Sometimes bad sh1t happens to good people....don't know if she was a good person though...

Chuck

Giffords is by all accounts a pretty good person. She voted for Obamacare; she is also a staunch advocate of Second Amendment rights, was selected by the Republicans to participate in the reading of the Constitution, and has introduced some meaningful government austerity measures. She is no blind ideologue. But more importantly, every Representative represents over 700,000 constituents; there is always someone who has exhausted all his options with that Representative. If we accept that such a person then has any right whatsoever to go after that Representative with deadly force, then the inevitable result will be a disarmed police state.

Even those politicians with whom I vehemently disagree on virtually every issue - Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Franks come to mind - must be kept secure in their person if we are to retain any freedom. I think the Secret Service should be expanded to provide public protection to all Representatives and Senators. Sometimes in politics our side loses. Sometimes we lose badly. Either our point of view will in time be proven the best (as judged by a majority) or it will not be, but in either case, violence is not an acceptable alternative. Violence must be withheld for those cases where tyranny by a minority is in place, where ballots no longer hold the ability to affect government's behavior. Otherwise we will inevitably lose our capacity for violence if or when it is truly necessary.

Besides, this guy is a freakin' nutcase. His behavior cannot be upheld as any valid principle.

 

[piasabird]

What makes a racist a republican or a right winger. Maybe he is just a good ol boy. Can't he just be a racist? Maybe he hates women?

 

[chucky2]

Giffords is by all accounts a pretty good person. She voted for Obamacare; she is also a staunch advocate of Second Amendment rights, was selected by the Republicans to participate in the reading of the Constitution, and has introduced some meaningful government austerity measures. She is no blind ideologue.

Like I've already said: I have no idea if she was a good politician or not, which means I have no idea if this guy - in my logic - was justified in doing what he did or not.

But more importantly, every Representative represents over 700,000 constituents; there is always someone who has exhausted all his options with that Representative. If we accept that such a person then has any right whatsoever to go after that Representative with deadly force, then the inevitable result will be a disarmed police state.

I disagree. When I say exhaust all options, I really man, exhaust all options. I doubt he wrote/called to her office multiple times. I doubt he raised his issues with political representation in his state. I think it'd be very hard, and time consuming, to truly exhaust all options. But lets say he had...

...what is his resource then? Should he just lay down and take it? Be subservient? "Know his place"?

Even those politicians with whom I vehemently disagree on virtually every issue - Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Franks come to mind - must be kept secure in their person if we are to retain any freedom.

Why? What is freedom if you're not free? Look at what you advocate below in your next sentences

I think the Secret Service should be expanded to provide public protection to all Representatives and Senators. Sometimes in politics our side loses. Sometimes we lose badly. Either our point of view will in time be proven the best (as judged by a majority) or it will not be, but in either case, violence is not an acceptable alternative. Violence must be withheld for those cases where tyranny by a minority is in place, where ballots no longer hold the ability to affect government's behavior. Otherwise we will inevitably lose our capacity for violence if or when it is truly necessary.

This is a terrible idea IMO. Elected officials should live in mentally guarded fear of their populace. Anything other than that leads to perverted representation, which we can so aptly see demonstrated in any political entity we have: Pick one.

Besides, this guy is a freakin' nutcase. His behavior cannot be upheld as any valid principle.

He may very well be a nutcase (likely is)...doesn't mean armed resistance shouldn't be an option...

Chuck

 

[bfdd]

hey he said what i've been thinking!

 

[rudder]

So everyone from the south that fought in the civil war was a nutcase?

They had the right to vote, so there was no need in armed resistance.

well actually....

 

[bfdd]

well actually....

actually if you want to get it right, Lincoln was the one who fucked it up.

 

[bfdd]

It was in reply to rudders statement that if people have the right to vote, there is no need in armed violence.

for the most part he's right, there's no need for an armed resistance if we can just vote to change shit. though when our votes stop mattering the only solution is going to be an armed resistance. No one should be going around shooting politicians whenever they disagree with them.

 

[jhbball]

Like I've already said: I have no idea if she was a good politician or not, which means I have no idea if this guy - in my logic - was justified in doing what he did or not.




I disagree. When I say exhaust all options, I really man, exhaust all options. I doubt he wrote/called to her office multiple times. I doubt he raised his issues with political representation in his state. I think it'd be very hard, and time consuming, to truly exhaust all options. But lets say he had...

...what is his resource then? Should he just lay down and take it? Be subservient? "Know his place"?




Why? What is freedom if you're not free? Look at what you advocate below in your next sentences



This is a terrible idea IMO. Elected officials should live in mentally guarded fear of their populace. Anything other than that leads to perverted representation, which we can so aptly see demonstrated in any political entity we have: Pick one.



He may very well be a nutcase (likely is)...doesn't mean armed resistance shouldn't be an option...

Chuck

Sorry, could you clarify? "Exhausting all options" in regards to what? Having policy changed? Having his message heard?

 

[chucky2]

Sorry, could you clarify? "Exhausting all options" in regards to what? Having policy changed? Having his message heard?

Receiving an acceptable response(s) from whoever you're contacting. And just to be clear, acceptable doesn't mean they have to agree with you. They can disagree, however they should be backing up their disagreement with points. And if debated, that debate should a.) happen and b.) be backed up with data/sound reasoning.

Even then, situations could come about where even if someone agrees to disagree, they feel stongly enough a message needs to be sent. If they feel strongly enough they're laying down their life for it (above all else), and their message is grounded in reason (not insane ramblings), then why should they be scorned for doing so?

Chuck

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

The only reason your votes don't matter is because not enough people agree with you. In other words....you are in the minority. That isn't justification to start killing.

 

[Brainonska511]

I think the Secret Service should be expanded to provide public protection to all Representatives and Senators.

The Secret Service doesn't need to be expanded to do that. The Capitol Police are already in charge of Congressional security.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

actually if you want to get it right, Lincoln was the one who fucked it up.

????? explain

 

[umbrella39]

Really?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm going to stop disagreeing with you before I get popped. Carry on.

LMAO. Smart move! Lay low in a safe house for a few weeks just to be safe though.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

The only reason your votes don't matter is because not enough people agree with you. In other words....you are in the minority. That isn't justification to start killing.

Winner!

A politician doesn't owe a single constituent any explanation on their votes. In return, the constituent has the right to run against them for office or simply vote against them. They do not have the right to kill them.

 

[umbrella39]

????? explain

Pulls up an emancipated chair...

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Pulls up an emancipated chair...

The south Seceded months before he was even inaugurated and then soon after he was inaugurated attacked a federal garrison. What was he supposed to do?