Sheriff Dupnik's criticism of political 'vitriol' resonates with public

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“What is the Purpose Of Government If Words Have No Meaning?”:confused:
HMMMMMM. May actually ask that at the Philosophy Forum Pretty soon. 😛

VERY Weird of Him to ask that in a Political Meet-N-Greet with His Local CongressWoman, though. 🤷
He was very fixated on the English language. People are pointing to a certain conspiracy advocated by someone back East that believes the US Government is manipulating the English language for mind control or something… but there hasn’t been any evidence presented yet of a link between the killer and that group.

Also see:

Friends: Loughner was frustrated with Bush but “was never really political” - however he did seem to have a fixation on the congresswoman. This doesn’t seem to be a random act of violence.

Good article in the WSJ about the politics of this: The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel - Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
 
Never the less…

It is very telling that the media left was in fact poised and ready to exploit what for them must have been a delicious opportunity to spin this thing as a right wing “Tea Party” political vendetta, as you’d expect from them.

🤷
 
Oh, come now. It’s just the Democrats who try to make political hay out of such things? The GOP has been and is now wholly without sin? Give me a break!
Rich, can you give an example of where Republicans have made political hay of a similar tragedy like this one? Such as blaming the actions of a nutcase on liberal Democrats? Let me know if you find one.

Ishii
 
What ever are you talking about? The Dems were being criticized all through the thread for supposedly taking advantage of a political crisis. I said that the GOP did the same. Remember Lee Atwater and the Dirty Tricks Department?

BTW, I’d be not so quick, if I were to you, to assume the role of God.
Rich, please tell me what Lee Atwater did that is comparable to blaming conservatives and the GOP for the actions of a deranged multi- murderer?

Ishii
 
For two years they’ve been hoping and praying that some nut who was even peripherally involved with the Tea Party or consevative radio (anything that they can loosely make any kind of connection with), would go nuts and kill someone so they can vicariously brand the millions of people who don’t like the Obama agenda as “dangerous”. NY City mayor Bloomberg was hoping and saying that the Time Square bomber was probably some guy angry about the Health Care Law, but he turned out to be a radical Muslim, like someone said a few posts back they were hoping that nut who flew a plan into the government building might be their great white hope, but he turned out to be a communist. It’s got to be tough for the Left, waiting and waiting for one nut so they can then demonize millions of people who don’t like the direction Obama’s taken the country in
You are so right, when We first heard about the shootings my very first thought was this will be blamed on The Tea Party. So very sad people were killed one a little nine year old girl and instead of sending thoughts and prayers to those who had lost loved ones. they start the hate rhetoric.😦
 
And I would agree with that. In fact, I’d say that, even now, it’s better than it was earlier in our history. Afterall, we don’t see Congressmen caning eachother on the steps of the Capitol Building anymore. However, what has changed is how the general population reacts to this kind of political “discourse” and the inevitable conseqence of it over the last few years was/is an escalation to violence and politicians and pundits on both sides are responsible for that.
There has been no evidence whatsoever that there has been any increase in violence against elected officials. In fact it is so rare when it does occur it makes national news for days on end.
.
 
Of course the sheriff is going to start the blame game. What would you do expect from a man that didn’t provide any police protection to a politician in an environment he described as a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry and vitriol in political rhetoric? Man up and admit he screwed up - not when there are political points to be scored. 🤷
 
He was very fixated on the English language. People are pointing to a certain conspiracy advocated by someone back East that believes the US Government is manipulating the English language for mind control or something… but there hasn’t been any evidence presented yet of a link between the killer and that group.

Also see:

Friends: Loughner was frustrated with Bush but “was never really political” - however he did seem to have a fixation on the congresswoman. This doesn’t seem to be a random act of violence.

Good article in the WSJ about the politics of this: The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel - Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Looks like he was just a lunatic fixated on the congresswoman… since 2007.
(Before Palin, before the tea party.)

This definetely had nothing to do with politics. He was a crazy young man.
 
Of course the sheriff is going to start the blame game. What would you do expect from a man that didn’t provide any police protection to a politician in an environment he described as a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry and vitriol in political rhetoric? Man up and admit he screwed up - not when there are political points to be scored. 🤷
👍 Exactly.
 
Good article in the WSJ about the politics of this: The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel - Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don’t help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
There is a great comment in this article:

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Which is it indeed.

Ender
 
Of course the sheriff is going to start the blame game. What would you do expect from a man that didn’t provide any police protection to a politician in an environment he described as a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry and vitriol in political rhetoric? Man up and admit he screwed up - not when there are political points to be scored. 🤷
It is my understanding that background checks are still required for purchase of a hand gun, by federal law. Now, the store that sold this guy the gun, would have had to do a background check. Normally, background checks are done by contacting the office of the sheriff. If this gun was purchased in another county, the background information would still have been obtained through the sheriffs’ offices in whatever county the buyer lives in.

So, this assassin passed a background check, possibly reported to the gun dealer by the Pima County sheriff’s office. So this sheriff of Pima County should wonder more about the effectiveness of sheriffs’ offices generally, and perhaps of his own in particular.

Is it possible that he was kicked out of the college he was attending without anything being reported about it to law enforcement. But that seems doubtful.

The big question in all of this, if one wants to lay “blame” or perhaps only for the purpose of enhancing public safety, is how in the world this assassin could have passed a background check.

Finally, it appears this assassin was into the occult. He was not directed toward that by Palin, Limbaugh or any other conservative commentators.
 
It is my understanding that background checks are still required for purchase of a hand gun, by federal law. Now, the store that sold this guy the gun, would have had to do a background check…
That is the case - all firearm purchases from a licensed dealer have to have a background check done.
Normally, background checks are done by contacting the office of the sheriff. If this gun was purchased in another county, the background information would still have been obtained through the sheriffs’ offices in whatever county the buyer lives in.
That used to be the case - all background check are now done by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check as operated by the FBI. The problem is this individual did have several criminal charges in the past and none were pursued to conviction which would have resulted him being denied when he attempted to purchased a firearm.
 
Finally, it appears this assassin was into the occult. He was not directed toward that by Palin, Limbaugh or any other conservative commentators.
Rich probably blames Christine O’Donnell for that one. Connect the dots and all.
 
Rich probably blames Christine O’Donnell for that one. Connect the dots and all.
One congressman is going to submit a bill that would ban the use of symbols that might be considered threatening against Congressman. I don’t know if dots would be banned under this bill are not.
 
Perfect example of the agenda of the MM:

In the wake of the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, the editorial board of the New York Times urged :

In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.
President Obama was right when he told Americans, “we don’t know all the answers yet” and cautioned everyone against “jumping to conclusions.”
Unverified reports, some from his family members, suggest that Major Hasan complained of harassment by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim, that he hoped to get out of a deployment to Afghanistan, that he sought a discharge from the Army and that he opposed the American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were reports that some soldiers said they had heard him shout “God is Great” in Arabic before he started firing. But until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.

There may never be an explanation. And, certainly, there can never be a justification.

For now, all that can be said is that our hearts go out to the families of the 12 soldiers and one civilian killed. And we are hoping for the fast recovery of all those who were wounded, including Kimberly Munley, a civilian police officer stationed at the base, who shot Major Hasan and ended the killing.

Yet for some reason, that sense of caution was strangely absent in today’s editorial on the tragic shooting in Arizona:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members**. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.** Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.
That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.” Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.
 
That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.” Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.
Actually, those “Latino studies” programs are at best a Marxist race-politics narrative; most of them actually push a Nazi-esque “master race” mythology bound up with wildly unhistorical assertions about the Aztecs. I’m curious, do you even know what “MEChA” is?

Do we know Loughner bought the pistol, rather than taking or stealing it from an acquaintance? Are we sure it was purchased legally? Are you aware that even the strictest background checks only show arrests (usually they only show convictions), not things like “mentally deranged”?

“An end to the temptations to bloodshed”: far as I know, the only way to do that is to kill everyone first, 'cause as long as there’s more than one person, they’re gonna disagree; and force is a convenient way to handle that.

Loughner is completely outside all normal considerations of law and violence; Arizona, since anyone might be packing, is actually a horrible place to try something like this, since you can never be sure some sweet old granny won’t ice you. It’s just, crazy people do not reason things like that out. Ask anyone in any security-related profession: the guy you can’t stop is the crazy guy who doesn’t think ahead.

Finally, who the hell asked you how we should run our state?
 
Actually, those “Latino studies” programs are at best a Marxist race-politics narrative; most of them actually push a Nazi-esque “master race” mythology bound up with wildly unhistorical assertions about the Aztecs. I’m curious, do you even know what “MEChA” is?

Do we know Loughner bought the pistol, rather than taking or stealing it from an acquaintance? Are we sure it was purchased legally? Are you aware that even the strictest background checks only show arrests (usually they only show convictions), not things like “mentally deranged”?

“An end to the temptations to bloodshed”: far as I know, the only way to do that is to kill everyone first, 'cause as long as there’s more than one person, they’re gonna disagree; and force is a convenient way to handle that.

Loughner is completely outside all normal considerations of law and violence; Arizona, since anyone might be packing, is actually a horrible place to try something like this, since you can never be sure some sweet old granny won’t ice you. It’s just, crazy people do not reason things like that out. Ask anyone in any security-related profession: the guy you can’t stop is the crazy guy who doesn’t think ahead.

Finally, who the hell asked you how we should run our state?
You are aware I was quoting the New York Times? The point was the comparison between what they said after the Fort Hood shootings and what they’re saying now?/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top