What are the possible ramifications of the shooting in AZ?

Page 5 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Jan 2011, 1:43 pm

JasonGone wrote:
german internment camps during WWI and WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment

A small number of non-citizens, meaning foreign-born people who could and often did still have allegience to a country that declared war on us? And not even nearly all of those were arrested. Suspicion towards citizens of a hostile state living within your borders is very different from rounding up your own citizens based on their ethnic background and herding them into concentration camps.

Millions upon millions of German-Americans and Italian-Americans passed through the war with no hassles from the government or anyone else.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

10 Jan 2011, 2:43 pm

Orwell wrote:
JasonGone wrote:
german internment camps during WWI and WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment

A small number of non-citizens, meaning foreign-born people who could and often did still have allegience to a country that declared war on us? And not even nearly all of those were arrested. Suspicion towards citizens of a hostile state living within your borders is very different from rounding up your own citizens based on their ethnic background and herding them into concentration camps.

Millions upon millions of German-Americans and Italian-Americans passed through the war with no hassles from the government or anyone else.


yes most did. it's just that you seemed to dismiss the claim simply because you had never heard of it growing up in a heavy german area. (by the way i grew up in the cincinnati area).
yes in WWI the only documented foriegn born males and a small percentage were incarcerated. not a horrible thing.
in WWII it was not only german born immigrants, but also people born in america to german parents. a bit harder to reconcile, but given circumstances, including american born germans returning to germany to fight for the nazis and the fatherland, i can also see why they do it.
not really making a judgement either way.


_________________
"humans make for piss poor people."


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

10 Jan 2011, 3:56 pm

Hopefully, i can still carry my pistol when i go grocherie shopping. (you never know when a indian will run up on you) :pig:

But in all seriousness, gun rights are essential to peace of mind. pepper spary brings no such comfort


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

10 Jan 2011, 4:10 pm

Arizona burning topic

Good ramifications: Overhall of the Mental health systerm, and great vigilance of spotting warning signs.

Bad ramifications: Further polarization of US politics( blame and flame wars) and heightened paranoia of politicians means less access of elected officials by the voters.

I hope the bad stuff does not impact other countries where open democracies are a benchmark of freedom.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


TenFaces
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 142

10 Jan 2011, 7:19 pm

To clarify, FDR authorized the internment of German and Italian nationals living in the US if they were considered a "risk" . Far fewer Germans and Italians were imprisoned than Japanese. FDR did not imprison US born Germans and Italians. The Japanese were imprisoned in far larger numbers as all were considered a risk including US born Japanese. The German community in the US was subjected to far worse harassment in the US under Wilson. FDR was careful not to go as far as Wilson.
I am aware that Germans and Italians served in the US Armed forces during the war. The US also took Japanese for military service.
I was pointing out the racist history of the Democrats. The Democrats still are a racist party. Just look at how they try to keep black Democrats out of top legislative seats, reserving power for rich white Socialists. The Democrats view blacks as pets. Obama is merely for show and many Clintonites hate Obama for being uppity. Believe it or not, I think Obama is better than hillary Clinton.
As for the Republicans, there s no proof that either Nixon or Reagan were anti-black in their policies. Nixon of course hated everybody, black or white. The Republicans are a flawed party, but they have no history of racism. When David Duke ran, the party ran from him.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Jan 2011, 7:55 pm

TenFaces wrote:
I was pointing out the racist history of the Democrats. The Democrats still are a racist party. Just look at how they try to keep black Democrats out of top legislative seats, reserving power for rich white Socialists. The Democrats view blacks as pets. Obama is merely for show and many Clintonites hate Obama for being uppity. Believe it or not, I think Obama is better than hillary Clinton.

That history is irrelevant in the modern context, after multiple political re-alignments mean that there is no meaningful connection between the Democratic Party of then and the Democratic Party of now, nor between the GOP of then and the GOP of now.

The rest of your comments are too idiotic to even bother addressing.

Quote:
As for the Republicans, there s no proof that either Nixon or Reagan were anti-black in their policies. Nixon of course hated everybody, black or white. The Republicans are a flawed party, but they have no history of racism. When David Duke ran, the party ran from him.

Ever hear of the "Southern Strategy?"

And racism is probably more prevalent in the GOP's base than it is among the actual politicians. Those are just opportunists and corporatists, probably mostly uninterested in any social concerns.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Craig28
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,258

10 Jan 2011, 8:01 pm

When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!

By the way, the 9 year old that was killed was born on 9/11.



TenFaces
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 142

10 Jan 2011, 8:42 pm

All the Southern Strategy was and is, is merely one party grabbing the votes of another. Nixon and Reagan took southern voters away from the Democrats. How does it make Republicans racist if they try to take Democrat votes? Will the Republicans only stop being racist if they just let the Democrats win? Don't oppose Democrats, it is racist.?
In the end, Nixon was more of a socialist than JFK. Ironic. So Democrats should have liked Nixon for going along with them.
Both parties are opportunist and corporatist. Democrats are still the party of racism. They view blacks as pets for the amusement of rich white liberals. Actually, Democrats view children, sick people, poor people, and minorities as pets.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 Jan 2011, 8:59 pm

Craig28 wrote:
When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!


Nobody is proposing that kind of legislation. Most guns are not registered so mass confiscation would not be effective anyway.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Craig28
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,258

10 Jan 2011, 9:02 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!


Nobody is proposing that kind of legislation. Most guns are not registered so mass confiscation would not be effective anyway.


MOST GUNS ARE NOT REGISTERED! Whats the matter with those people? Can't they legimately own a gun? Are they so undesirable as to be turned down, but so full of themselves as to the American way of firearm ownership?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 Jan 2011, 9:47 pm

Craig28 wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!


Nobody is proposing that kind of legislation. Most guns are not registered so mass confiscation would not be effective anyway.


MOST GUNS ARE NOT REGISTERED! Whats the matter with those people? Can't they legimately own a gun? Are they so undesirable as to be turned down, but so full of themselves as to the American way of firearm ownership?

You can legitimately own a gun, but for most guns there is no central registry to track them. A couple states have their own handgun registration system, but the only guns registered with the federal government are privately owned machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles and shotguns.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

10 Jan 2011, 11:09 pm

Craig28 wrote:
When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!

By the way, the 9 year old that was killed was born on 9/11.


Unlikely , the 2nd amendment is not going away.


Nevertheless, Guns are obsolete and useless. They were probably helpful against tyranny back when governments didn't have freaking bombers, nuclear bombs, tanks, laser-shooting planes or robots that can kill. But governments do know.


_________________
.


jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

10 Jan 2011, 11:43 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Craig28 wrote:
When ordinary citizens get shot or killed nothing gets done, but when a Congresswoman is shot and a Federal judge is killed, then by golly, the government will clamp down.

Prepare to be made to hand in your weapons. Refusal will serve as your arrest! More American prisons will have to be built to accomodate the extra guests!

By the way, the 9 year old that was killed was born on 9/11.


Unlikely , the 2nd amendment is not going away.


Nevertheless, Guns are obsolete and useless. They were probably helpful against tyranny back when governments didn't have freaking bombers, nuclear bombs, tanks, laser-shooting planes or robots that can kill. But governments do know.


Yes but elected officials are not always protected by any or all of those forms of extreme force as this assasination shows. I for one am in favour of gun rights! Although my views are perhaps coloured by the sheer level of restriction here in the UK. Gun control is a political rather than public safety tool. Tough laws were brought in in the uk , first in the late 1910's against the far left and then again in the 1930's against the far-right.



TenFaces
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 142

10 Jan 2011, 11:58 pm

Jamieboy is right, gun control is political and s not meant to save lives. Governing elites could care less if you live or die. The British gave up their gun privileges during the many crises and wars of the early 20th century. I may be wrong, but in British legal tradition only landowners had gun rights. Then after the early 20th century, even landowners lost these rights. The landless had no gun rights. After WWII, laws were enacted to restrict all gun ownership. In the 90s it became worse. At least that's what I heard. I applaud you for supporting gun rights in spite of your nation's policies.
As for violence against politicians. There s nothing new here. In the US, during the 20s there were numerous bombings against politicians, judges, and perceived "rich" people. Sometimes bystanders were killed. Nobody made a huge drama out of it, nor did every political hack run out to cry rivers of crocodile tears in public. When I was a young, my family went to Europe (this was the 1970s)- and there were assassinations and bombings all over the place. The Italian Prime Minister was killed the year we went to Italy. Nobody put on a big drama.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2011, 3:13 am

Quote:
Theme: The left's immediate reaction to the Arizona shooting proves, again, that it will not forgo any chance to exploit a tragedy ("crisis"). Minor theme: In the process, mostly through projection of its own perversions, it is setting records for hypocrisy, irrationality and unfairness.

Politico reported that after the shootings, one veteran Democratic operative said that President Obama should "deftly pin this on the tea partiers. Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter similarly wrote, "Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?" "Just as Bill Clinton's response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings helped him recover from his defeat in the 1994 midterms, so this episode may help Obama change -- at least in the short term -- the trajectory of American politics." Clinton, said Alter, "was able to use the event to ... tamp down hate speech on talk radio."

So here we have Alter bragging about Clinton's egregious smear of conservative radio, which to him equals "hate speech," by suggesting it fueled Timothy McVeigh's homicides and urging Obama to try that same tactic against his critics today.

Beyond the drive for selective censorship, liberals also seek to leverage the shootings to advance their causes of gun control and even Obamacare. As for the latter, former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, out of whole cloth, opined that Jared Loughner, the suspect in Arizona, was partially motivated by his anger over the GOP's move to repeal Obamacare.

Liberals decry conservatives for their allegedly irresponsible, hateful, inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric and, in the same breath, demonize conservatives with irresponsible, hateful, inflammatory, dangerous and unsupportable rhetoric. They've constantly berated conservatives for "rushing to judgment," while they've set a world record for rushing to judge this probably nonconservative shooter as a mad conservative.

They are uniformly wringing their hands over Sarah Palin's supposedly violent imagery in "targeting" Democratic congressmen for defeat with "cross hairs" on an electoral map, saying this kind of language not just could lead to violence but actually contributed to Loughner's violent mindset.

Let's put aside, for now, the unhinged left's ongoing violent rhetoric and imagery against former President George W. Bush, Palin, conservative talkers and others on the right. Let's put aside that if certain rhetoric causes violence, then liberals' false depictions of Palin as advocating violence or their fraudulently smearing Rush Limbaugh as a racist based on manufactured stories could lead to violence. Finally, let's put aside that notorious liberal Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos, targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for defeat using the term "bull's-eye" and that another Daily Kos contributor wrote, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

Instead, let's focus on the left's accusation. It is patently ridiculous and puerile. No intellectually honest person believes that Sarah Palin had violence on her mind in using that imagery or that her words could be fairly construed to promote violence. More importantly, liberals know that neither Palin's "maps" nor rhetoric had anything to do with the mass murder. Therefore, it is irresponsible and incendiary for any of them to make this suggestion.

But they're going way beyond making the suggestion. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed Palin and Sharron Angle and refused to back down when confronted about having not a scintilla of proof to support his slander.

And no less a Democratic luminary than former senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart wrote, "Gradually, over time, political rhetoric used by politicians and the media has become more inflammatory. ... Today we have seen the results of this rhetoric. Those with a megaphone, whether provided by public office or a media outlet, have responsibilities. They cannot avoid the consequences of their blatant efforts to inflame, anger, and outrage."

"Today we have seen the results of this rhetoric"? Is Hart completely oblivious to his rank hypocrisy? He had no proof that inflammatory rhetoric from anyone -- left, right or apolitical -- had anything to do with the shootings, yet with his own irresponsible rhetoric, he made a clear causal connection between conservative rhetoric and the murders. (He also made clear that he had right-wing rhetoric in mind: "in the name of the Constitution" and "patriotism.")

This wholesale absence of proof also didn't prevent New York Times columnist Paul Krugman from tying the shootings to a "climate of hate" created by Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

In all likelihood, this terribly sad and tragic event was not politically motivated at all, at least not by either particularly conservative or liberal ideas. What is political is the left's unconscionable scheme to exploit the tragedy for political gain by using it to demonize and silence opponents and intimidate them from effectively blocking Obama's radical agenda. Republican congressmen must respectfully push forward with the same intensity they've finally been exhibiting, unencumbered by the leftists' sordid efforts to paralyze them.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

11 Jan 2011, 3:21 am

Obamas non-existent radical agenda you mean? The person writing the above article is clearly a deranged wingnut of the right. How inflammatory is pretending Obama's a radical by the way? I'd say that overall it is this that has poisoned political discourse and most people who use it know it's false.