As U.S. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords lies in critical condition with a gun shot wound - delivered at close range - to her head, and six others, including a 9 year old girl are dead, we can hardly claim to be surprised that such a horror occurred.
(Pima County Sheriff Clarence) Dupnik did not state a motive for the assassination attempt against the Democratic congresswoman. But he suggested that "vitriolic rhetoric" in political debates could have deadly consequences.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this county is getting to be outrageous."
Vitriolic rhetoric does stir up the crazies, even more so when it is given sanction by political figures.
Readers may remember this little bit of American conservative eliminationism, from Sarah Palin’s PAC site. She invited Americans to “take aim” at twenty members of Congress who had supported Barack Obama’s health care legislation.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was one of three incumbents targeted in Arizona.
Dr. Dawg refers to this, and accompanying text -
image thanks to Orwell’s Bastard
When high profile political figures use words like “take aim,” graphics showing someone in the cross hairs of a rifle, or blithely recommend the assassination of people who are inconvenient (we all remember Flanagan’s statement that Assange should be assassinated), then such rhetoric gives murder for politics and ideology a certain legitimacy in the minds of some.
They aren’t murderers, they are freedom fighters! They are defenders of democracy! They are protecting their country from those who would destroy it! They are, taking a stand! They will go down in history as heroes!
In their own sick minds, that is.
Gun imagery used in politics - targeting a political opponent in the cross hairs, for example, makes for a more dangerous environment especially when there is such a push for the right for everyone, regardless of mental state of mind, to carry a fire arm in a country where guns are just the coolest thing evah and so linked to what it is to be a true, red blooded male.
(Jared Lee Loughner’s) rambling videos had already caused him trouble at school, scaring his community college into suspending him in September. In early October, he agreed to withdraw from school. By November, Loughner had bought a Glock, purchased legally from a Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson, the Associated Press and Washington Post reported.
A nutcase suspended for scaring his college manages to legally acquire a semi-automatic weapon a month later and uses it to kill nine people when he shows up armed at a function where issues have already incited violence.
Giffords, 40, is a moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election in November against a tea party candidate who sought to throw her from office over her support of the health care law. Anger over her position became violent at times, with her Tucson office vandalized after the House passed the overhaul last March and someone showing up at a recent gathering with a weapon.
You politicians want to reduce crime? Curb your own vitriolic rhetoric and toughen up gun laws.
I hardly think giving Loughner - if he is found guilty - a very tough sentence will deter other crazies who think they are on some kind of heroic mission to enlighten us all to their madness.
Showing posts with label flanagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flanagan. Show all posts
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
Remember this?
Remember the outrage coming from the right?
Why isn't that picture considered a death threat towards the PM? Why isn't that picture the subject of a criminal investigation under our hate laws, to me that picture scream incitement to hate and perhaps violence? - Sassylassie (of course)
Why? Because it was clearly a spoof picture, especially in the context of the contest which was where would harper rather be than attending climate change talks? You think so?
So how do those same people feel about, oh, let's see...this:
"Well, I think Assange should be assassinated actually," Flanagan said to CBC host Evan Solomon. "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone, or something."
Guys?...guys?...hello?...
Oh...there you are -
marie from vancouver
Suck it up Assange - if you release classified documents than expect to be target.
herberthoovermeister
Hopefuly a nice mix of Uraninum and Plutonium will find its way into this Leftie parasites next meal!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Women everywhere must be swooning
Thanks for showing us what manliness entails in your world, Flanagan.
Tom Flanagan, a Canadian political science professor and former chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, says Wikileaks creator Julian Assange should be killed - and he wants President Obama to order the assassination.
'I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something.' The CBC news host confronted him, saying incredulously, 'that's pretty harsh stuff'. Flanagan replied:
'Well, I'm feeling pretty manly today…
Trying to get someone else to commit murder for you makes you feel manly. Well now we know.
Seems this whole vicarious tough guy thing is typical of CONs as well –
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Who is distancing from who?
Been reading quite a few comments concerning Tom Flanagan and speculation that the CPC is distancing itself from him.
I don't really see that, but maybe I've missed some information.
Shelley Palin Glover's dumbass comments were just that: stupid words from a stupid woman. She may have chosen to respond to questions about Flanagan's comments surrounding how the CONs have been royally screwing up their expressed justification of proroguing, but I don't see that as being the party line for a couple of reasons: I have yet to hear of any other CON taking the same line, and I can't see publicly trashing Flanagan as good for the CPC. His beliefs are hard core far right, he has never swayed from that, and he probably is saying aloud what many conservatives are thinking.
Harper may have a temporary strangle hold on his MPs, but with screw up after screw up, and his inability to climb out of minority territory after four years where he has had so much direct control over the party's message, there are likely several influential members who are thinking it's time for him to go before he sets the party back even further.
I'm inclined to believe that Flanagan is one of those people. He still spouts the same hard right ideology, but in this latest interview, he drew a line. After the short clip of Flanagan, the interviewer adds that Flanagan "went on to say this proves that he is no Harper stooge."
That sounds more to me like Flanagan has come to the realization that Harper is bad for the party, not someone he wishes to support fully, and he is making that clear by offering up Harper by name - possibly because he knows it's time to oust Mr. Petulant and back someone else.
The CPC can try to hang in there, try to ride out this latest dive in the polls brought on yet again by Harper's actions, arrogance, and failure to connect with the public, but I think most members are realizing there is a very high possibilitry this fall will happen again and again. In addition, the public is not warming to Harper, not after four years, and there are so many instances of his deceit and callousness that the opposition can keep reminding us of.
There is growing international criticism of Harper as well, due to his poor performances on international issues. By running his party and the government as a one man show, anyone considering his continued role as leader knows that decisions made by the CPC and the current government rest squarely on his shoulders. If our reputation has dropped internationally, it is due principally to Harper's actions and choices.
Four years is long enough for him to have demonstrated his own impact as PM. Blaming the Liberals for current problems no longer flies, since it is easy to show direct connection between negative consequences and the actions, policies, and changes implemented under his leadership. Nor does saying the Liberals did it before work, since he has done little to change systems and policies that allowed the Liberals to perform badly.
The CPC seems to have lost some cohesion, lately. More people talking without scripted notes, more leaks to the press.
I don't believe in the apocalypse, but Harper may. He may be about to meet his own, personal day of judgement.
I don't really see that, but maybe I've missed some information.
Shelley Palin Glover's dumbass comments were just that: stupid words from a stupid woman. She may have chosen to respond to questions about Flanagan's comments surrounding how the CONs have been royally screwing up their expressed justification of proroguing, but I don't see that as being the party line for a couple of reasons: I have yet to hear of any other CON taking the same line, and I can't see publicly trashing Flanagan as good for the CPC. His beliefs are hard core far right, he has never swayed from that, and he probably is saying aloud what many conservatives are thinking.
Harper may have a temporary strangle hold on his MPs, but with screw up after screw up, and his inability to climb out of minority territory after four years where he has had so much direct control over the party's message, there are likely several influential members who are thinking it's time for him to go before he sets the party back even further.
I'm inclined to believe that Flanagan is one of those people. He still spouts the same hard right ideology, but in this latest interview, he drew a line. After the short clip of Flanagan, the interviewer adds that Flanagan "went on to say this proves that he is no Harper stooge."
That sounds more to me like Flanagan has come to the realization that Harper is bad for the party, not someone he wishes to support fully, and he is making that clear by offering up Harper by name - possibly because he knows it's time to oust Mr. Petulant and back someone else.
The CPC can try to hang in there, try to ride out this latest dive in the polls brought on yet again by Harper's actions, arrogance, and failure to connect with the public, but I think most members are realizing there is a very high possibilitry this fall will happen again and again. In addition, the public is not warming to Harper, not after four years, and there are so many instances of his deceit and callousness that the opposition can keep reminding us of.
There is growing international criticism of Harper as well, due to his poor performances on international issues. By running his party and the government as a one man show, anyone considering his continued role as leader knows that decisions made by the CPC and the current government rest squarely on his shoulders. If our reputation has dropped internationally, it is due principally to Harper's actions and choices.
Four years is long enough for him to have demonstrated his own impact as PM. Blaming the Liberals for current problems no longer flies, since it is easy to show direct connection between negative consequences and the actions, policies, and changes implemented under his leadership. Nor does saying the Liberals did it before work, since he has done little to change systems and policies that allowed the Liberals to perform badly.
The CPC seems to have lost some cohesion, lately. More people talking without scripted notes, more leaks to the press.
I don't believe in the apocalypse, but Harper may. He may be about to meet his own, personal day of judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


