I'm from Arizona and have gotten about 10 phone calls from this today. People are actually saying that potential violence has been simmering there for a long time with numerous people showing up to Congressional campaign rallies for Democrats while actively displaying their right to bear arms.
Locally the big stink presently is that Sarah Palin posted this image on her website during the 2010 campaign:
![]()
The use of cross-hair and rifle imagery is probably in bad taste as a general rule, but after the fact this just looks horrible; especially when coupled with "help us prescribe the solution."
And yes, one of thos crosshairs in Arizona represents Giffords.
![]()
This doesn't have any influence whatsoever? Will you honestly say that this couldn't insight an already angry, broken, or unbalanced person to take action into their own hands?
![]()
As someone who is much older than you and would guess has read 400% more of the similar material over a long period of time, be careful. I've traveled down the road many times thinking I have reached the ultimate answers. Much of what I read years ago I believed to be "the truth", doesn't quite measure up now a days. See the problem is once we head down a certain road, virtually all humans simply continue down the road and seek only truths that confirm their already held truths. There is a BIG Difference between reading a lot and being well read. Very few people are the later.
Millsapa: You're aware that the post I made was reporting on the sentiment I was hearing out of talking to people in Phoenix right? I had about 5 people mention that to me in AZ that morning and thought it was a wrinkle worth commenting on. That report reflected the conversation at the time, as reflected by the statements made by the sheriff shortly thereafter.
In fact, a facebook status from this morning that I posted linked to exactly the same Dem targeting map and stated:
"It is true that Republicans do not have a monopoly on using targets on maps for political purposes.
Distinctions to be drawn: Internal strategy vs. public call to action, crosshairs vs. bullseye, differences in traditional views on firearms between parties and whatnot, but bad taste all around."
I'm sure that's too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle though.
I do think the current narrative that's emerging that he's simply crazy and there's no correlation to right-wing politics is a bit off. The evidence at this point is clearly mixed. Some of it is straight loony (I'm thinking of the stuff involving grammar) but others have recognizable strands such as the focus on monetary systems and gold-backed currency as well as the exotic interpretations of specific clauses of the US Constitution. Some reports about incidents at his community college also cut that direction, such as his violent outburst after another student read a poem about abortion.
The widely spread quote from a high school classmate that he was a "far-left" guy seems to be conflating interestingly with other reports that he had anarchic tendencies. There's more than a little bit of bleed between radical leftists and anarchists in that both tend to latch on to extreme conspiracies and have radical "trashing" style remedies for their perceived ills. Not to mention the obvious but silent standpoint issue in terms of who is doing the reporting.
In any event there has to be a reason why this particular politician was targeted vs. any other and I don't think it's unreasonable to apply a default rebuttable presumption that when someone targets a politician for a murder attempt they are doing so for political purposes. If the issue was merely one of ease of access that seems to cut against him simply being totally crazy.
I think that people who are all into conspiracy theories and "the truth" and determined to "convince everyone" and just obsessed to just these ridiculous points are no different than the Star Wars and Comic Book nerds of society. Fanatics.
A few issues here. There are probably very few conspiracy theories that are totally true. Some events are unanswerable and conspiracy theories fill in the answers that people need to reconcile randomness. Those who readily consume conspiracy theories want to and need to psychologically. They are like addictions. Once you buy into one, it is easier to buy into the second. Most people who believe one theory, believe most.
All I mean is that people who just devour the conspiracy theory literature and act like its their god-given duty to enlighten the masses are just far too obsessed with what they're into and must be lacking in the 'life' department. I don't think I was disagreeing with anything you were saying. Our thoughts can coexist.
You know what's funny? You're the guy posting the Alien topics on this forum and then you have so much disdain when I question something. I don't believe in Aliens - at least to the extent that anybody is ever going to be able to make contact with us or vice versa.