DVD Talk
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson [Archive] - Page 4 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

Bandoman
01-13-11, 03:58 PM
Me too. Though I must admit that Paton Oswalt’s tweets making fun of Palin's use have been hilarious.


Like this one:

Took video down. Sorry for offending Jews. My camp is concentrating on better one. Final solution soon. #Palin

:lol:

Th0r S1mpson
01-13-11, 04:05 PM
rotfl

JumpCutz
01-13-11, 04:12 PM
:lol: rotfl

Navinabob
01-13-11, 04:17 PM
Common sense.

That's not an answer unless you can point to a reference where that definition and statistic is cited. Even then you'd have to justify the definition still because even if most people felt that way, it does not make it true. "Most people" can believe all sorts of incorrect things.

Mabuse
01-13-11, 05:38 PM
When was the last time there was a legitimate assassination or attempted assassination against a holder of a federally elected office? Say congress and up. Was the last one Reagan or is there something I'm forgeting?

And I mean a real attempt, not just something where they arrested a guy who said he was going to assassinate someone.

Ky-Fi
01-13-11, 05:41 PM
Was Jonestown the last time a congressman was killed?

X
01-13-11, 05:56 PM
Was Jonestown the last time a congressman was killed?I believe so. That was about 1979, wasn't it?

Mabuse
01-13-11, 06:11 PM
I just read on wikipedia that there were two attempts on GW Bush. Somebody shot at the White House (hardly counts) and when he was in Georgia (the country) someone threw a live granade at him that didn't go off.

Sigh
01-13-11, 07:05 PM
I just read on wikipedia that there were two attempts on GW Bush. Somebody shot at the White House (hardly counts) and when he was in Georgia (the country) someone threw a live granade at him that didn't go off.Three times. Just like a liberal to disregard the MUSLIM attack on his life. Only his quick cat-like reflexes and poor aim allowed him to dodge the shoe.

sracer
01-13-11, 07:11 PM
I've never heard the phrase "blood libel" until today. I wish I hadn't.

That's part of the reason why there are some people who dislike Palin. There is no way that she had come to know that term through the normal course of her life experience... It was something that her team of researchers came up with. She's a poser. And many claim that they like her because she is just like them. Connect the dots.

Oops, then again she might have read it, because she reads all of the periodicals. ;)

wm lopez
01-13-11, 07:43 PM
I believe so. That was about 1979, wasn't it?

But there was no right wing talk radio or FOXNEWS back then.

wm lopez
01-13-11, 07:46 PM
I was really expecting the crowd (at least a small section) to start chanting "Yes We Can".
Had there been illegal aliens they would have chanting "SI SE PUEDE!"

Sean O'Hara
01-13-11, 10:10 PM
When was the last time there was a legitimate assassination or attempted assassination against a holder of a federally elected office? Say congress and up. Was the last one Reagan or is there something I'm forgeting?

And I mean a real attempt, not just something where they arrested a guy who said he was going to assassinate someone.

What about the guy who crashed a plane into the Whitehouse in the '90s?

TheBigDave
01-13-11, 11:01 PM
That's part of the reason why there are some people who dislike Palin. There is no way that she had come to know that term through the normal course of her life experience... It was something that her team of researchers came up with. She's a poser. And many claim that they like her because she is just like them. Connect the dots.

Oops, then again she might have read it, because she reads all of the periodicals. ;)

Palin frequently quotes Wall Street Journal articles. I'm guessing she (or whoever writes her speeches) just gleaned it off the Glenn Reynolds editorial on Monday ("The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html)").

It was a fairly popular article around the right-wing blogosphere. And the phrase was repeated throughout the day by numerous bloggers and pundits. I doubt she could have missed it. Kinda strange that people only got upset when she said it. But I guess that's how things work regarding Palin.

Heat
01-13-11, 11:03 PM
I believe so. That was about 1979, wasn't it?
November 18, 1978.

Superboy
01-14-11, 12:04 AM
When was the last time there was a legitimate assassination or attempted assassination against a holder of a federally elected office? Say congress and up. Was the last one Reagan or is there something I'm forgeting?

And I mean a real attempt, not just something where they arrested a guy who said he was going to assassinate someone.

... 9/11. They crashed a plane into the Pentagon and the one that crashed mid-flight was probably on its way to the White House.

DGibFen
01-14-11, 01:42 AM
What about the guy who crashed a plane into the Whitehouse in the '90s?

Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

No one tried to stop it.

Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.

Gliding over the treetops, the Cessna passed the fountain and the red cannas blooming on the South Lawn, bounced off the grass just short of the White House, crashed through the branches of a magnolia tree planted by Andrew Jackson and came to rest in a crumpled heap two stories below the Clintons' unoccupied bedroom.

President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, were sleeping across Pennsylvania Avenue at Blair House, the guest house for visiting dignitaries, while repairs were being made to the ventilation system in the White House residence. The Clintons moved back into the White House today.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/us/crash-white-house-overview-unimpeded-intruder-crashes-plane-into-white-house.html

As far as the United 93 flight on 9/11, it's speculated that the target was either the White House or the Capitol.

Ironic, though, that both times, whatever intent the pilots of those two respective flights had, the President was not in the White House at the time.

RoyalTea
01-14-11, 05:04 AM
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/poll-300x226.png

creekdipper
01-14-11, 05:15 AM
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/poll-300x226.png

That's kind of interesting.

60% of MSNBC viewers agree more with Alan Grayson than President Obama.

creekdipper
01-14-11, 05:31 AM
The point being the same as mine, i.e. that when referring to the opinion of "prominent jews" you (originally) elected to choose one, Dershowitz.

Since the 'blood libel' comment seems to be losing its legs, this is a little late response. I get your point & that of Navinabob & won't get all defensive. My point was that one network only cited one group while the other cited both viewpoints. Without bothering to look back at my original post, I'll plead guilty to only mentioning one viewpoint & only offer the explanation that I thought that the entire 'controversy' was over whether the term was offensive to Jewish people (honestly, it never occurred to me that a large segment of non-Jewish people would either be offended or even be aware of its connotations). I should have stated that some Jewish groups HAD issued statements saying that they found it offensive before citing any other Jewish source who didn't take offense...just to make clear that I understood that there were two viewpoints being given in public.

My larger point was that, unlike Otters, news pundits have a larger journalistic responsibility to present opposing views, and that (IMHO) one network did that while the other didn't.

To me, the biggest lesson to be learned from watching/reading the media coverage over the last week is that, unlike so many "message boards", DVDTalk posters can disagree, give others the chance to clarify, listen to opposing viewpoints, admit errors when necessary, and agree to disagree...all without yelling at each other and calling those who have opposing viewpoints "evil". Most of the time, this forum offers each of us an opportunity to learn from opposing viewpoints (and even to disagree with those with like viewpoints...iron sharpening iron, if you will). Contrast that with the bile spilled on 'message boards' such as Yahoo, and it makes one thankful that civil forums that are moderated exist for one to express opinions and, yes, vent every now and then...all without sinking to levels that are beneath any of us.

Thank you, DVDTalkers, for sharing your opinions in a civil (if spirited) way. Also for having a sense of humor which tends to help us find common ground.

TheBigDave
01-14-11, 07:35 AM
To me, the biggest lesson to be learned from watching/reading the media coverage over the last week is that, unlike so many "message boards", DVDTalk posters can disagree, give others the chance to clarify, listen to opposing viewpoints, admit errors when necessary, and agree to disagree...all without yelling at each other and calling those who have opposing viewpoints "evil". Most of the time, this forum offers each of us an opportunity to learn from opposing viewpoints (and even to disagree with those with like viewpoints...iron sharpening iron, if you will). Contrast that with the bile spilled on 'message boards' such as Yahoo, and it makes one thankful that civil forums that are moderated exist for one to express opinions and, yes, vent every now and then...all without sinking to levels that are beneath any of us.

+1

Over the past week I saw a couple message boards that got extremely ugly. The whole incident brought out a lot of nasty stuff from both sides. Glad to see this board remained pretty calm.

sracer
01-14-11, 11:49 AM
Palin frequently quotes Wall Street Journal articles. I'm guessing she (or whoever writes her speeches) just gleaned it off the Glenn Reynolds editorial on Monday ("The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html)").

It was a fairly popular article around the right-wing blogosphere. And the phrase was repeated throughout the day by numerous bloggers and pundits. I doubt she could have missed it. Kinda strange that people only got upset when she said it. But I guess that's how things work regarding Palin.
You characterized it as a fairly popular article around the right-wing blogosphere. Well, not everyone monitors right-wing blogs. I watch Fox News and the first time that the phrase "Blood Libel" was mentioned was when they aired a clip from Palin's speech.

So either Fox News was deliberately avoiding any mention of these fairly popular articles, or you are exaggerating the visibility of those articles.

Groucho
01-14-11, 11:56 AM
Over the past week I saw a couple message boards that got extremely ugly. The whole incident brought out a lot of nasty stuff from both sides. Glad to see this board remained pretty calm.Still, I think this board has room for improvement. The two biggest problems:

1. Posters re-hashing other poster's old jokes over and over again.

2. Taking unnecessary "swipes" at the other side, even when it doesn't even fit with the point you're making. The Republicans, in particular, are guilty of this.

General Zod
01-14-11, 12:15 PM
Looks like Giffords to recovering amazingly well :up: Let's hope that continues!

I think this board covered this really well - must better than some of the other forums I frequent. I think some folks could have avoided trying to place blame on this to someone other than the shooter. The Democrats, in particular, are guilty of this. (Since we are doing generalizations).

Tracer Bullet
01-14-11, 12:33 PM
Well I think you're all pedophiles.

Mabuse
01-14-11, 01:07 PM
... 9/11. They crashed a plane into the Pentagon and the one that crashed mid-flight was probably on its way to the White House.
The president wasn't in the white house at the time, but I suppose it would have killed some elected official. Maybe a senetor who just stopped by to take a shit.What about the guy who crashed a plane into the Whitehouse in the '90s?Clinton wasn't in the white house at the time.

TheBigDave
01-14-11, 01:19 PM
You characterized it as a fairly popular article around the right-wing blogosphere. Well, not everyone monitors right-wing blogs. I watch Fox News and the first time that the phrase "Blood Libel" was mentioned was when they aired a clip from Palin's speech.

So either Fox News was deliberately avoiding any mention of these fairly popular articles, or you are exaggerating the visibility of those articles.

Here's a dozen well-known sites that referenced the WSJ editorial:

National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256695/politics-blood-libel-jonah-goldberg)
Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/09/quotes-of-the-day-564/)
Gateway Pundit (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/the-az-shooting-and-democratic-politics-of-blood-libel/)
The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/10/giffords-shot-palin-blamed/)
Memeorandum (http://www.memeorandum.com/110110/h1200)
The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81168/the-arizona-shooting-not-product-right-wing-rage)
The Atlantic (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-right-reacts.html)
Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/01/10/the_arizona_tragedy_and_the_politics_of_blood_libel_248529.html)
Newsbusters (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/01/10/open-thread-politics-blood-libel)
Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/morning_bits_33.html)
Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/10/the-instant-politicization-of)
Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/arizona-shooting-rampage/2011/01/10/op-ed-arizona-tragedy-and-politics-blood-libel)

Do you really think, being in the center of a media firestorm, that Palin wasn't keeping an eye on the blogosphere or major newspaper editorials?

I guess the other possibility is that she (or her speechwriters) just decided to use some obscure phrase out of the blue. And by chance it was the same obscure phrase that was used a day before in the headline of major newspaper editorial. And that particular op-ed just happened to be arguing the exact same point she was trying to make. Maybe it's just a bizarre coincidence.

grrr
01-14-11, 02:37 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110114/ts_yblog_thecutline/gibbs-tangles-with-russian-journalist-over-freedom

Lots of talking past one another, but the journalist could have phrased his question better. Overall, though, I don't disagree w/ what seems to be his point: open societies with a greater dedication to personal freedom have to accept a greater risk of this kind of attack.

CRM114
01-14-11, 03:18 PM
That's not an answer unless you can point to a reference where that definition and statistic is cited. Even then you'd have to justify the definition still because even if most people felt that way, it does not make it true. "Most people" can believe all sorts of incorrect things.

Sure. Lots of people incorrectly equate marijuana with actual addictive and harmful drugs like alcohol and opiates.

Sean O'Hara
01-14-11, 03:34 PM
Clinton wasn't in the white house at the time.

The guy planned to hit the Presidential bedroom, where he believed Clinton would be. I think that qualifies as an attempted assassination.

zombeaner
01-14-11, 04:05 PM
Sure. Lots of people incorrectly equate marijuana with actual addictive and harmful drugs like alcohol and opiates.

My wife (the chemical dependency counselor) would like a word with you...

CRM114
01-14-11, 04:08 PM
Does your wife incorrectly equate the two?

zombeaner
01-14-11, 04:12 PM
Does your wife incorrectly equate the two?

No, I think she quite correctly notes the similarities.

Th0r S1mpson
01-14-11, 04:35 PM
The guy planned to hit the Presidential bedroom, where he believed Clinton would be. I think that qualifies as an attempted assassination.

Or maybe he just wanted to kill his own wife.

Navinabob
01-14-11, 04:53 PM
Sure. Lots of people incorrectly equate marijuana with actual addictive and harmful drugs like alcohol and opiates.

Marijuana has withdrawal symptoms and offers positive chemical feedback on the user during use. That means it is addictive.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/459885

There are a lot of studies that show a connection to things like head and neck cancer, but there are also a lot that show no link. While some studies are better then others, there is no clear consensus one way or the other in most of the paraded about concerns. You can say safely that it is about as addictive cigarettes that causes at least some damage to the lungs when smoked (most likely more then cigarettes) and impairs cognitive function while in use. While most cognitive effects are temporary, medical consensus points towards long term memory effects to be lasting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596784

And again... referring to "lots of people" is a logical fallacy that does not prove a point. While they may influence public policy and popular media, they do not influence facts. Equating marijuana to alcohol and opiates is also and error in reasoning as they being bad (or fine) is independent of what the factual merits of marijuana is.

I'll happily sway my opinions of the political debate of Palin's quotes or the killer's motives as my thinking will change (and has changed) as we discuss new facts here. Neither you nor I are medical doctors or researchers so we'll have to base our thinking on the expert consensus put before us.

arminius
01-14-11, 06:23 PM
No it is not. Not any more than ice cream or soda. The only bad thing is inhaling smoke. The so called war on drugs has destroyed more lives than just doing drugs ever could.

Ky-Fi
01-14-11, 06:39 PM
Or maybe he just wanted to kill his own wife.

:lol:

Navinabob
01-14-11, 07:02 PM
No it is not. Not any more than ice cream or soda. The only bad thing is inhaling smoke. The so called war on drugs has destroyed more lives than just doing drugs ever could.

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. Your second sentence is passably true enough. Your third is at least debatable if you can illustrate what "destroyed more lives" mean. Personally, I think the war is futile and far too costly in an economic sense. But my personal views are tainted by actually having worked with addicts who were assigned to probation. Depending on what you were actually talking about we cite sources and debate who's research is better.

My journalism and political science knowledge is pretty meager compared to most of the regulars who can easily humble me here; but my two degrees are in psychology and administration of justice and would love to flex those muscles.

grrr
01-14-11, 07:17 PM
And again... referring to "lots of people" is a logical fallacy that does not prove a point . . . Neither you nor I are medical doctors or researchers so we'll have to base our thinking on the expert consensus put before us.

Appeals to authority are also logical fallacies.

There are myriad substances & behaviors whose abuse meets the clinical criteria for addiction, alcohol, marijuana, chocolate, coffee, and masturbation among them. Like most things in life, each is a mixed bag with pros and cons. And let's not forget about the role of social stigma associated with a behavior in comparison to the actual dangers it poses--after all, it wasn't so long ago that Freud was recommending cocaine as a panacea or that Huston Smith was dropping acid in the basement of Memorial Hall. Outside of those two, I've known plenty of people who've done coke or LSD and still managed to live addiction-free lives that may well have been improved as a result of their "drug use." I prefer beer myself, but to each his own.

This is certainly one wide-ranging thread.

Navinabob
01-14-11, 08:08 PM
Appeals to authority are also logical fallacies.

There are myriad substances & behaviors whose abuse meets the clinical criteria for addiction, alcohol, marijuana, chocolate, coffee, and masturbation among them. Like most things in life, each is a mixed bag with pros and cons. And let's not forget about the role of social stigma associated with a behavior in comparison to the actual dangers it poses--after all, it wasn't so long ago that Freud was recommending cocaine as a panacea or that Huston Smith was dropping acid in the basement of Memorial Hall. Outside of those two, I've known plenty of people who've done coke or LSD and still managed to live addiction-free lives that may well have been improved as a result of their "drug use." I prefer beer myself, but to each his own.

This is certainly one wide-ranging thread.

Nice. But you misunderstand "Appeal to authority"

Appeal to Authority would be valid if you pointed towards a PhD doctor who has a website that says all addition is because we have tiny people living in our brains who secretly tell us to want things. Then, when I laugh at you, you say "How many PhDs do you have?"

His view is not one shared by the prevalent current of opinion among experts.

The "appeal to consensus" you might be confused about is when someone might confuse cause and effect. You must not think something is true only because everyone thinks something. An appeal to authority/consensus confuses cause and effect.

"Appealing to Authority" is what we should do in critical thinking (It's true, look up Appeal to Authority). According to Websters: "Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so."

How does a lay person decide which authority is the most likely to be true? Easy... consensus.

Oh, and you anecdotal evidenced all over yourself.

grrr
01-14-11, 08:59 PM
Regardless of whether you appeal to a singular or institutional authority, arguing that expertise--not evidence--makes an argument correct is wholly wrong and in fact the very heart of the appeal to authority error. You are more than welcome to believe otherwise, but don't be surprised when your arguments are dismissed out of hand, as in this case.

Also, don't be surprised when you're singled out for logical fallacies after you've taken the time to point out those of other posters. A little generosity can go a long way.

dave-o
01-14-11, 09:08 PM
I am an authority, in this area anyways, and marijuana is generally considered to be psychologically addictive, but not chemically addictive (i.e. no severe withdrwals and no tolerance, etc). But to be fair, the line does blur between 'psychological' addictions and chemical addictions, as all addictive behaviors are rooted in the chemicals of the brain...

I'd also like to add that I have been very impressed with many in this thread (especially some of our more liberal posters who have pleasantly surprised me)...

Sean O'Hara
01-14-11, 10:43 PM
Regardless of whether you appeal to a singular or institutional authority, arguing that expertise--not evidence--makes an argument correct is wholly wrong and in fact the very heart of the appeal to authority error.

There are several conditional fallacies that can be valid arguments in some circumstances. Appeal to authority is one of them. The opinions of experts, within the area of their expertise, is itself evidence and should be provisionally accepted when deaing with subjects that you are ignorant of, though it should never be taken as definitive on its own.

zombeaner
01-14-11, 11:01 PM
I am an authority, in this area anyways, and marijuana is generally considered to be psychologically addictive, but not chemically addictive (i.e. no severe withdrwals and no tolerance, etc). But to be fair, the line does blur between 'psychological' addictions and chemical addictions, as all addictive behaviors are rooted in the chemicals of the brain...

I'd also like to add that I have been very impressed with many in this thread (especially some of our more liberal posters who have pleasantly surprised me)...

I am an authority in that my wife talks about her job a lot, and she is a bona fide genius. Marijuana is harmful. It won't kill you as fast as heroin, but it is certainly dangerous in the long run.

dave-o
01-14-11, 11:35 PM
I am an authority in that my wife talks about her job a lot, and she is a bona fide genius. Marijuana is harmful. It won't kill you as fast as heroin, but it is certainly dangerous in the long run.

Which is also true of alcohol (or just about anything not used in moderation).

Just because something isn't considered chemically addictive , doesn't mean it can't be harmful (I've seen lives destroyed because of porn addictions for example). But the converse is also true, just because something can be harmful in excess, doesn't mean it can't be used responsibly without major consequences...

Navinabob
01-15-11, 04:38 AM
There are several conditional fallacies that can be valid arguments in some circumstances. Appeal to authority is one of them. The opinions of experts, within the area of their expertise, is itself evidence and should be provisionally accepted when deaing with subjects that you are ignorant of, though it should never be taken as definitive on its own.

Said better then I did, and with half the words, nice job.

And I agree that chemical and physical addiction sort of blur themselves together once you boil it down to basic facts on how our brains work (for once a psych degree isn't useless).

I think we are all now officially treading water until they go ahead and release the pics of the guy wearing panties and posing with the murder weapon.

NotThatGuy
01-15-11, 09:47 AM
are you trying to claim marijuana isn't a drug?
from the little I've heard on the news form people claiming to know him he was a heavy user, not the occasional social smoker
"mild drug" as some people claim or not, heavy use can screw people up

There is some good research out there that supports moderate to heavy use by people with prodromal schizophrenic symptoms and people with schizophrenia. At least in the case of schizophrenia, I'd consider marijuana use more problematic than if he did some cocaine at a party 5 years ago.

NotThatGuy
01-15-11, 09:59 AM
That's good to hear. This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to survive this kind of thing and also live a semi-normal life?

People who sustain gun shot wounds typically die from brain stem damage (where some of the most important stuff happens), uncontrolled bleeds, and/or swelling. I'd guess the biggest concern now is identifying what was injured and what was spared from the bullet's path. I would highly doubt that she comes through without some sort of impairment, but there is a large range of functioning between talking and where she was before the incident.

wishbone
01-15-11, 11:27 AM
People who sustain gun shot wounds typically die from brain stem damage (where some of the most important stuff happens), uncontrolled bleeds, and/or swelling. I'd guess the biggest concern now is identifying what was injured and what was spared from the bullet's path. I would highly doubt that she comes through without some sort of impairment, but there is a large range of functioning between talking and where she was before the incident.The bullet "traveled through the left hemisphere of her brain from back to front," reports CNN.http://calorielab.com/labnotes/tags/part-of-gifford-skull-removed/

Initially it was reported that she did not have a lot of dead brain tissue removed so hopefully the gunshot was a glancing blow.

NotThatGuy
01-15-11, 12:04 PM
I saw that description, but that doesn't provide nearly enough information to make even a wild guess because there are sections of the brain the size of your pinky nail that can mean the difference between "normal" and "significantly impaired". Let's hope it went clean through less impactful areas and spared the important stuff.

wmansir
01-15-11, 01:28 PM
Even more evidence that Laoughner was influenced by Palin:

From the AP's timeline for Loughner leading up to the shooting: "He picked up photos showing him holding a Glock 19 while wearing only a bright red G-string."

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3873/palinriflebikini.jpg

zombeaner
01-15-11, 01:51 PM
I think I just puked in my mouth. Spoiler that shit!

Dr Mabuse
01-15-11, 01:54 PM
Or just show the actual pic.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-09-03-208036176_05fcaef86c.jpg

Sheff
01-15-11, 05:27 PM
Creepy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-video-20110115,0,7041106.story

wm lopez
01-15-11, 05:53 PM
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/poll-300x226.png
Only 36%? I thought it would be zero.

TheBigDave
01-15-11, 06:29 PM
Yesterday one of the shooting victims was running around to the left wing outlets and blaming the usual suspects (Palin/Beck/Angle).

One of the wounded in the Tucson, Ariz., shooting that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically injured is blaming Sarah Palin, House Speaker John Boehner, Fox TV host Glenn Beck and former Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle for the tragedy.

“It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Eric Fuller said in an interview with Democracy NOW.

“Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled — senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all — even 9-year-old girls,” he added, referring to the death of Christina Taylor Green.

Fuller, a 63-year-old veteran, had campaigned for Giffords during her reelection and was at the supermarket for her Congress on Your Corner event.

“I would put Sarah Palin in first place there. I think, really, she should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials,” Fuller said in an interview with Media Matters. “That map I saw that she published on the Internet had crosshairs on it and one of them was meant for Gabrielle Giffords.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47620.html


And today the same guy was arrested for issuing his own death threat.

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff's deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, "You're Dead."

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff's spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13849741

Bad timing dude.

arminius
01-15-11, 06:43 PM
Yesterday one of the shooting victims was running around to the left wing outlets and blaming the usual suspects (Palin/Beck/Angle).



And today the same guy was arrested for issuing his own death threat.



Bad timing dude.

And the sad thing is he probably can't understand why he is being arrested and Palin is not.

movielib
01-15-11, 07:04 PM
Yesterday one of the shooting victims was running around to the left wing outlets and blaming the usual suspects (Palin/Beck/Angle).



And today the same guy was arrested for issuing his own death threat.



Bad timing dude.
Wow. Unbelievable. He really followed the president's pleas to tone down the rhetoric, didn't he?

Maybe about six months in the county jail might pound some sense into him.

NotThatGuy
01-15-11, 07:26 PM
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/poll-300x226.png

This should be on the Onion.com. It is incredibly sad that it is real.

SkullOrchard
01-15-11, 08:54 PM
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/01/poll-300x226.png
...and Fox News viewers are mindless sheep??

Tommy Ceez
01-15-11, 08:59 PM
To be fair, it doesnt say if the NO voters were considering 'society', 'the media', 'the mental health system', or 'satan'

crazyronin
01-15-11, 09:23 PM
Yesterday one of the shooting victims was running around to the left wing outlets and blaming the usual suspects (Palin/Beck/Angle).



And today the same guy was arrested for issuing his own death threat.



Bad timing dude.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8690/jefuller1.jpg

That's some fine consanguinity there, <s>Lou</s> James.

The Cow
01-15-11, 09:33 PM
...and Fox News viewers are mindless sheep??

Yes. And probably typical American voters. :(

mikehunt
01-15-11, 10:36 PM
Yesterday one of the shooting victims was running around to the left wing outlets and blaming the usual suspects (Palin/Beck/Angle).



And today the same guy was arrested for issuing his own death threat.



Bad timing dude.

that dude is a douche. he accuses palin of advocating assassination, which she hasn't, and then makes his own death threat

grundle
01-15-11, 11:20 PM
http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2011/01/pelosi-on-arizona-tragedy-in-this-hour-of-anguish-we-seek-renewed-commitment-to-hope-to-civility-to.shtml

January 12, 2011

"Remember each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives..." - Nancy Pelosi

wm lopez
01-16-11, 01:53 AM
Wow. Unbelievable. He really followed the president's pleas to tone down the rhetoric, didn't he?

Maybe about six months in the county jail might pound some sense into him.
Oh, he'll get pounded alright.

Navinabob
01-16-11, 05:38 AM
Only 36%? I thought it would be zero.

Wait, do we know if they polled their viewers or people on the street?

OldDude
01-16-11, 06:27 AM
that dude is a douche. he accuses palin of advocating assassination, which she hasn't, and then makes his own death threat

And death threats against people he disagrees with are not only OK, but apparently within his strict interpretation of his primary cause, which is social justice.

Of course, that is not unlike a CAGWer spewing CO2 in a private jet to travel to the next tropical climate conference on the horrors of spewing CO2.

TheBigDave
01-16-11, 08:36 AM
Wait, do we know if they polled their viewers or people on the street?

It was a poll on the MSNBC site:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v4XcnK-vpoc" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Here's the actual poll. The "NO" choice seems poorly worded. "Regardless of the motive involved..." makes it open to interpretation. Voters can hold the killer solely responsible AND think political rhetoric is too hostile.

QUESTION: Sarah Palin said the responsibility for the Arizona shootings rests solely with the alleged shooter and blamed "journalists and pundits" for manufacturing a “blood libel” by blaming it on political rhetoric. Do you agree?

YES: There is no evidence that the accused shooter had any political motives and blaming his actions on words used by Palin and others is a way to score political points.

NO: Regardless of the motive involved, political rhetoric has become too destructive in recent years and the use of a term like “blood libel” only makes it worse.

NOT SURE: Our national leaders do need to be more careful about the words they use but it’s also unfair to single out certain individuals for statements or imagery that are also used by others.

http://politics.newsvine.com/_question/2011/01/12/5822380-vote-weigh-in-on-palins-reaction

But if the point is that MSNBC viewers are a bunch of friggin' loony moonbats, then I totally agree. :D

OldDude
01-16-11, 10:53 AM
Here's the actual poll. The "NO" choice seems poorly worded. "Regardless of the motive involved..." makes it open to interpretation. Voters can hold the killer solely responsible AND think political rhetoric is too hostile.



It would be hard to imagine that many find the level of political rhetoric either "just right" or "insufficiently hostile."

The question is whether our level of concern over it should trump first amendment rights of free speech. It is fine to urge people to tone it down. Passing laws to do so may not be a good idea.

While I can be critical of many things with Obama, I thought he achieved pretty good balance on this the other night.

Ky-Fi
01-16-11, 12:42 PM
It would be hard to imagine that many find the level of political rhetoric either "just right" or "insufficiently hostile."

The question is whether our level of concern over it should trump first amendment rights of free speech. It is fine to urge people to tone it down. Passing laws to do so may not be a good idea.

While I can be critical of many things with Obama, I thought he achieved pretty good balance on this the other night.



Yep, I agree.

creekdipper
01-16-11, 06:52 PM
Appeals to authority are also logical fallacies.


Which is why, if I were suffering from unexplained headaches, I wouldn't consult doctors...I'd post the facts here in Otterville to get opinions.

Because, obviously, none of us here could ever be accused of being a authority on anything.

Excepting Grundle, of course.

creekdipper
01-16-11, 06:55 PM
If a drinking game were concocted for downing a shot every time one heard or read the word "vitriol", an entirely new group of alcoholics would have emerged this past week.

From today's editorial page alone, I would have had a buzz on before 7 A.M.

NotThatGuy
01-16-11, 11:22 PM
So uhm...any updates about Giffords' condition?

Th0r S1mpson
01-17-11, 12:19 AM
So uhm...any updates about Giffords' condition?

Breathing and moving on her own. Sarah Palin went to a gun show.

CRM114
01-17-11, 10:46 AM
Marijuana has withdrawal symptoms and offers positive chemical feedback on the user during use. That means it is addictive.

Marijuana is not physically addictive like nicotine, alcohol or opiates. Period. Anyone who has actually quit smoking tobacco understands what addiction is.

arminius
01-17-11, 10:59 AM
Marijuana is not physically addictive like nicotine, alcohol or opiates. Period. Anyone who has actually quit smoking tobacco understands what addiction is.

Why does this have to be repeated over and over? Marijuana is about as addictive as sugar or salt. You can smoke it every day for years and stop cold. You will be mildly irritable for about an hour when bored.

Navinabob
01-17-11, 11:31 AM
Marijuana is not physically addictive like nicotine, alcohol or opiates. Period. Anyone who has actually quit smoking tobacco understands what addiction is.

Ok, I'll stop with the logic fallacy stuff because it's a losing battle... so I'll move onto "lets see your source."

Any fact has a source behind it; the burden of proof is on you.

Navinabob
01-17-11, 11:32 AM
Why does this have to be repeated over and over? Marijuana is about as addictive as sugar or salt. You can smoke it every day for years and stop cold. You will be mildly irritable for about an hour when bored.

Any fact has a source behind it; the burden of proof is on you.

CRM114
01-17-11, 12:03 PM
Ok, I'll stop with the logic fallacy stuff because it's a losing battle... so I'll move onto "lets see your source."

Any fact has a source behind it; the burden of proof is on you.

Um, no it is not. Why should anyone have to prove a negative? The burden of proof is to show it IS physically addictive. And so far, no studies have successfully done that. Do you know why? Because it isn't physically addictive.

And you should stop with the logical fallacy stuff because you should attempt to add substance to your argument. All I have heard is "my wife is smart and show knows marijuana is bad" or "prove to me that marijuana isn't addictive."

Nausicaa
01-17-11, 12:24 PM
It is certainly addictive. But anyone who has personal experience with the drug knows that whatever withdrawal symptoms exist are minor to such an extent they aren't really worth noting. Quitting or going from heavy to no use is not a big deal for most people. It may be missed, but it is not needed.

In fact I would argue that its relative safety and lack of any hangover or withdrawal effects are aspects of the drug that contribute to its particular addictive potential.

Wait - why is this being discussed here?

Th0r S1mpson
01-17-11, 12:31 PM
Marijuana is so addictive that even people who don't use marijuana are addicted to talking about it.

grundle
01-17-11, 01:11 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

January 15, 2011

His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush

General Zod
01-17-11, 01:54 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

January 15, 2011

His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush

Makes sense. Everyone who hated President Bush is mentally disturbed ;)

As this goes on there seem to be less and less people to blame other than the shooter. Not that this will stop people from making up more stupid crap about Palin and the Tea party being the cause.. but even that is getting to a point where nobody is listening to it anymore.

Meanwhile Giffords got moved from critical to serious condition! Although the shooter probably got exactly what he wanted (his picture posted everywhere, his videos being shown, his ramblings being repeated, blame placed on others, etc..) he's got to be at least a little irked that he didn't succeed in killing Giffords which was obviously his main objective there.

Navinabob
01-17-11, 02:48 PM
Um, no it is not. Why should anyone have to prove a negative? The burden of proof is to show it IS physically addictive. And so far, no studies have successfully done that. Do you know why? Because it isn't physically addictive.

And you should stop with the logical fallacy stuff because you should attempt to add substance to your argument. All I have heard is "my wife is smart and show knows marijuana is bad" or "prove to me that marijuana isn't addictive."

While I tend to go with Marcello Truzzi's view on the Burden of proof, this bit I took from wiki had a good flow to it so I stole it. This burden of proof falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

Your view is is farthest away from conventional facts. Here are 4 sources / studies.

Cannabis is recognized as a substance that can produce
addiction. It is estimated that almost 10% of people who have
ever used marijuana will develop an addiction. Approximately
1% of the American population is estimated to meet diagnostic
criteria for cannabis addiction, including 2.6% of adolescents
and 3.5% of young adults, aged 18 to 25 years.5Among American
adults, rates of cannabis abuse and addiction have increased
from 18% at the beginning of the 1990s to over 35% in the early
2000s.7 Cannabis addiction is also an issue for adolescents, and
the risk of them becoming addicted increases significantly in
later adolescence and early adulthood. A recent study in
Colorado found that a slightly higher proportion of adolescents
were diagnosed with cannabis addiction (4.3%) over alcoholism
(3.5%), even though alcohol is more easily obtained than
marijuana and more often abused.10

Gold, Mark S., Kimberly Frost-Pineda, and William S.
Jacobs. 2004. Cannabis. In Textbook of Substance Abuse
Treatment edited by Marc Galanter and Herbert D. Kleber.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

According the the US Department of Health statistics:

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities. According to NSDUH, in 2009 of the estimated 7.1 million Americans classified with dependence on or abuse of illicit drugs,
4.3 million were dependent on or abused marijuana. In 2008, 17% of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse (63% of those aged 12-14; and 69% of those 15-17), representing more than 320,000 treatment admissions [Treatment Episode Data Set, (TEDS), 2008]. Along with craving, withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleeping problems, and anxiety can make it difficult for long-term marijuana smokers to quit. Research has shown that approximately 9% of people who used marijuana may become dependent. The risk of addiction goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using as adolescents, and 25-
50% of daily users.


Although marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, it is not established whether withdrawal from chronic use results in a clinically significant abstinence syndrome. The present study was conducted to characterize symptoms associated with marijuana withdrawal following chronic use during a supervised 28-day abstinence period. Three groups of participants were studied: (a) current chronic marijuana users, (b) former chronic marijuana users who had not used marijuana for at least 6 months prior to the study, and (c) marijuana nonusers. Current users experienced significant increases in anxiety, irritability, physical tension, and physical symptoms and decreases in mood and appetite during marijuana withdrawal. These symptoms were most pronounced during the initial 10 days of abstinence, but some were present for the entire 28-day withdrawal period. These findings support the notion of a marijuana withdrawal syndrome in humans.

Kouri EM, Pope HG Jr. Abstinence symptoms during withdrawal from chronic marijuana use
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000 Nov;8(4):483-92.

The demand for treatment for cannabis dependence has grown dramatically. The majority of the people who enter the treatment have difficulty in achieving and maintaining abstinence from cannabis. Understanding the impact of cannabis withdrawal syndrome on quit attempts is of obvious importance. Cannabis, however, has long been considered a 'soft' drug, and many continue to question whether one can truly become dependent on cannabis. Skepticism is typically focused on whether cannabis use can result in 'physiological' dependence or withdrawal, and whether withdrawal is of clinical importance. RECENT FINDINGS: The neurobiological basis for cannabis withdrawal has been established via discovery of an endogenous cannabinoid system, identification of cannabinoid receptors, and demonstrations of precipitated withdrawal with cannabinoid receptor antagonists. Laboratory studies have established the reliability, validity, and time course of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome and have begun to explore the effect of various medications on such withdrawal. Reports from clinical samples indicate that the syndrome is common among treatment seekers. SUMMARY: A clinically important withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis dependence has been established. Additional research must determine how cannabis withdrawal affects cessation attempts and the best way to treat its symptoms.
Budney, A. J., Hughes, J. R. The cannabis withdrawal syndrome
Curr Opin Psychiatry, Vol 19, Issue 3, pp 233-8, 2006

I think the crux is you using the word "physically" addictive as a necessary component. I think you might be confusing addiction, which is a psychological problem, with physical problems like dependence & tolerance. As far as I know we might be arguing semantics.

I don't mind the debate as there are many good arguments on your side if you want me to start rattling them off as well to be fair. This is just so outside the thread's original topic I just don't want to derail it further.

rw2516
01-17-11, 04:03 PM
From personal experience I can't think of any physical craving for, nor physical withdraw symptoms to marijuana. It's psychologically additive as hell though. A person associates certain activities with being stoned and if unable to get stoned is bored to death. Close comparisons would be, bored at a party because you are designated driver or bored to death because the tv went out. One thing I associated with being stoned is going to a movie. If I couldn't see it stoned I wouldn't go. Seeing it while straight would ruin the movie, no matter how good it was. If you have a steady income and steady source you exhibit another psychological symptom, making sure you never run out. The withdrawl is a depressed, bored feeling much like being snowbound at home for a few days with the power out. An absolute total state of bummed out boredom. Physically pot is addictive as electricity.

CRM114
01-17-11, 04:08 PM
It is certainly addictive. But anyone who has personal experience with the drug knows that whatever withdrawal symptoms exist are minor to such an extent they aren't really worth noting. Quitting or going from heavy to no use is not a big deal for most people. It may be missed, but it is not needed.

In fact I would argue that its relative safety and lack of any hangover or withdrawal effects are aspects of the drug that contribute to its particular addictive potential.

Wait - why is this being discussed here?

Can you point to any study which says marijuana is physically addictive with "withdrawal symptoms?"

This is being discussed because an earlier article tried to blame the shooter's psychosis on the drug.

Navinabob
01-17-11, 04:13 PM
Can you point to any study which says marijuana is physically addictive with "withdrawal symptoms?"

What does physically addictive mean to you? Can you point to something that is "physically addictive" without any psychological compulsion component?

CRM114
01-17-11, 04:15 PM
From personal experience I can't think of any physical craving for, nor physical withdraw symptoms to marijuana. It's psychologically additive as hell though. A person associates certain activities with being stoned and if unable to get stoned is bored to death. Close comparisons would be, bored at a party because you are designated driver or bored to death because the tv went out. One thing I associated with being stoned is going to a movie. If I couldn't see it stoned I wouldn't go. Seeing it while straight would ruin the movie, no matter how good it was. If you have a steady income and steady source you exhibit another psychological symptom, making sure you never run out. The withdrawl is a depressed, bored feeling much like being snowbound at home for a few days with the power out. An absolute total state of bummed out boredom. Physically pot is addictive as electricity.

I don't think I disagree with this. I think the person who opines for more weed is very quick to get over it. The same can be said for millions of people who need a glass of wine or a bottle of beer to end the day. I'd say that number is significantly higher.

CRM114
01-17-11, 04:16 PM
What does physically addictive mean to you? Can you point to something that is "physically addictive" without any psychological compulsion component?

Alcohol
Opiates
Nicotine

Any psychological component is negligible. The addicted users of those substances require the substance to feel normal. Of course, a moderate user of those is probably all psychological but the physical addictiveness is there. It doesn't require years of heavy use as the one study above states. (Which I still don't buy at all.)

Navinabob
01-17-11, 04:32 PM
Alcohol
Opiates
Nicotine

Any psychological component is negligible.


That's an interesting opinion, but is not currently supported by evidence. I'd happily review any study you can find that shows that the psychological component to alcohol addition is negligible.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20716308

The goal of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship of alcohol craving with biopsychosocial and addiction factors that are clinically pertinent to alcoholism treatment. Alcohol craving was assessed in 315 treatment-seeking, alcohol dependent subjects using the Penn Alcohol Craving Scale questionnaire. Standard validated questionnaires were used to evaluate a variety of biological, addiction, psychological, psychiatric, and social factors. Individual covariates of craving included age, race, problematic consequences of drinking, heavy drinking, motivation for change, mood disturbance, sleep problems, and social supports. In a multivariate analysis (R(2)= .34), alcohol craving was positively associated with mood disturbance, heavy drinking, readiness for change, and negatively associated with age. The results from this study suggest that alcohol craving is a complex phenomenon influenced by multiple factors.

dave-o
01-17-11, 04:51 PM
Again, as I stated earlier, marijuana is not chemically/physically addictive. This is the consensus in the field and the research (I work in the field). Marijuana is psychologically addictive. Psychological addictions can be devastating and can cause just as much damage to a person's life as a chemical addictions. However, there is a distinct difference between the two and this difference matters in terms of treatment and understanding. Is there some of overlap and lots of confusion even among professionals? Absolutely. But anyone who has ever worked in the field will tell you that when working with these types of addictions, understanding the difference is very important and does impact the treatment and recovery process.

I sometimes wish that we used a different term entirely to describe a psychological addiction, as misunderstandings like the two you are debating about, would not happen. In fact, there is a big debate in the addictions field about where these types of addictions should fall in the DSM (dependence disorders, impulse control disorders, etc.).

Anyways, it largely seems to be a semantic issue here. But generally speaking, when I speak about marijuana to other professionals or clients, I am very careful that when I call it addictive, I am clear that I mean in the psychological sense...

Navinabob
01-17-11, 05:23 PM
Again, as I stated earlier, marijuana is not chemically/physically addictive. This is the consensus in the field and the research (I work in the field). Marijuana is psychologically addictive. Psychological addictions can be devastating and can cause just as much damage to a person's life as a chemical addictions. However, there is a distinct difference between the two and this difference matters in terms of treatment and understanding. Is there some of overlap and lots of confusion even among professionals? Absolutely. But anyone who has ever worked in the field will tell you that when working with these types of addictions, understanding the difference is very important and does impact the treatment and recovery process.

I sometimes wish that we used a different term entirely to describe a psychological addiction, as misunderstandings like the two you are debating about, would not happen. In fact, there is a big debate in the addictions field about where these types of addictions should fall in the DSM (dependence disorders, impulse control disorders, etc.).

Anyways, it largely seems to be a semantic issue here. But generally speaking, when I speak about marijuana to other professionals or clients, I am very careful that when I call it addictive, I am clear that I mean in the psychological sense...

I'll agree to that entirely. All addiction is psychological. Some recreational drugs have a component where if you tried to cut it out cold-turkey after extended usage you could have serious physical side effect (seizure, stroke) and serious psychological effects (hallucinations, psychotic episode) like methadone. Pot is NOT one of them.

But, you can have physical reactions to pot withdrawal (sweating, shaking, dry mouth) as well as stronger effects like unable to get an erection and unable to sleep. So it's a bit muddy. CRM might be confusing dependent with addiction... I dunno. He seems a bit confused when he says things like "very quick to get over it" but then says "need."

Granted I only have a bachelor's degree in psychology, I'm far from an expert who works in the field. I focused on neuropsych so my teaching sorta lead me to mix the mental and physical parts of the brain together as inseparable. Yes, I was one of the guys who walked to class every day with a sheep brain in jar. :)

Nausicaa
01-17-11, 05:26 PM
Can you point to any study which says marijuana is physically addictive with "withdrawal symptoms?"

This is being discussed because an earlier article tried to blame the shooter's psychosis on the drug.

My post was on your side of the argument! :)
*
Studies I've seen that attribute withdrawal symptoms to cannabis indicate things like insomnia, irritability, abnormal appetite, etc. for a few days.* Again, pretty minor stuff that most people won't even notice.* I don't know what studies these were as I can't even recall them specifically.* Again, I'm on your side here.*
*
I just think it is a bit disingenuous to parse the argument such that the focus is on 'physical addiction' and then go on to say it isn't an addictive substance.* There are definitely addictive qualities to the drug which can lead to habitual use and in turn a certain level of dependence.* Just because people with the will power to quit don't encounter much trouble doesn't discount the potential for addiction.
*
I'm not anti-weed.* While I don't want to advertise my bona-fides in this area, short of Lemmy I doubt there is another member on this forum that consumes as much as I do.* I will readily admit I am addicted to it.* Yet, I am perfectly capable of going days and weeks without a smoke when circumstances require it.

Th0r S1mpson
01-17-11, 05:46 PM
It really would be nice if this whole marijuana conversation could be split off into its own topic. I'm interested in updates on Gifford as they arise.

zombeaner
01-17-11, 05:50 PM
Yeah, and it has no bearing on Loughner's motives either, as far as I can tell.

Navinabob
01-17-11, 05:53 PM
It really would be nice if this whole marijuana conversation could be split off into its own topic. I'm interested in updates on Gifford as they arise.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gabrielle-giffords-medical-20110118,0,6423740.story

Gabrielle Giffords responds well to skull surgery, doctors say

Surgeons at Tucson's University Medical Center on Monday said they had operated on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' skull Saturday to repair damage to her eye sockets caused by the bullet that passed through her head in the shooting a week earlier.

The medical team had made minor repairs to the orbits around her eyes when she was first brought in for surgery in order to relieve pressure on her brain, but they didn't want to spend a lot of time on it then, Dr. Michael Lemole, the neurosurgeon who was part of the trauma team that cared for her, said at a Monday news conference.

"We put it off until such time as she was through the critical period," he said. "We did want to repair it within a reasonable time to prevent complications."

The bullet fired by Jared Loughner entered above her left eye, passed through the left hemisphere of her brain, and exited through the rear of her skull.

In the two-hour surgery, the team made an incision above Giffords' eyebrow, removed the rim of her eye socket and removed bone fragments that were impinging on the brain. They then reconstructed the skull with metal mesh and closed the wound.

"We're happy to say that, within a few hours of surgery, she was waking up and back to the same level of interaction where she was before the surgery," Lemole said.

While she was under anesthesia, Dr. Randall Friese, associate medical director of the trauma center, performed a tracheotomy so that Giffords could be removed from a ventilator and inserted a feeding tube through her abdominal wall into her stomach so that she could obtain nutrients. She has "tolerated them well," Friese said.

The tracheotomy tube "doesn't allow her to get air past her vocal cords," Friese said, so physicians have not yet been able to determine if Giffords can speak. "She cannot vocalize, but she certainly [could] mouth words when she is ready to do that," he added.

The doctors are not certain how well she can see. "We have a suspicion she can see something, but a detailed ophthalmological examination hasn't been conducted," Lemole said.

Giffords' husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, told doctors that she had been smiling at him. Friese said that sometimes people see what they want to see, but that "if he says she's smiling, I buy it."

Kelly also told Diane Sawyer of ABC News that Giffords gave him a 10-minute neck massage.


Wait... she gave him a massage? "So doc.... I know she just came out of surgery and all. But can we um... do it yet?"

rw2516
01-17-11, 05:55 PM
I remember way back when they use to say smoking pot made guy's grow tits.

dave-o
01-17-11, 06:01 PM
I remember way back when they use to say smoking pot made guy's grow tits.

I think you mean boobs. Guys already have tits! ;)

Nesbit
01-17-11, 06:03 PM
I remember way back when they use to say smoking pot made guy's grow tits.

You mean I've been smoking a quarter a week for nothing?

Groucho
01-17-11, 06:13 PM
You mean I've been smoking a quarter a week for nothing?I thought women already had tits? :hscratch:

Dr Mabuse
01-17-11, 06:15 PM
Boobs and tits are not the same thing you dolts!

Ky-Fi
01-17-11, 06:33 PM
It really would be nice if this whole marijuana conversation could be split off into its own topic. I'm interested in updates on Gifford as they arise.

Dude, you're harshin' our buzz. :(

Navinabob
01-17-11, 06:41 PM
So far:

Responses to update on Giffords condition < Responses to Palin's fault
Responses to update on Giffords condition < Responses to Obama's speech
Responses to update on Giffords condition < Responses to tits are not boobs
Responses to update on Giffords condition < Responses to pot is addictive

Losing battle Thor.

Th0r S1mpson
01-17-11, 06:44 PM
Losing battle Thor.

You apparently haven't heard that I'll be out in 3D this summer.

Nausicaa
01-17-11, 06:57 PM
I thought women already had tits? :hscratch:

:lol:

I bet Nesbit thought these jokes were behind her.

NotThatGuy
01-17-11, 07:00 PM
You mean I've been smoking a quarter a week for nothing?

Hey look! There is a thread (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/584661-marijuana-addictive-some-scientists-think-so.html) about pot! That is probably a great place to talk about pot! All the cool kids are doing it!

And now back to the thread at hand....the media blaming conservatives for a certifiable nutjob shooting a gov't official.

CRM114
01-18-11, 11:03 AM
Don't forget, a blogger some pages back blamed the shooter's psychosis on marijuana use. Do you buy that? Or was it listening to Slipknot? Or playing video games?

VinVega
01-18-11, 11:20 AM
My eyes are all red and watery from walking into this thread. :hippie:

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 11:36 AM
Giffords may be released from the hospital in "days to weeks." Very promising.

zombeaner
01-18-11, 11:37 AM
Since when is "a blogger" a source for news?

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 11:40 AM
Since when is "a blogger" a source for news?

2007 or so, I think.

CRM114
01-18-11, 12:06 PM
:lol:

Tracer Bullet
01-18-11, 12:15 PM
Giffords may be released from the hospital in "days to weeks." Very promising.

:thumbsup:

Simply amazing.

Mabuse
01-18-11, 12:56 PM
While it's now a certainty that the shooter was not persuaded by politics, conservative rhetoric, or any other bullshit that the media claimed in the first 72 hours, it is, nonetheless, kind of awsome how this played out.

Usually when this shit happens politicians immediately start blaming the media before the facts are in: Video games, music, movies, etc. This time the media blamed the politicians. That's a pretty awsome reversal. Maybe the media has gotten tired of being the whipping boy, and they realize they're powerful enough to turn the tables.

Groucho
01-18-11, 01:11 PM
While it's now a certainty that the shooter was not persuaded by politics, conservative rhetoric, or any other bullshit that the media claimed in the first 72 hours, it is, nonetheless, kind of awsome how this played out.Six people are still dead, but hey Sarah Palin isn't to blame so it's time to celebrate!

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 01:37 PM
Six people are still dead, but hey Sarah Palin isn't to blame so it's time to celebrate!

I think he meant awesome in that "I crapped my pants but the blood in the stool turned out to not be colon cancer" kind of way.

Groucho
01-18-11, 01:38 PM
Hey, that IS awesome.

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 01:40 PM
Only until you find out it also wasn't your blood type.

VinVega
01-18-11, 02:19 PM
Giffords may be released from the hospital in "days to weeks." Very promising.
That's quite remarkable. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.

rw2516
01-18-11, 05:01 PM
So what are the PC ramifications of this?
Will the phrases like "I need blank like I need another hole in the head" be banned? Seriously.

Groucho
01-18-11, 05:14 PM
Can you give an example of other phrases that have been banned in past?

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 05:16 PM
If Kennedy didn't bring an end to that phrase, this will not either. Obviously it would be utterly stupid for anyone to make such a remark regarding Gifford or current legislation that Gifford was involved with, however.

rw2516
01-18-11, 05:45 PM
If Kennedy didn't bring an end to that phrase, this will not either. Obviously it would be utterly stupid for anyone to make such a remark regarding Gifford or current legislation that Gifford was involved with, however.

So, if Mel Gibson was on Jay Leno:

Jay: "So, Mel. Got a new girlfriend?"
Mel: "I need a new girlfriend like I need another hole in the head"

Don't think he would catch all kind of flack? Given the constant, round the clock coverage of this event and the second by second updates concerning the head wound.

Th0r S1mpson
01-18-11, 05:49 PM
He would catch flack, but not for that.

Dr Mabuse
01-18-11, 05:54 PM
If Mel Gibson were to say that on Leno, he should be shot in the head with a Glock for doing so!

:lol:

JasonF
01-18-11, 06:38 PM
I, too, am outraged by the hypothetical PC police. How come we hypothetically can't say "pineapples" any more?

wm lopez
01-18-11, 07:16 PM
Since when is "a blogger" a source for news?
Since FOXNEWS became #1 and a certain WING in America wanted to hear good news about their way of thinking. So these bloggers go and post and keep there like minds happy.

Jason
01-18-11, 08:47 PM
I, too, am outraged by the hypothetical PC police. How come we hypothetically can't say "pineapples" any more?

I'm sorry, I don't do a lot of hand-wringing over the PC boogieman, why would the word "pineapple" be banned?

zombeaner
01-18-11, 08:51 PM
Since FOXNEWS became #1 and a certain WING in America wanted to hear good news about their way of thinking. So these bloggers go and post and keep there like minds happy.

So then do you, like Stephen Colbert, agree that global warming is a problem because Al Gore's movie made money?

DGibFen
01-18-11, 10:05 PM
Law-enforcement officials interview 300 people in probe of Tucson shooting

By David Nakamura , Dana Hedgpeth and Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 18, 2011; 6:36 AM

TUCSON - A team of 250 federal investigators and 130 local detectives trying to understand why Jared Lee Loughner went on his alleged killing spree has conducted more than 300 interviews with family, friends and neighbors since the shooting. But they remain stumped about what ultimately prompted the 22-year-old's descent into violence.

Investigators have had little success gaining information from either the uncooperative Loughner or his parents, who have told authorities that they had little recent contact with their son, law enforcement sources said.

With so little help coming from the immediate family, investigators are probing associates and witnesses for details that could help them fill out a portrait of Loughner, a task one source described as completing a "jigsaw puzzle."

Among the evidence collected by the FBI is the video surveillance system at the Safeway where the Jan. 8 attack took place, along with a store window, tiles and pieces of the wall. Store employees said two bullets crashed through the window, one landing in a pack of 7-Up soda.

It could take weeks for investigators to fully determine Loughner's state of mind in the days leading up to the rampage, the sources said. Virtually every member of the FBI's 200-person Phoenix field division, coupled with 50 additional agents from Washington and Tucson and more from the Capitol Police and the U.S. Marshals Service, have fanned out across southeastern Arizona. About 130 detectives from the Pima County sheriff's office also are involved.

"Did you notice anything that made the hair on the back of your neck stand up?" an FBI agent asked Steven Rayle and his companion, Laura Tennen, who were at the scene when Loughner allegedly opened fire, killing six and wounding 13. During the interview in their house, Rayle recalled, the federal agent and a Pima deputy wanted to know "anything that was odd or spooky" about Loughner's behavior that day.

They "were just getting super-detailed about stuff," said Rayle, who had never before seen Loughner.

More than a week after the rampage, investigators have retraced his steps in the days and weeks before the shooting and collected details of his life going back to high school. Agents have described the "grisly" Safeway surveillance video as clearly capturing the crime.

And they are talking with Loughner's parents, Randy and Amy. One law enforcement source said Amy Loughner appears to be in a state of disbelief and shock.

Among those interviewed by the FBI are the 31 Safeway employees who were at the store Jan. 8. Two of the 31 bullets fired went through the Safeway's windows, said assistant store manager Javier Rivas, and one traveled through a wall, hit a ceiling tile and ended up on the floor of the meat department.

The other bullet landed in a 12-pack of 7-Up soda on display in the front of the store, Rivas said in an interview. Employees found that bullet after the manager noticed liquid on the floor and soda leaking out of a bottle. Rivas said Loughner came inside the store and bought a bottle of water, then left from the south entrance and placed the water bottle in a grocery cart before approaching the main entrance where Giffords was greeting constituents.

The investigation is proceeding along parallel paths: While the FBI is focusing on preparing for the criminal case, the Capitol Police and U.S. Marshals Service are taking the lead on using FBI interviews to analyze the "why." Namely, why Loughner's life took a violent turn and why he allegedly targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was wounded in the shooting, as well as whether the shootings could have been prevented.

The latter effort involves separating interviews about the crime from "intelligence interviews," which have little value for the prosecution's case but which can be used to help deter threats against Congress members and other federal officials. The Secret Service is expected to be involved.

While FBI profilers took similar steps to understand the minds of such high-profile killers as D.C. snipers John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo and Virginia Tech gunman Seung Hui Cho, Loughner's case is unique because he allegedly targeted a member of Congress.

"We're talking to everyone he ever came into contact with," said one senior federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. "The spectrum is unlimited - it will go further and further back into his life. If someone called up right now and said, 'I knew him four years ago and he was talking about how he wanted to go out and hurt people,' that person gets an interview."

Yet despite the exhaustive interviews, and a trove of online videos and entries to message boards on gaming Web sites that Loughner made over the years, investigators have been unable to understand what cause him to allegedly erupt into the shocking outburst of violence. Investigators also have yet to nail down why Loughner allegedly targeted Giffords and have not learned of any interaction between the two beyond an event in 2007 at which Loughner asked Giffords a question.

"I haven't seen anything that says somebody knows, somebody heard him say something, that gave an indication of a path to violence," the senior federal official said.

An Arizona state legislator who was briefed on the investigation said officials have a good timeline of Loughner's movements on the day of the killing and before it.

"But I don't think they have anything with regard to his state of mind because he isn't talking and the family is very stand-offish," added the legislator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the briefing was private. "They're not a very tight-knit family, and they're not able to get into his state of mind without him talking. There's hope that after a while he might be open to discussion."

The investigation is being run jointly by the Pima County sheriff's office and the FBI's Phoenix field division, which is led by Special Agent in Charge Nathan Thomas Gray. He is a 21-year FBI veteran who has held several posts at the agency's Washington headquarters. Another key figure is Annette Bartlett, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's resident agency in Tucson. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is handling evidence related to the Glock 19 firearm and ammunition used in the crime.

On the day of the shooting, Roger Salzgeber, 61, of Tucson, who worked as a volunteer for Giffords, attended the congresswoman's event with his wife, Faith. He helped subdue the shooter before police arrived and recalls Loughner wearing glasses and a tight-fitting black knit cap.

Salzgeber said he was interviewed by investigators for an hour on the day of the shooting at a mobile command center that had been set up near the Safeway. Agents confiscated Salzgeber's hooded sweatshirt, which had an embroidered Australian sheep dog on it, because it had blood on the sleeve and shoulder. The blood was another man's, Salzgeber says he believes.

On Thursday, he said, another FBI agent came to his house and asked to look at his silver 2003 Toyota 4Runner. The agent explained that he was looking for lodged bullets because there were 31 rounds in the magazine clip from the gun involved in the shooting, but police could only find 20-some casings, Salzgeber said. The agent spent about 30 minutes inspecting the vehicle and left without telling him whether found anything, he said.

Rayle, the witness, said he told investigators that Loughner "seemed very enthusiastic about shooting people. The way he went about it, he was really just enthusiastic about shooting bullets into people."

Rayle's companion, Tennen, said that unlike many witnesses who stayed at the site for hours, she and Rayle left the Safeway parking lot shortly after medical personnel arrived. Sheriff's deputies were guarding the parking lot exits to catch witnesses, she added, and she gave the deputy their names, addresses and phone numbers.

A few days later, she said, investigators arrived at their door.

"They didn't notify us," Tennen said. "The doorbell rang and they were there."

Staff writers Jerry Markon and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/18/AR2011011801155.html

Groucho
01-18-11, 10:56 PM
Gaming message boards? Wonder if he ever posted here at Video Game Talk...

NotThatGuy
01-18-11, 11:15 PM
That article had a lot of detail....without having a lot. Odd read.

JasonF
01-18-11, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry, I don't do a lot of hand-wringing over the PC boogieman, why would the word "pineapple" be banned?

Because of the liberal PC police, of course! It's offensive to ... oh, let's say Samoans. It doesn't really matter. The point is the PC police are always banning words, and if they haven't banned "I need a pineapple like I need a hole in the head" yet, it's only a matter of time.

brayzie
01-19-11, 12:46 AM
The only PC phrase or terminology I've heard of is "brown out" to replace "black out" but I only heard it on an episode of Dark Angel. Maybe somewhere else but can't remember.

SkullOrchard
01-19-11, 01:28 AM
The only PC phrase or terminology I've heard of is "brown out" to replace "black out" but I only heard it on an episode of Dark Angel. Maybe somewhere else but can't remember.

A brown-out is a condition of lower than normal power line voltage being supplied by your local utility or generating equipment. This condition may be short term (minutes to hours) or long term (1/2 day or more). A power line voltage reduction of 8 - 12% is usually considered a brown-out.

A black-out is a complete loss of power for whatever reason and is usually short term, as it is so serious that the generating company will classify the situation as an emergency. However, just occasionally a catastrophe may cause a longer term black-out.

Nausicaa
01-19-11, 11:25 AM
Why do we need 250 (!!!) federal investigators out there trying to determine the motive for this attack? Why is it so important to understand why he shot a woman in the head and killed 6 people, injuring a dozen more? The fact is he shot and killed those people and there were many witnesses. The shooter is clearly delusional such that looking for some cut-and-dry rational explanation for his actions is futile. Is it really worth the effort and expense to see 'if the shooting could have been prevented'?

Save Ferris
01-19-11, 11:43 AM
Because their mentality is: "If we can piece together this 'jigsaw puzzle' we can prevent such attacks from ever happening again."

Can we? Is it possible to ever keep someone from going crazy like this? It's like predicting earthquakes or asteroid impacts.

CRM114
01-19-11, 11:46 AM
Why do we need 250 (!!!) federal investigators out there trying to determine the motive for this attack? Why is it so important to understand why he shot a woman in the head and killed 6 people, injuring a dozen more? The fact is he shot and killed those people and there were many witnesses. The shooter is clearly delusional such that looking for some cut-and-dry rational explanation for his actions is futile. Is it really worth the effort and expense to see 'if the shooting could have been prevented'?

I always wondered why investigators work so hard to get a motive. I think it might have to do with the prosecution's case.

Mabuse
01-19-11, 02:13 PM
Six people are still dead, but hey Sarah Palin isn't to blame so it's time to celebrate!

My comment had nothing to do with Sarah Palin. I don't know where you got that from. My comment was pretty clear. And I don't mean to ignore or ridicule the dead. I'm just commenting on the way the blame game has been played this time around. It's very different this time. I think we're seeing the media becoming an entity that can act defensively for once. It's gradually gaining the upper hand on politicians.

wm lopez
01-19-11, 02:58 PM
So then do you, like Stephen Colbert, agree that global warming is a problem because Al Gore's movie made money?
Stephen Colbert is a liberal who's act is to funny as a conservative pundit.
So he came up with that Al Gore's movie made money problem from Mel Gibson's THE PASSION. It is very bad when anything Jesus makes money and gets the public attention. It can cause people to read the Bible.
It can cause people to believe we are in end times.
It can cause people to repent.
Satan does not want that, no sir.

movielib
01-19-11, 05:24 PM
Stephen Colbert is a liberal who's act is to funny as a conservative pundit.
So he came up with that Al Gore's movie made money problem from Mel Gibson's THE PASSION. It is very bad when anything Jesus makes money and gets the public attention. It can cause people to read the Bible.
It can cause people to believe we are in end times.
It can cause people to repent.
Satan does not want that, no sir.
I'm with Satan. :up:

JasonF
01-19-11, 08:03 PM
I just thank God every day that Mel Gibson made that movie. I wonder how many people would never have heard about Jesus or the Bible if he hadn't?

Jason
01-19-11, 09:30 PM
Why do we need 250 (!!!) federal investigators out there trying to determine the motive for this attack? Why is it so important to understand why he shot a woman in the head and killed 6 people, injuring a dozen more? The fact is he shot and killed those people and there were many witnesses. The shooter is clearly delusional such that looking for some cut-and-dry rational explanation for his actions is futile. Is it really worth the effort and expense to see 'if the shooting could have been prevented'?

Why investigate any crime? Criminals do bad things because they're evil or insane. There's no such thing as outside influences.

Or are you afraid they might find something you won't agree with?

jfoobar
01-19-11, 10:00 PM
Skimmed the last few pages of this thread and didn't see this astounding video posted, but I apologize if I missed it:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lt9ulRezH34" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

kvrdave
01-19-11, 11:10 PM
I, too, am outraged by the hypothetical PC police. How come we hypothetically can't say "pineapples" any more?

Having read your threads, this is hardly the first time you've been outraged by hypothetical politics. :lol:

:D

Lemdog
01-20-11, 09:25 AM
Skimmed the last few pages of this thread and didn't see this astounding video posted, but I apologize if I missed it:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lt9ulRezH34" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
I guess the "c" word is the new "n" word.

Th0r S1mpson
01-20-11, 09:28 AM
Giffords stood up.

Tracer Bullet
01-20-11, 10:03 AM
Giffords stood up.

Holy shit.

wishbone
01-20-11, 10:17 AM
Giffords stood up.Dr. Peter Rhee told Barbara Grijalva from CBS News affiliate KOLD that Giffords stood on her feet, aided by caregivers Wednesday. She did not try to walk. He also said she sat in a chair today in front of a window so she could see the mountains.This is an encouraging sign too,Kelly also told Sawyer that he's sure Giffords recognizes him at her hospital bed, since she has continued with a habit of playing with his wedding ring - moving it up and down his finger and sometimes putting it on her thumb.

"She's done that before," he said. "She'll do that if we're sitting in a restaurant. She'll do the same exact movements."http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/19/national/main7262346.shtml

CRM114
01-20-11, 10:39 AM
I'd love to see Giffords make a full recovery and visit the nut on death row to drive him further into insanity.

DGibFen
01-20-11, 03:16 PM
Pima County Attorney to Sheriff's Dept: STFU

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - The Pima County Sheriff's Department has suddenly turned off the flow of information in the January 8th mass shootings in Tucson. Shortly after noon Tuesday Sheriff's PIO Jason Ogan released this terse, one-line statement:

"Until further notice, due to a controversy between the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's office, no further information reference the January 8, 2011 shooting will be released."

The statement put an end to an interview that Sheriff's Bureau Chief Richard Kastigar had been scheduled to give just 45 minutes later, at 1:00 PM. Kastigar had agreed to come to KGUN9's newsroom to discuss security videos recorded in the Safeway parking lot the morning a deranged gunman opened fire, killing 6 people and wounding or injuring 14 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. CNN had booked a satellite interview with Kastigar, to be conducted by journalist Wolf Blitzer.

The federal government is prosecuting accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner only on those charges related to his actions against victims who were federal employees. It will be up to County Attorney Barbara LaWall to decide when, and whether, to prosecute Loughner on charges related to the other victims.

The word "controversy" contained in the statement would seem to imply some sort of disagreement or discord between the Sheriff's Department and LaWall's office. But the statement did not elaborate about the nature of the controversy. When contacted by KGUN9 News, LaWall's office declined to comment.

As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors. A legal expert that 9 On Your Side consulted did not share the concern. Whether LaWall has views on the subject, and if so, whether those views played into Wednesday's Sheriff's Department statement, is unknown.

The statement cuts off what had been a generous and open flow of information from the Sheriff's Department -- information that has at times captivated the entire nation. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been making the local and national media rounds himself for days, appearing on CNN as recently as Tuesday. On Saturday Kastigar appeared in an ABC News town hall meeting on the shooting aftermath, hosted by network anchor Christiane Amanpour, which was broadcast to the nation the following day.

Kastigar has said recently that the security tapes from the morning of the shooting are crystal clear and show exactly what happened and in what order.

Several people tackled the gunman that morning and held him for deputies to arrive. Authorities have identified that gunman as Loughner, who remains in federal custody in Phoenix.

The Sheriff's Department had been so diligent about sharing information with the public that it established a web page just for information about the shooting. That web page is still available -- with the most recent posting advising of the information shut-off.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13870560

(Yes, the ABC affiliate for Tuscon is "KGUN".)

Dr Mabuse
01-20-11, 03:59 PM
Of course that fool of a sheriff's word will come up in trial, I posted about that a few pages back.

King of the idiots. He has dethroned Costanza.

wm lopez
01-20-11, 07:44 PM
I just thank God every day that Mel Gibson made that movie. I wonder how many people would never have heard about Jesus or the Bible if he hadn't?
What's the memership in DVDTALK there's your answer.

Th0r S1mpson
01-20-11, 07:47 PM
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. :lol:

orangecrush
01-21-11, 09:25 AM
Gaming message boards? Wonder if he ever posted here at Video Game Talk...I'd assume NEOGAF.

grundle
01-21-11, 05:30 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Important note, just to make things perfectly clear: I did NOT make any of the signs depicted on this page, nor do I approve of them, nor do I have any information about any of the people who made them. I am reposting these images not in order to threaten Bush but rather to express my disappointment that such threats seem to have never been investigated.

http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2416.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/saveearthkillbush.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/hangbushringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbush.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/onlydoperingo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/headshotringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9676.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2393.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/bushbeheaded.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/BushWhackerElMarco.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/headbasketElMarco.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004/signs/125-2584_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/012005aaguillotineFredAskew.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_april_10_2004/characters/120-2044_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/143-4350_IMG.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/busheffigyburnyoutube.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/09192006lynchFredAskew.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9660.JPG

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/leeharvey.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/elmarcolouisxvi.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/noosepuppetringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/shouldhangringo.jpg

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/nooseLastMohican.jpg

I haven't been able to find any pictures like the ones above that say "Obama" instead of "Bush."

arminius
01-21-11, 05:40 PM
Duh, there are no crosshairs in any of the above.

shadowhawk2020
01-21-11, 06:26 PM
I haven't been able to find any pictures like the ones above that say "Obama" instead of "Bush."

I don't see one elected official in the group... Am I wrong?

BKenn01
01-21-11, 07:09 PM
I'd love to see Giffords make a full recovery and visit the nut on death row to drive him further into insanity.

This



I don't see one elected official in the group... Am I wrong?

Why is the word "crosshairs" or whatever a big deal if it is said by a politician. Politicians have been saying these things since the beginning of our nation. And using the word "crosshairs" or "Target" seems rather tame compared to what old T.J. said himself.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

JasonF
01-21-11, 07:20 PM
Why is the word "crosshairs" or whatever a big deal if it is said by a politician. Politicians have been saying these things since the beginning of our nation. And using the word "crosshairs" or "Target" seems rather tame compared to what old T.J. said himself.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

When a Senator or a Vice Presidential candidate or a commentator with an audience of millions says something, it lends the statement some legitimacy that is not present when the same statement is made by a random smelly hippie or some random guy who signed up for a blog on DailyKos. That's the power of the bully pulpit that we hear so much about.

shadowhawk2020
01-21-11, 08:53 PM
This





Why is the word "crosshairs" or whatever a big deal if it is said by a politician. Politicians have been saying these things since the beginning of our nation. And using the word "crosshairs" or "Target" seems rather tame compared to what old T.J. said himself.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson


I honestly don't care what they say I personally don't care if they use crosshairs.

And if people on the right want to say that the fringe hippies and crazies on the left are in equal stature (in comparison) to the elected leaders of their political beliefs that is fine as well.

Dr Mabuse
01-21-11, 08:55 PM
I don't see one elected official in the group... Am I wrong?

:lol:

crazyronin
01-21-11, 10:10 PM
When a Senator or a Vice Presidential candidate or a commentator with an audience of millions says something, it lends the statement some legitimacy that is not present when the same statement is made by a random smelly hippie or some random guy who signed up for a blog on DailyKos. That's the power of the bully pulpit that we hear so much about.



http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7030/paulkanjorski.jpg

What a random, smelly hippie who preached violence against others might look like.

JasonF
01-21-11, 10:24 PM
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/7030/paulkanjorski.jpg

What a random, smelly hippie who preached violence against others might look like.

I thought Kanjorski's comments about Rick Scott were pretty reprehensible. Steve Cohen's comparison of Republicans to Nazis was also terrible. But first, that's not who the pictures grundle posted were, and second, that's two back-benchers, neither of whom has the profile of many of the people on the right who spout similar rhetoric.

But whether it's a smelly hippie or a Democratic Representative or a Republican half-term-Governor-slash-Vice-Presidential-candidate, I condemn any rhetoric that suggests that violence against elected officials is appropriate in our political system.

grundle
01-22-11, 11:02 PM
I don't see one elected official in the group... Am I wrong?

You're right.

But my point is that the hatred coming from the left seems to be far more pervasive than the hatred coming from the right.

grundle
01-22-11, 11:04 PM
Duh, there are no crosshairs in any of the above.

True.

But every one of them makes a reference to killing Bush, including a few with death by shooting.

creekdipper
01-24-11, 12:53 PM
When a Senator or a Vice Presidential candidate or a commentator with an audience of millions says something, it lends the statement some legitimacy that is not present when the same statement is made by a random smelly hippie or some random guy who signed up for a blog on DailyKos. That's the power of the bully pulpit that we hear so much about.

So when Alan Grayson says that Republicans want old people to die...and die quickly, that doesn't sound like a threat to some old guy thinking his medical benefits are going to be revoked?

What gets me is how people can talk about "equivalency" (calling people "enemies', saying that your side will "play hell" if the other side gains influence, associating your opponent with the Taliban, etc. somehow doesn't equate with 'reload'). The same people will then admit that MOST people are not going to pick up guns & shoot up crowds, but that crosshairs & words invoking 'gun imagery' can push UNBALANCED persons into acts to violence.

Let's see now...we're admitting that mentally unstable people are likely to be the ones influenced...but then we expect those same mentally unstable people to be able to sort out the "equivalent" levels of threats implied in political rhetoric. So now we're judging the person's response based upon what sane people would probably due when we've already admitted that sane people wouldn't respond to either stimuli.

To a mentally unstable person, a politician can utter the word "turnip" and that will provide sufficient justification to go shoot someone.

David Berkowitz's lawyers are probably unhappy that this debate wasn't around when he was receiving messages from Sam. They could have said that the dog was merely relaying messages from Palin.

creekdipper
01-24-11, 12:54 PM
True.

But every one of them makes a reference to killing Bush, including a few with death by shooting.

But they're only JOKING. Isn't the distinction obvious?

Only one side has a sense of humor and is therefore never to blame for inciting violence.

Four legs good...two legs bad.

creekdipper
01-24-11, 12:58 PM
I don't see one elected official in the group... Am I wrong?

You mean that's not an unshaven Harry Reid in the fourth pic from the bottom? Although I do have to admit that he looks more like Willie without the pigtails.

I also thought I spotted Jesse Ventura in a hat.

wmansir
02-04-11, 08:11 PM
It was reported today that Gifford's husband, Mark Kelly, had decided to resume training for the April 19 launch date. They haven't given many details about her condition lately, but it was telling that Kelly said "I know her very well and would be very comfortable with the decision."

Navinabob
02-04-11, 08:30 PM
If he doesn't go into space, he lets the shooter win... again.

kvrdave
02-05-11, 01:35 AM
When a Senator or a Vice Presidential candidate or a commentator with an audience of millions says something, it lends the statement some legitimacy that is not present when the same statement is made by a random smelly hippie or some random guy who signed up for a blog on DailyKos. That's the power of the bully pulpit that we hear so much about.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama on the campaign trail.

Seriously, buying into the crosshairs thing like Palin was unique takes the same mentality as waiting for Obama to prove he was born in Hawaii.

kvrdave
02-05-11, 01:36 AM
<img src=http://www.zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/passive-aggressive_syndrome/IMG_9676.JPG>

:lol: I love this one. Death to extremists!!!

crazyronin
02-05-11, 08:08 AM
Then you'll love this:

E3ctO7fdrcc

"What do you want to do with Clarence Thomas after we impeach him?"

"Cut off his toes one by one and feed them to him."

"String him up."

"Put him back in the fields."

Peaceful and civil rhetoric from the fun loving moonbats at Code Pink.

Trout
02-05-11, 08:19 AM
"String him up."



That woman was sooo baked...

To be honest, the extreme left and right are freakin' scary as hell.

jhagler
02-18-11, 03:55 PM
Okay, I am confused. What possible political opinions could a firefighter have that would prevent him from going to help at the scene? I just can't fathom a scenerio where your political views would be relevant at all in such a situation. Glad he is gone, only wish they could get some of his pension revoked.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/18/arizona.shooting.firefighter/#

(CNN) -- A Tucson firefighter refused to go with his colleagues to the scene of the mass shooting involving U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, saying he went home instead because he was "distraught over the magnitude of how this would affect the country."

Teams of emergency personnel responded January 8 to a supermarket parking lot, where a suspect -- identified as Jared Lee Loughner, 22 -- killed six and wounded 13 others during a "Congress on Your Corner" meet-and-greet event.

Mark Ekstrum, a firefighter in the southern Arizona city, was not among them.

According to a memorandum, dated January 9, from Capt. Ben Williams of the Tucson Fire Department, Ekstrum came into a room of firefighters preparing to deliver and set up nonemergency items at the Safeway and told them that, "for the good of the crew," he wanted to call in sick. Williams wrote that Ekstrum said he did not want to be part of the "political bantering."The captain, according to the memo, emphatically told Ekstrum that the firefighter's help was needed and he couldn't leave -- an assertion backed up by other colleagues at the station.

The memo stated that shortly thereafter, Ekstrum told Williams he had different political views from his fellow firefighters. At the end of the conversation, Ekstrum said, "I'm leaving, I'm going home sick." A fire engine then stopped to pick up two other firefighters, in part to take Ekstrum's place, according to Williams.

In a statement, dated February 15, Ekstrum wrote that he was a supporter of Giffords, having found her responsive and smart during a previous meeting and voting for her in the previous fall's election. The congresswoman, who was shot first and at close range through her brain, is recovering at a Houston rehabilitation center.

The firefighter said he had seen TV reports before his conversations with Williams, describing himself as "very passionate about our country and distraught over the magnitude" of the shooting targeting the congresswoman.

"Countless thoughts were streaming through my brain," Ekstrum wrote. "I became distracted to the point of not being able to perform my routine station duties to such an extent that I seriously doubted my ability to focus on an emergency call."

The firefighter wrote that he decided, "for the best interest of my crew, and more importantly the citizens, to go home on sick leave."

Ekstrum acknowledged, in his statement, that he "failed" to effectively express his sentiment to Williams and others. The next day, he said he felt he had "crossed a line" and "should have been there, regardless of how responsible I was attempting to be from the standpoint of distraction."

Two days after the shooting, on a Monday, Ekstrum said he began the process of retiring -- a move that he said he initiated himself, not at the prompting of his supervisors.

This week, the Arizona Daily Star published an article about the incident. The Tucson Fire Department, in a statement issued Thursday, called out the report's claim that Ekstrum "refused to help" as "simply not true."

"He had an inability to remain at work due to emotional stress related to events he had been watching on television and was (in) no way political," the fire department's statement said.

The fire department noted that, had he gone, Ekstrum would have joined his crew nearly two hours after the shooting to deliver and set up tents. They didn't treat any victims, who were by then all at hospitals.

Ekstrum "abruptly retired" and didn't give the department "a clear understanding of what led to his decision," the statement added.

"Everyone in this community suffered some effect of what occurred that day," the fire department said. "For Mr. Ekstrum, it was overwhelming."

Navinabob
02-18-11, 04:26 PM
Okay, I am confused. What possible political opinions could a firefighter have that would prevent him from going to help at the scene? I just can't fathom a scenerio where your political views would be relevant at all in such a situation. Glad he is gone, only wish they could get some of his pension revoked.


He could not deal with a bloodbath. I'm sure he was tested against fire, I'm sure he helped in the scene of accidents, I'm sure he was trained well and apparently had a long career. I'm not sure what soft of training you expect that prepares you to attend to a scene of mass murder and assassination. I applaud every hero that rushed to the scene, but won't fault someone for not being able to handle it.

Jhagler, have you ever been tested like that? Some good doctors can't operate on a child, some good officers never recover when another officer is killed, some soldiers freeze when they come under fire. It happens.

The firefighter did not refuse to go because of his political view, he refused to go because someone he obviously respected was shot and reported killed. He cracked. It is a rough job mentally where you are under a lot of pressure mentally and sometimes must face your own mortality. There is a reason alcoholism, suicide and depression are all very common among firefighters...

jhagler
02-18-11, 04:37 PM
He could not deal with a bloodbath. I'm sure he was tested against fire, I'm sure he helped in the scene of accidents, I'm sure he was trained well and apparently had a long career. I'm not sure what soft of training you expect that prepares you to attend to a scene of mass murder and assassination. I applaud every hero that rushed to the scene, but won't fault someone for not being able to handle it.


If that were the case, I could possibly understand. But I don't think that was it. The stuff I read indicated he didn't go because of differences in political discourse with his crew. But then again, I wasn't there, so I am only going on third hand accounts from the media.

jhagler
02-18-11, 04:46 PM
One other thing I find interesting but shouldn't find surprising. In looking at the articles about this and associated comments, the far left is accusing the guy of being a Republican and not going because he hated Giffords and wanted her to die, and the far right is saying he a Democrat and wimped out, then attack the fact that he is in a Union.

I suppose we should never let facts get in the way of a good attack.

Navinabob
02-18-11, 04:48 PM
It appears he was upset with the "political bantering." Dark humor is VERY common as a group starts to mentally distract themselves. I'm sure accusations and theories were popping up as well (as did with this thread). It appears he could NOT deal with the noise and the massacre at the same time. If you read the article in its entirety he later explains his reasoning, his supervisors explain his reasoning as well:

(CNN) -- A Tucson firefighter refused to go with his colleagues to the scene of the mass shooting involving U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, saying he went home instead because he was "distraught over the magnitude of how this would affect the country."

Teams of emergency personnel responded January 8 to a supermarket parking lot, where a suspect -- identified as Jared Lee Loughner, 22 -- killed six and wounded 13 others during a "Congress on Your Corner" meet-and-greet event.

Mark Ekstrum, a firefighter in the southern Arizona city, was not among them.

According to a memorandum, dated January 9, from Capt. Ben Williams of the Tucson Fire Department, Ekstrum came into a room of firefighters preparing to deliver and set up nonemergency items at the Safeway and told them that, "for the good of the crew," he wanted to call in sick. Williams wrote that Ekstrum said he did not want to be part of the "political bantering."The captain, according to the memo, emphatically told Ekstrum that the firefighter's help was needed and he couldn't leave -- an assertion backed up by other colleagues at the station.

The memo stated that shortly thereafter, Ekstrum told Williams he had different political views from his fellow firefighters. At the end of the conversation, Ekstrum said, "I'm leaving, I'm going home sick." A fire engine then stopped to pick up two other firefighters, in part to take Ekstrum's place, according to Williams.

In a statement, dated February 15, Ekstrum wrote that he was a supporter of Giffords, having found her responsive and smart during a previous meeting and voting for her in the previous fall's election. The congresswoman, who was shot first and at close range through her brain, is recovering at a Houston rehabilitation center.

The firefighter said he had seen TV reports before his conversations with Williams, describing himself as "very passionate about our country and distraught over the magnitude" of the shooting targeting the congresswoman.

"Countless thoughts were streaming through my brain," Ekstrum wrote. "I became distracted to the point of not being able to perform my routine station duties to such an extent that I seriously doubted my ability to focus on an emergency call."

The firefighter wrote that he decided, "for the best interest of my crew, and more importantly the citizens, to go home on sick leave."

Ekstrum acknowledged, in his statement, that he "failed" to effectively express his sentiment to Williams and others. The next day, he said he felt he had "crossed a line" and "should have been there, regardless of how responsible I was attempting to be from the standpoint of distraction."

Two days after the shooting, on a Monday, Ekstrum said he began the process of retiring -- a move that he said he initiated himself, not at the prompting of his supervisors.

This week, the Arizona Daily Star published an article about the incident. The Tucson Fire Department, in a statement issued Thursday, called out the report's claim that Ekstrum "refused to help" as "simply not true."

"He had an inability to remain at work due to emotional stress related to events he had been watching on television and was (in) no way political," the fire department's statement said.

The fire department noted that, had he gone, Ekstrum would have joined his crew nearly two hours after the shooting to deliver and set up tents. They didn't treat any victims, who were by then all at hospitals.

Ekstrum "abruptly retired" and didn't give the department "a clear understanding of what led to his decision," the statement added.

"Everyone in this community suffered some effect of what occurred that day," the fire department said. "For Mr. Ekstrum, it was overwhelming."

jhagler
02-18-11, 04:56 PM
It appears he was upset with the "political bantering." Dark humor is VERY common as a group starts to mentally distract themselves. I'm sure accusations and theories were popping up as well (as did with this thread). It appears he could NOT deal with the noise and the massacre at the same time. If you read the article in its entirety he later explains his reasoning, his supervisors explain his reasoning as well:


I guess my problem is I don't really buy these later explanations by him and the FD about how he was distracted and overwhelmed. It all sounds like typical CYA stuff now that they have had weeks to properly draft statements to deflect any blame. The contemporaneous stuff that was said and recorded at the time all indicated the problem had to due with political issues.

Navinabob
02-18-11, 05:24 PM
That's a valid point. It can go either way really. It is hard to say what really happened as the vague statements at the time should have further clarification. Maybe as the story breaks we'll get another account. Though honestly, witness statements regarding the situation will be pretty unreliable and I suspect will vary greatly in details and connotation. But still, good story. Thanks!

DGibFen
04-27-11, 02:05 PM
As good as it is to see her doing so well in recovery, this headline from ABC made me laugh:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/628/firstimagegiffords.jpg

<param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=13470032&gig_lt=1303927291888&gig_pt=1303927294393&gig_g=2" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=13470032&gig_lt=1303927291888&gig_pt=1303927294393&gig_g=2" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

kvrdave
04-27-11, 02:12 PM
First official photo

<img src=http://0.tqn.com/d/paranormal/1/0/3/B/loch_ness_1_lg.jpg>

BearFan
04-27-11, 02:46 PM
It is great to see her doing so much better and her recovery has been spectacular and I hope it continues. But, I think that really does not raise her up to the level of an American hero.

The Edit King
06-12-11, 12:54 PM
First (close-up) Photos of Gabby:

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/d7691b59-1.jpg

For story and another photo Click Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110612/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_photo).

Formerly known as missflores
06-12-11, 01:04 PM
First (close-up) Photos of Gabby:

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/d7691b59-1.jpg

For story and another photo Click Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110612/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_photo).

Glad she is doing well. And the photo is from 1 month ago.

SkullOrchard
06-12-11, 01:15 PM
Not guilty!

Tracer Bullet
06-12-11, 01:30 PM
She'll never go back to her job. I just hope that she has a good, albeit different, life than before.

Dr Mabuse
06-12-11, 02:18 PM
There was time in this country when some fuckup like that guy would have been given a fair trial and then quickly killed.

I hope she has a good life.

kvrdave
06-12-11, 04:09 PM
There was time in this country when some fuckup like that guy would have been given a fair trial and then quickly killed.

I hope she has a good life.

But then we'd be no better than him.

:lol: I said it in a serious voice and it still sounds stupid.

classicman2
06-12-11, 04:41 PM
I knew she wasn't a natural blonde. ;)

Bacon
06-12-11, 06:36 PM
First (close-up) Photos of Gabby:

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/d7691b59-1.jpg

For story and another photo Click Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110612/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_photo).

Wow I expected a nasty scar at best

DVD Polizei
06-12-11, 06:47 PM
That's the good side.

covenant
06-13-11, 12:35 AM
Yeah, the other side is a little uneven.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/12/article-0-0C8613C600000578-955_468x669.jpg

Howiefan
06-13-11, 09:51 AM
Yeah, the other side is a little uneven.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/12/article-0-0C8613C600000578-955_468x669.jpg

That was before they put back in a piece of her skull though I think (they removed it to allow her brain more room to swell). Once she grows her hair back, I think she'll look just like before.

Th0r S1mpson
06-13-11, 09:55 AM
Once she grows her hair back, I think she'll look just like before.

Not without multiple surgeries in the future. Looking "just like before" shouldn't be the goal any way, in my opinion. She looks great given what she went through.

Tracer Bullet
06-13-11, 09:56 AM
Not without multiple surgeries in the future. Looking "just like before" shouldn't be the goal any way, in my opinion. She looks great given what she went through.

Huh? Aside from the short hair and the lumpy head, she really doesn't look different. I agree with Howiefan.

Th0r S1mpson
06-13-11, 10:01 AM
I think that when we see video of her talking, there will be noticeable differences... particularly in muscle responsiveness, one eye being a little smaller, crooked smile, slight recession in the face... etc. All very subtle, and not worth correcting further through laborious surgeries. But not "just like before."

But like I said, she looks fantastic.

Tracer Bullet
06-13-11, 10:05 AM
I think that when we see video of her talking, there will be noticeable differences... particularly in muscle responsiveness, one eye being a little smaller, crooked smile, slight recession in the face... etc. All very subtle, and not worth correcting further through laborious surgeries. But not "just like before."

But like I said, she looks fantastic.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree. But they did a fantastic job with her, really.

I doubt we'll see any video of her for a while. Nor would I want to, really. It's actually a miracle that one hasn't leaked out. I'd like to think it's due to some long-forgotten decorum, but I bet it's just luck.

Th0r S1mpson
06-13-11, 11:39 AM
I was thinking about decorum with regards to that... we frequently see such deliberately hideous photos of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc. [withholding witty jab] on the front page story of CNN and FOX, let alone on the "blogosphere."

I sincerely hope the media goes out of there way to do the opposite here, no matter how much certain people scream that such treatment is liberal bias. ;)

I'm sure we'll see an interview at some point, and I look forward to it.

I'm sure there will be idiots who abuse her. Some know no shame.

Tracer Bullet
06-13-11, 11:42 AM
I'm sure we'll see an interview at some point, and I look forward to it.

I sincerely hope that she recovers enough for that to be possible.

I think we can all agree though that all the weird speculation about her running for the open Senate seat was incredibly off the mark.

Th0r S1mpson
06-13-11, 11:52 AM
I think we can all agree though that all the weird speculation about her running for the open Senate seat was incredibly off the mark.

Even if she had lost half her brain mass, she'd still be ahead of most Senators, so...

BearFan
06-13-11, 12:33 PM
Even if she had lost half her brain mass, she'd still be ahead of most Senators, so...

LOL, no kidding :)

I think it is great that she is doing well, but they thought that being shot makes her a front runner for a Senate seat.

Jason
06-13-11, 04:58 PM
Oh, I see what you're saying. I agree. But they did a fantastic job with her, really.

I doubt we'll see any video of her for a while. Nor would I want to, really. It's actually a miracle that one hasn't leaked out. I'd like to think it's due to some long-forgotten decorum, but I bet it's just luck.

A friend is a photographer who was shooting the last shuttle launch, and he said that they were offering $200,000 for a picture of her then, so no, it's not some long forgotten decorum.

DaveyJoe
06-13-11, 05:41 PM
A friend is a photographer who was shooting the last shuttle launch, and he said that they were offering $200,000 for a picture of her then, so no, it's not some long forgotten decorum.

Who is "they?" I'd be interested to find out specifically what type of media outlet can afford $200,000 for one photo.

BearFan
06-13-11, 05:50 PM
Who is "they?" I'd be interested to find out specifically what type of media outlet can afford $200,000 for one photo.

I would assume Nation Enquirer--type rag/entertainment-celeb based TV shows. They pay for photos often.

Th0r S1mpson
06-13-11, 05:52 PM
In fairness, it was only $200,000 if someone could provide a photo of Giffords partying on the beach with fat rolls hanging out while using her cell phone to tweet her privates to a student in Seattle.

JasonF
06-13-11, 06:03 PM
Who is "they?" I'd be interested to find out specifically what type of media outlet can afford $200,000 for one photo.

A photo like that? Just about any major publication. Do you really think they wouldn't get orders of magnitude more than that in revenue from the EXCLUSIVE! PICTURES! OF! CONGRESSWOMAN! GIFFORDS!?

RoyalTea
06-13-11, 06:03 PM
Who is "they?" I'd be interested to find out specifically what type of media outlet can afford $200,000 for one photo.

How much did the major media outlets spend to send folks to Alaska to read through 25000 pages of Palin emails?

DaveyJoe
06-13-11, 06:10 PM
How much did the major media outlets spend to send folks to Alaska to read through 25000 pages of Palin emails?

I have no idea, but considering how rapidly printed media is dying and losing advertising dollars, I seriously doubt it was very much money. $200,000 for one photo of Giffords seems highly exaggerated, only the wealthiest international media organization could afford something like that in the current climate.

DaveyJoe
06-13-11, 06:17 PM
A photo like that? Just about any major publication. Do you really think they wouldn't get orders of magnitude more than that in revenue from the EXCLUSIVE! PICTURES! OF! CONGRESSWOMAN! GIFFORDS!?

Of course they would, but I'm skeptical about that figure. Print is dying and very few organizations are in a position to do anything but pinch every penny.

Tracer Bullet
06-13-11, 07:12 PM
This thread has taken a very weird turn. Plus, who said it was a print publication?

DaveyJoe
06-13-11, 07:20 PM
This thread has taken a very weird turn. Plus, who said it was a print publication?

Why would a tv news organization be spending top dollar for a still photo? Video is our lifeline. Anyway I wasn't the first one who brought up printed media.

Formerly known as missflores
08-02-11, 09:19 AM
Giffords Makes First Appearance on House Floor Since Shooting -- PICTURES

By National Journal staff
Updated: August 2, 2011 | 8:11 a.m.
August 1, 2011 | 8:28 p.m.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., stole the show during the debt-deal vote on Monday when she returned to the House floor for the first time since she was shot in the head in January. Photographers were ready to capture a glimpse of the congresswoman, who has made some public appearances but has managed to stay clear of television cameras, until now.

Link (http://www.nationaljournal.com/giffords-makes-first-appearance-on-house-floor-since-shooting-pictures-20110801?mrefid=earthbox)

classicman2
08-02-11, 10:34 AM
I certainly don't mind her stealing the floor, but when a reporter such as Chuck Todd (he has to know better) said the vote was still in doubt before she made her appearance on the floor - well, that's going a little too far.

Venusian
09-05-11, 01:42 PM
Is this the thread we talk about civility in politics?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

Obama was due to speak shortly after Hoffa addressed the crowd.

Bill Needle
09-05-11, 03:11 PM
A call to violence by a union thug? Unprecedented!

JasonF
09-06-11, 12:47 AM
RealClear Politics headlined that story with 'Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"'

Only what Mr. Hoffa actually said was "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!"

Why did RCP omit the portion that I bolded? Why did they claim it was a call for violence when Mr. Hoffa was explicitly calling for action in the voting booth?

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way)

crazyronin
09-06-11, 05:53 AM
Why is it about context and nuance now?


(that's a rhetorical question, by the way)

wmansir
09-06-11, 07:59 AM
RealClear Politics headlined that story with 'Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"'

Only what Mr. Hoffa actually said was "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!"

Why did RCP omit the portion that I bolded? Why did they claim it was a call for violence when Mr. Hoffa was explicitly calling for action in the voting booth?

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way)
"Eye on the prize" is derived from the nautical world, where the "prize" is an enemy ship, or cargo, to be seized by force. So thank you for showing that Hoffa used even more violent imagery than RCP reported. ;)

PS. It looks like RCP was transcribing the edited FN video. There is an obvious edit point in the speech, but the FN ticker doesn't jump, so it's probably a strait recording of the edited FN feed.

Duran
09-06-11, 08:33 AM
"Eye on the prize" is derived from the nautical world, where the "prize" is an enemy ship, or cargo, to be seized by force. So thank you for showing that Hoffa used even more violent imagery than RCP reported. ;)

PS. It looks like RCP was transcribing the edited FN video. There is an obvious edit point in the speech, but the FN ticker doesn't jump, so it's probably a strait recording of the edited FN feed.

I think "eyes on the prize" is associated far more with the civil rights movement than pirates.

Th0r S1mpson
09-06-11, 09:31 AM
I think "eyes on the prize" is associated far more with the civil rights movement than pirates.

The civil rights movement was powered primarily by pirate-on-pirate warfare, with one faction attempting to remove the black and white definition of the pirate flag and replace it with solid grey. Or have you never hear the Arrrrrrrrr have a Dream speech?

Sean O'Hara
09-06-11, 10:10 AM
RealClear Politics headlined that story with 'Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"'

Only what Mr. Hoffa actually said was "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!"

Why did RCP omit the portion that I bolded? Why did they claim it was a call for violence when Mr. Hoffa was explicitly calling for action in the voting booth?



Why did some people act like Republicans saying, "We have to take back our country," was code for, "Let's rise up and turn America into a theocracy on a par with Iran"?

JasonF
09-06-11, 10:28 AM
I think "eyes on the prize" is associated far more with the civil rights movement than pirates.

This just proves that, contrary to what liberals claim, Martin Luther King was pro-violence.

-ohbfrank- Liberals.

Josh-da-man
09-06-11, 10:31 AM
Jimmy Hoffa? Did he escape when they demolished Giants Stadium?

CRM114
09-06-11, 10:46 AM
Is it the Dems that have the nutty "Obama is going to take my guns away" crowd on their side or the Repubs? I can't remember. That information may actually provide reasoned context and nuance. Just a thought.

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 11:05 AM
Why did some people act like Republicans saying, "We have to take back our country," was code for, "Let's rise up and turn America into a theocracy on a par with Iran"?

Why did some people act like Democrats saying, "Every American should have health insurance," was code for, "Let's turn America into a communist dictatorship resembling the Stalin-era Soviet Union"?

Dr Mabuse
09-06-11, 11:18 AM
Oh yeah!?!?

Well WHY did SOME PEOPLE act like Republicans saying "something or other" was code for "All your base are belong to us"!?!?

Th0r S1mpson
09-06-11, 12:36 PM
Why did some people act like Democrats saying, "Every American should have health insurance," was code for, "Let's turn America into a communist dictatorship resembling the Stalin-era Soviet Union"?

Nobody said that. Everyone knows that the health care Obama wanted would have cost more money than the Stalin-era Soviet Union ever had.

wishbone
09-06-11, 01:52 PM
Is it the Dems that have the nutty "Obama is going to take my guns away" crowd on their side or the Repubs? I can't remember. That information may actually provide reasoned context and nuance. Just a thought.

Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty
July 26, 2011

Twelve Democratic senators have joined 45 Republicans in a fast growing movement to halt progress on an Obama-backed United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America's gun owners with severe restrictions.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's office today provided Whispers with their letter (http://static.usnews.com/documents/whispers/unarmstreatyletter20110726.pdf), signed by 11 other Democrats, urging the president to press for significant changes in the treaty. Their major concern: that domestic manufacture, possession, and sales of firearms and ammo will be included, thereby giving an international authority the right to regulate arms sales already protected by the Second Amendment. They also said any move for an international gun registry would be a non-starter.

A Republican letter (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/07/26/opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty-opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty) circulated by Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran has 45 signatures.

Ratification requires two-thirds of the Senate. So far 57 senators have said they would vote against the treaty, expected to be wrapped up next year.

In his letter, Moran wrote, "Our country's sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations," Moran wrote in the letter. "Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable."

The emergence of strong Democratic resistance comes as the president is trying to deal with fallout from liberal Democrats upset that he has opened the door to major changes in Social Security and Medicare as part of the debt ceiling crisis.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which the Bush administration had opposed, would regulate with the international trade of arms. It would cover the trading of conventional firearms likes those used by collectors and sportsmen and women.

The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing the trade of guns and ammo. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms.

Tester's letter concludes, "As members of the United States Senate, it is our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the ratification of the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty. Before we could support ratification, we must have assurances that our concerns are adequately addressed and that the Treaty will not in any way impede upon the Constitutional rights of American gun owners. Anything short of this commitment would be unacceptable.http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty

<html><table border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=2><tr><td>That's absolutely</td><td><img src=http://i54.tinypic.com/16i9t2o.jpg></td><td>!!!</td></tr></table></html>

CRM114
09-06-11, 01:55 PM
Yeah, that's the same as my nutty uncle in the mountains of PA building an arsenal for coming apocalypse or Obama jackbooted thugs - whichever comes first. -rolleyes-

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 07:54 PM
Why did some people act like Democrats saying, "Every American should have health insurance," was code for, "Let's turn America into a communist dictatorship resembling the Stalin-era Soviet Union"?

Nobody said that. Everyone knows that the health care Obama wanted would have cost more money than the Stalin-era Soviet Union ever had.

Nobody said that ?

I am absolutely certain there were Democrats saying, "Every American should have health insurance."

Th0r S1mpson
09-06-11, 07:59 PM
I meant nobody said that's what it was code for. But now the joke is lost. :(

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 09:09 PM
I meant nobody said that's what it was code for. But now the joke is lost. :(

It was confusing because there is no claim made of what you (jokingly) disputed.

DVD Polizei
09-06-11, 09:12 PM
The civil rights movement was powered primarily by pirate-on-pirate warfare, with one faction attempting to remove the black and white definition of the pirate flag and replace it with solid grey. Or have you never hear the Arrrrrrrrr have a Dream speech?

I never really thought about it, but I always found a lot of booty at civil rights protests.

Th0r S1mpson
09-06-11, 09:42 PM
It was confusing because there is no claim made of what you (jokingly) disputed.

There was no claim that people acted like "Every American should have health insurance," was code for, "Let's turn America into a communist dictatorship resembling the Stalin-era Soviet Union"?

(sigh) Forget it.

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 10:23 PM
No claim that anyone ever said it.

Bill Needle
09-06-11, 10:24 PM
Why did some people act like Democrats saying, "Every American should have health insurance," was code for, "Let's turn America into a communist dictatorship resembling the Stalin-era Soviet Union"?

Except they said 'must' not 'should,' and collectivism through coercion by a single party government is a hallmark of Stalin's Soviet Union.

Th0r S1mpson
09-06-11, 10:32 PM
So, how is Giffords these days?

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 10:43 PM
http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/blogs/popwrap/201007/Images--REAL/12/soup.jpg
Usually drunk off her ass before lunch

Count Dooku
09-06-11, 10:47 PM
Except they said 'must' not 'should,' and collectivism through coercion by a single party government is a hallmark of Stalin's Soviet Union.

How would some people have acted if Democrats had said "ought to"?

Bill Needle
09-06-11, 10:57 PM
How would some people have acted if Democrats had said "ought to"?

Hmmm...probably exactly the same way. Let's not forget, this is still Democrats we're talking about.

CRM114
09-06-11, 11:06 PM
Except they said 'must' not 'should,' and collectivism through coercion by a single party government is a hallmark of Stalin's Soviet Union.

And in an amazing flip, Repubs are now against personal responsibility and would rather have the rest of us pay for those without coverage by paying higher premiums. In 1994 it was a Republican idea but since it's Obama proposing it, it is nothing more than a move toward "collectivism" and an inch closer to socialism. No, you are right. The status quo is much preferable.

kvrdave
09-07-11, 12:59 AM
Yeah, that's the same as my nutty uncle in the mountains of PA building an arsenal for coming apocalypse or Obama jackbooted thugs - whichever comes first. -rolleyes-

Same as my hippie cousin who has a newletter. Putting forth his free speech on everyone as though there is some protection for it. He's just crazy.

CRM114
09-07-11, 09:43 AM
I never stated my uncle doesn't have the right to whatever he wants in this regard. He was just at my house over the weekend. I have no issue with him. I do think his paranoia is amusing though.

classicman2
09-07-11, 11:02 AM
What do you think about your obvious paranoia concerning the Repubs & conservatives?

CRM114
09-07-11, 11:30 AM
I have as much disdain for "old man politics" now that I'm an old man as back when I wasn't. The country needs to move forward.

classicman2
09-07-11, 01:44 PM
I have as much disdain for "old man politics" now that I'm an old man as back when I wasn't. The country needs to move forward.

But only if we move forward 'green.'