BREAKING: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been shot.

Now that is a funny one. Especially given your admission that you can't figure things out on your own.

It may. Her womb is likely to still be extremely fertile at this juncture. A condom is advisable in any event because we do not know her entire sexual history.

I once knew a wise man who said that everybody must get stoned.

You can sell it on EBay in a few years for big Ameros after things calm down.

I blame both of them.

The French news is reporting that there seems to have been a second person involved, who probably took advantage of the unstable mental condition of the young shooter.

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me, but a not impossible scenario. If something like that turns out to be true, the craziness of the shooter becomes a moot point and all the various possibilities have to be considered once again.

But first, there has to be confirmation of this second person, and if that happens, then some way of figuring out who he was and what motivated him. For now, there is no hard evidence that a second person was even involved. It's just a possibility that is being investigated, based on some testimonies. (Some testimonies also made it very clear that congresswoman Giffords had been killed on the spot, too...)

I missed this little gem.

Man, it's Liet. He's been the board's bitch since the day he joined, and he knows it. Every village has to have it's idiot, and he rarely disappoints. I accept things like this as an honor. To know that I upset him fills me with much joy.

Wanna bet?

Finally. It seems like the media reports the six deaths but ignore 3-4 of them and concentrates on the Rep and the Judge. Don't get me wrong they are important especially since the Rep was the target but I've felt it a little insulting that they say, "Giffords, Jones and oh yeah four other people are dead too."

I don't why you've got to shoot kids. If you're going be a murderous cunt going on a shooting spree at least aim only for the adults.

It was reported here yesterday that the Sherrif believes there was two or three people involved. We wont know for sure until they release some more news on the matter. Those people may be survivalist types and it would save a lot of tax money if they can nab them before they head for the hills.

I wouldn't trust the Sheriff on too much. He's too politically interested - what with him asking Americans to reflect upon themselves during the press conference. Save it for the pulpit, sheriff.

Thankfully, G-Men are on the scene as well.

Everyday people are just everyday people. I think if I was related to one of the others I wouldnt want to be hearing the name of my relative on the news every 15 minutes. Also I dont think he was aiming at the child. I think he was just shooting randomly into the crown and people were ducking out of the way trying to save themselves. Of the four others I knew were killed there was one child and three people in their 70's.

YES.

I most certainly found this tool's comments to be misplaced. I think he can be considered to be the first person to cash in on the events of the day from a political angle.

It is absolutely clear that he was already playing not only the race card, but the 'talk radio' card when he made his statements just hours after the incident. He obviously didn't have ANY of the details regarding the case, and it is amazingly unprofessional to sling such wild accusations in his position.

I would almost bet money that the supposed 'second gunman' might be a bunch of bullshit. I honestly believe this guy is hoping to chain the shootings to the same suspects that liberals on various websites did yesterday (and are still doing today regardless of the new information that has come to light). When you proceed from a predetermined belief such as the one he revealed, you can toss objectivity out the window.

Hopefully a higher authority such as the FBI is handling the investigation, because this clown can't be trusted after that little outburst. Somebody call Sheriff Joe up in Maricopa. He'll damn sure make things happen.

Here's a video of Congresswoman Giffords herself saying that there will be consequences for Sarah Palin putting gun cross hairs on Giffords and other members of Congress. I do think the rhetoric about "don't retreat, reload", "if we lose at the ballot box then we'll win at the bullet box", talking about "second amendment remedies", and putting images of gun scopes targeting people Palin doesn't like is reckless and designed to push mentally unstable people to violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs

Well Palin's marketing message must not be working since it took this long for one, ONE, person to go crazy for you idiots to try and blame her.

Perhaps Palin took down the image so she could put up a better one with not just crosshairs but guns, pictures of the Reps and Senators and a couple phrases like, "Don't retreat, reload" and the "only good Democrat is a dead one"

Perhaps we will get more shootings then.

Or we could just call you what you are: A fucking retard.

Then you are not worth taking seriously. Reckless? Yeah, probably. I would much rather see less extremist talk on both sides in the political arena.

But "designed to push mentally unstable people to violence"? You have clearly drifted into tinfoil-hat territory! That it could in some cases do that is quite clear. But "designed" to do it? You are completely out of your gourd.

Just a reminder...

From page 2:

He has a vested interest in making the connection.

There used to be a pain reliever commercial that showed a "T" shaped area for "tension headaches". That is more or less where you want to shoot a human if you want to reliably kill them.

Did this commercial ever run on Glenn Beck's program?

If so, we have CONCLUSIVE evidence that he is behind this shooting.

I never said conclusive, you liar. I said it would seem to indicate. Again stop with the strawman arguments.

OK, we can debate if they were designed to incite violence but why talk about guns and shooting political opponents if that isn't your goal? Please tell me.

^^Indicate in your mind becuse it plays to your usual tripe.

Most of us tend to let the facts play a role before we just start running off at the mouth, that saves embarrassment and makes us not look like an id10t.

That's not an anwser so I will ask again. If someone doesn't want to incite violence then why speak about guns and shooting political opponents? If, as has been said, they spoke about that topic but didn't actually want someone to go out and shoot their political opponents then why continually bring up the topic of guns and shooting political opponents. I'm looking for a rational reason to do this other then because they want people to do exactly what they said. Why should we not take what they said to be exactly what they mean? Someone please tell me.

Notice how that question is different from saying "The shooter was motivated by such speech"? Instead we're discussing the politician's motives for making statements like "if we lose at the ballot box then we'll win at the bullet box". You don't seem to understand that difference thus I'm clarifying it for you.

Two questions:

1) Does anyone have any evidence whatsoever that the shooter ever even SAW the Palin ad?

2) If he did, does anyone have any evidence that he was influenced by the ad?

Until either of those questions are answered, why are we even talking about it?

Sounds like the typical liberal "they created the environment" argument.

I haven't made the argument that the political rhetoric caused him to shoot people. What I have said is that the political rhetoric was dangerous and clearly called for violence and then I asked the question if their goal wasn't to cause violence then why say things like "if we don't win at the ballot box then we'll win at the bullet box". Please don't fall for Sokar's strawman argument because it's not what I said.

The question isn't dealing with the shooter's motives in this case and instead is asking about the politicians' motives for saying what they said. This is why I have said the politicians' comments were designed to cause violence. No one has yet come up with a single reason to say such things other then to cause violence. Is there another answer to the question or am I right that the comments were designed to cause violence?

Yeah, all I want to know is WHY you'd have violent slogans when your goal is peaceful. It doesn't make sense to say you'll shoot people as part of your campaign. It's irresponsible for a public figure to be saying those things.

It has NO CONNECTION TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, but I'm just curious as to why Palin could have possibly thought it'd be sensible to put targets on districts.

None of that matters as dose the truth all that matters to the MSM and the Left is there going to use this incident to tar and feather the entire right wing...from Sara Palin,Glenn Beck,Rush,FOX News and the Tea Party all are guilty of this shooting and will be attacked again and again for inciting violence if they oppose Obama and the Left on any issues.


I'll give them credit it's a brilliant move I don't see how the Right will be able to fight back...all they have are the facts of the incident and that won't matter..it's like that old question "have you stopped beating your wife"...only it'll be "have you stopped spreading hate that incites murder"..no way to win.

Who said this bolded quote above? Name them and give me a link to it being said, and then we'll discuss how this person could have had influence over Loughlin's actions.

Hint: I already know the answer. But you need to find it on your own.

Rick makes the mistake of assuming "white supremacist = right wing"

Not unlike the mythology that the Nazis were right wing.

Though admittedly that MIGHT not be what he's claiming in that particular post.

Point of order: Would you then agree that doing something like, say, taking a picture of yourself in the shower with a battle rifle incites irresponsible firearms handling?