Surveyor mark or gunsights, you decide.

Harmless political gimmick, or insighting violence, again you decide. But here is the graphics in question.

---

Janice

a reminder of how the rhetoric was playing to the Tea party activists...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzeI8sgIHU

---

Janice

Looks like printer's registration marks to me, but they seem to be gone amok and not outside the trim area as normal.

It is unfortunate that the words used in politics have more than one meaning. The real tragedy is that SCOTUS says that mentally unstable people have the right to walk the street and have their medical records private so that no one is the wiser.

---

Looks like printer's registration marks to me, but they seem to be gone amok and not outside the trim area as normal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyZt1v128w ... "Don't retreat, reload." Clearly, the marks are gun targets. The question is ... an incitement to violence or not?

Sorry to say but Sarah wasn't that original. The rest of the story

---

the thing is all the grandstanding the teabaggers did only needed a couple of loose nuts to make bad things happen. And yes the loose nut in Arizona happened to be a Republican.

Huffington Post had a few of his youtube/facebook videos and they are quite enlightening on how screwed up this guy is. Heck even the military didnt want him.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I think we can all agree that this act of violence was the act of someone that is profoundly mentally disturbed. I have been following this since shortly after it happened. Sadly, the partisan rancor chimed in almost from the start, with both sides trying to make political hay from this tragedy.

Sadly, there are mentally disturbed people all over the place. Many are non-political, some are political. Of those that are political, their views cross the entire political spectrum. These nut-jobs belong to not just the right wing, but the left as well. Both the right and the left have cast, from time to time, their rhetoric in militaristic terms. As someone else in this thread has already pointed out, both the right and the left have used graphics with various militaristic symbols on them. Now is both sides use of this rhetoric and these symbols unfortunate? Perhaps. But it is one way that both sides drum up support.

Now, I have seen information that indicates that the alleged shooter was a right-wing supporter. I have also seen information that indicated that he was a left-wing supporter. I am not sure what to believe about his political affiliations. But, in all seriousness, does his political affiliations really matter?

The person that took out a gun, and shot all these people, killing a Federal Judge, a little girl, 4 others, and gravely wounding a member of Congress committed a crime. Let us let the judicial system work out if the accused is guilty, and impose a punishment. You know... Rule of Law, and all.

Too many things about a reported right-wing connection of the alleged shooter, and the political background of the Congresswoman and Judge just do not add up. I am much more inclined to believe that the motive for this was personal. Lets wait and see what the jury says at the trial before we all rush to judgement.

One thing I will comment on is the feeding frenzy for more gun control this incident has produced. The alleged shooter had a history of being disturbed. As such, he should not have been able to legally purchase a firearm and ammo under current law. Some sort of black-market, criminal source for the firearm and ammo is quite likely indeed. All the additional gun control laws in the world won't stop an already illegal transfer. If the shooter couldn't have obtained a firearm, he could have easily used something else to go on his killing spree. For instance, a baseball bat, a sword of some sort (seen enough of those on the news recently), or an explosive.

Perhaps it might be a slight good thing in one sense, that the shooter chose to use a semi-automatic handgun for his killing spree. He could have decided to use an explosive with a far more deadly effect. Don't believe me? Go ask Tim McVeigh (an actual, politically-motivated nut-job). Oh wait... he is dead. Convicted of blowing up that federal building in Oklahoma a few years back, and given the needle. The judicial system worked then. The judicial system will work now.

And no need to get your undergarments in a bunch over alleged ties to one group or another before the trial establishes it. It might just be your paranoia talking, and wouldn't that make you 'disturbed' too, just like the alleged shooter?

So, what are you implying soft?

I see nothing but ambiguity here.

Gifford was on Fox News the day before she was shot expressing her belief that the uncontrolled spending in congress is the biggest national security threat.

Are you saying the gun metaphore used by Palin inspired some nut job in Arizona to shoot an elected congresswoman with a conservative idea?

Maybe what the U.S. needs is a little bit of swift justice these days. I see high speed chases and crazed gunmen get cornered, throw down their weapon and then start yelling, "don't hurt me! don't hurt me!" and then a trial 2 or 3 years later, and less of a sentence than what should be imposed.

How about the sherrifs opening up fire on the crazed gunman when he's cornered and down on the ground crying? Ok, maybe that's a little too far. How about taking him into custody, having some judge gather all the witnesses the next day, and then, due to overwhelming testimony, sentencing him to the needle that same day?

Maybe that would put a little bit of civility back into society.

I myself would say the rhetoric is out of hand, and leads to nutjobs going too far. I do not think lynchings would be an improvement. I STILL think we all need to "tone it down a notch". Government needs to be able to talk reasonably, not worry about who is going to shoot them for disagreeing.

Did Palin tell them to do it? Nope. But if she has any conscience at all, she should be asking herself whether her words were a factor. And not just her words. The entire rhetoric has gotten out of hand.

four dead in ohio

---

Janice

All I could thing at the time was. someone is getting a needle for his efforts.

It's nice that they didn't kill him outright though it would have save the state and federal gov't a boatload of money putting him away. However I'd really like to know what made this guy tick. I've seen the tambling videos on Huffingtons and its pretty clear that he's not all there

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

neither are the people calling for dead liberals in the tea party video. But it is obvious by their casual nature that they consider that a reasonable thought. I consider the people in the protest one "mostly harmless" nut cases, but it is obvious that kind of rhetoric is wide spread. Is it so surprising that someone less stable picks it up and runs with it? Not to me.

Again, please. Tone it down a notch.

---

Janice

Like a doctor striking just below the knee cap to test for reflexes, the Arizona incident causes reflexive responses from some in congress:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney , D-N.Y. want to introduce legistation to further limit the 2nd amendment.

And Rep. Robert Brady, D-PA, wants to introduce legislation to degrade the 1st amendment.

A dose of swift justice would send a clear message to anybody thinking about these kinds of shenanigans in the future. But noooOOOOOOoooooo, the alleged suspect has *rights.* The people he killed are already dead, so they don't matter any more.

And people wonder why violence seems to be on the rise.

1st amendment
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.



2nd Amendment
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


Could you be more specific, and show how suspension of due process is called for? Last time I saw that lead to Gitmo, our violating human rights without due process, and a big mess to try and clean up.

And what about the 3rd Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can we not keep "what god wants" out of politics?

---

Janice

Like a doctor striking just below the knee cap to test for reflexes, the Arizona incident causes reflexive responses from some in congress:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney , D-N.Y. want to introduce legistation to further limit the 2nd amendment.

And Rep. Robert Brady, D-PA, wants to introduce legislation to degrade the 1st amendment.

A dose of swift justice would send a clear message to anybody thinking about these kinds of shenanigans in the future. But noooOOOOOOoooooo, the alleged suspect has *rights.* The people he killed are already dead, so they don't matter any more.

And people wonder why violence seems to be on the rise.

1st amendment
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.



2nd Amendment
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


Could you be more specific, and show how suspension of due process is called for? Last time I saw that lead to Gitmo, our violating human rights without due process, and a big mess to try and clean up.

And what about the 3rd Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can we not keep "what god wants" out of politics?

Oh, you are being funny, Soft^Spirit. Really funny.

That list of amendments you quote from is from the Original draft of the bill of rights, not what actually got adopted. Amendments 3 through 12 listed in that draft became Amendments 1 through 10 to the Constitution. The first two were not included.

Although, the 2nd one did eventually get adopted over two hundred years later, in 1992, as Amendment 27.

Right now, as it has been pretty much all along, the 1st one is kinda dead in the water.

So, what are you implying soft?

I see nothing but ambiguity here.

Gifford was on Fox News the day before she was shot expressing her belief that the uncontrolled spending in congress is the biggest national security threat.

Are you saying the gun metaphore used by Palin inspired some nut job in Arizona to shoot an elected congresswoman with a conservative idea?

Maybe what the U.S. needs is a little bit of swift justice these days. I see high speed chases and crazed gunmen get cornered, throw down their weapon and then start yelling, "don't hurt me! don't hurt me!" and then a trial 2 or 3 years later, and less of a sentence than what should be imposed.

How about the sherrifs opening up fire on the crazed gunman when he's cornered and down on the ground crying? Ok, maybe that's a little too far. How about taking him into custody, having some judge gather all the witnesses the next day, and then, due to overwhelming testimony, sentencing him to the needle that same day?

Maybe that would put a little bit of civility back into society.

You raise a few excellent points, Guy. But let us not forget that the Congresswoman was just wounded. Severely wounded, likely with devastating consequences, but last I heard still alive. 6 other people died. Including a little girl, and a (gasp! Republican-appointed) Federal Judge. Why would a centrist, middle of the road, Democrat politician that frequently sided with the Republicans against her own party leadership, and a Republican-appointed Federal Judge be targeted by some supposed far-right-Republican plot for violence?

This just does not add up. There has to be a lot more in regards to motive that we are not aware of at this time. Can't we just let it all come out at trial and let the judge and jury do their jobs?

As to 'swift justice'... The US Constitution guarantees the right to a 'speedy trial' in criminal cases in the 6th amendment.

Now then, some small amount of delay is necessary, so that both the prosecution and the defense can adequately prepare their cases. But, I fail to understand how a trial months or years later can possibly meet the definition of 'speedy'. A couple of weeks? Sure thing!... Months later = FAIL. Years later = MEGAFAIL.

And, as far as capital punishment goes, in cases where the accused's guilt is not in doubt due to, for instance, large numbers of eyewitnesses (as in this case), and the nature of the crime merits the death penalty (as this case does, in my opinion), after being found guilty by the court, and sentenced by the court to death, I see nothing wrong with the court instructing 'take him out and hang him' (or the equivalent for whatever method of capital punishment is in vogue at the time). I think that the right of appeal is frequently used as nothing but a delaying tactic.

I found it amusing. ;)

---

Janice

Like a doctor striking just below the knee cap to test for reflexes, the Arizona incident causes reflexive responses from some in congress:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney , D-N.Y. want to introduce legistation to further limit the 2nd amendment.

And Rep. Robert Brady, D-PA, wants to introduce legislation to degrade the 1st amendment.

A dose of swift justice would send a clear message to anybody thinking about these kinds of shenanigans in the future. But noooOOOOOOoooooo, the alleged suspect has *rights.* The people he killed are already dead, so they don't matter any more.

And people wonder why violence seems to be on the rise.

Whoa, wait a minute, you want to remove the Miranda Rights from The Constitution?

This just does not add up. There has to be a lot more in regards to motive that we are not aware of at this time. Can't we just let it all come out at trial and let the judge and jury do their jobs?

Yes, I can. And that includes not siding with the side you're arguing against nor accepting your suggestion that there's more to this.
Supposedly, the guy is mentally ill. Depending on the severity, then, regardless of his political beliefs, it is quite possible he wasn't even paying attention to the party affiliation/voting record of the Congresswoman, and similar comments could be made about the Judge.
Moreover, the fact that he had read (had in his library?) both "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto" is not an indication of being either a far-leftist or a member of the extreme right. It can mean he was well-read. It could mean he was confused. Only analysis of overall patterns can answer this.
(Of course, Glenn Beck likes to confuse people and make them believe Nazism was the same as Socialism.)
I wish I'd taken a picture of my bookcase when I placed "The Bible," "The Dragons of Eden" (Sagan), "Earth in the Balance" (Gore) and "The Way Things Ought to Be" (Limbaugh) all in a line.