Tucson Memorial

Master

1895

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

I agree....at first. But after the intro and all of the hooting and hollering, I feel like President Obama has given a good speech. So very sad.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

Actually his speech is pretty good. The hooping and hollering in the beginning was nauseating.

Edited by TriRSquared 2011-01-12 8:07 PM

My Race Log

Master

1895

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

It seems like a smaller memorial for the victims would have made more sense.....family and friends. Show it on television for everyone to watch, but IMO ony the people close to the victims should be there. Everyone else that showed up is there to see Obama. It was supposed to be a memorial for the victims.

My Race Log

Expert

1456

Central New Jersey

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

I was thinking about this today - all politics aside - I do not think I would want the POTUS at the funeral for anyone in my family. It becomes a political event vs what it needs to be about

My Race Log

Payson, AZ

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

wwlani - 2011-01-12 7:28 PM I was thinking about this today - all politics aside - I do not think I would want the POTUS at the funeral for anyone in my family. It becomes a political event vs what it needs to be about

But this wasn't a funeral. He's not going to be at any of those. This was a memorial not of any one individual. This was really meant for America. A chance to celebrate the hero's from that day and reflect in the sadness of the day and to express hope of what it might lead us to if we keep this day in mind. Perhaps they used the wrong label of memorial I guess.

My Race Log

Master

1669

"Home of Superman"

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

A rally is exactly what it was.

My Race Log

Regular

157

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

wwlani - 2011-01-12 9:28 PM I was thinking about this today - all politics aside - I do not think I would want the POTUS at the funeral for anyone in my family. It becomes a political event vs what it needs to be about

What if they were a war hero or something like that?

Veteran

263

Chicago suburbs

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

Unfortunately, any other wackos wondering how to get a lot of attention now have their answer.

My Race Log

Payson, AZ

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

Out2BeALoser - 2011-01-12 9:31 PM Unfortunately, any other wackos wondering how to get a lot of attention now have their answer.

Actually, dudes name wasn't mentioned once if I recall. Not a whole lot of attention if that was his goal, and we have no idea what his goal was.

My Race Log

Veteran

263

Chicago suburbs

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

Sorry to disagree but they didn't need to mention his name last night for it to qualify as "getting attnetion". Last night was one aspect of the whole and there has been plenty of attention given overall. My point was that it could have a rebound effect with certain types of individuals. "I'll show them, my ___________________________ could get more spectators than the Super Bowl".

My Race Log

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

New user

900

,

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

The President's speech was very good and was needed, judging by all the hoopla the last few days. Perhaps if he had made those same remarks a few days earlier, he could have saved us from all of the political/media crap. Two thumbs up for the Pres. and his remarks (better late than never), two thumbs down for the crowd's behavior at a "memorial".

Veteran

1097

Elizabethtown, KY

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

Except it wasn't random. It was a well-planned political assassination attempt - doesn't make it any worse (and it's foolish to attempt to rank tragedies), just makes it different.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

roch1009 - 2011-01-13 9:51 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

Except it wasn't random. It was a well-planned political assassination attempt - doesn't make it any worse (and it's foolish to attempt to rank tragedies), just makes it different.

No it was a disturbed individual carrying out a violent act regardless of what he in a delusion of grandure decided to call it. By your definition none of the other acts of violence were random either they were all planned. Random is in that it can happen to anyone not random in the perpetrators mind. As for not ranking tragedies we do it all the time; hundereds if not thousands of people will die today many in violent and unexpected ways and though they will all be tragedies to somebody they will not constitute a national tragedy.

Edited by trinnas 2011-01-13 8:59 AM

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence (I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't understand what you are saying).
I'm flabergasted that you don't consider the the targeted attempted assassination of a public official, in which several others lost their lives, as a national tragedy.
As far as the rest go, yes. These are national tragedies in my book. Each one of them. I'd also add the targeted attempted assassination of Former President Reagan in which Reagan was shot and in which Jim Baker was gravely injured as a national tragedy. Even though no one died in this event. The Reagan attempt, like this attempt, were far from random. They were targated and ment to kill a public official.

My Race Log

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:58 AM

roch1009 - 2011-01-13 9:51 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

Except it wasn't random. It was a well-planned political assassination attempt - doesn't make it any worse (and it's foolish to attempt to rank tragedies), just makes it different.

No it was a disturbed individual carrying out a violent act regardless of what he in a delusion of grandure decided to call it. By your definition none of the other acts of violence were random either they were all planned. Random is in that it can happen to anyone not random in the perpetrators mind. As for not ranking tragedies we do it all the time; hundereds if not thousands of people will die today many in violent and unexpected ways and though they will all be tragedies to somebody they will not constitute a national tragedy.

Just so I understand your arguement here, you're saying you don't believe that the shooter ment to assassinate a public official. You're saying he randomly went up to a random supermarket and randomly placed his gun to an elected officials head and pulled the trigger? Is this correct?

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:03 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence (I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't understand what you are saying).
I'm flabergasted that you don't consider the the targeted attempted assassination of a public official, in which several others lost their lives, as a national tragedy.
As far as the rest go, yes. These are national tragedies in my book. Each one of them. I'd also add the targeted attempted assassination of Former President Reagan in which Reagan was shot and in which Jim Baker was gravely injured as a national tragedy. Even though no one died in this event. The Reagan attempt, like this attempt, were far from random. They were targated and ment to kill a public official.

Do you not remember when a gunman went into a Luby's Cafeteria (in Texas if I recall) and shot a number of people?

Then you and I have a different threshold for the definition of tragedy. To me they are all sad events but do not rise to the level of tragedy. I also do not see it as a targeted political assissination attempt that is usually a cold blodded act for political gain this was a disturbed individual who commited an act of violence regarless of what, as I said before, delusions of grandure he had. Just because someone kills a politician does not make it political assisination that is simply hystrionics talking.

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

DP

Edited by David tri's 2011-01-13 9:11 AM

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:10 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:58 AM

roch1009 - 2011-01-13 9:51 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 8:18 AM This is what happens after national tragedies. Let's take a look at the last two Presidents:

After the Oklahoma City bombings Bill Clinton gave a stirring speach in Oklahoma City. He was there as "Consolar-in-chief." This is part of the Presidents unwritten job description. To lead and comfort in a time of national tragedy. Yes, there is a political element to it. But the presidency is a political position. This moment marked the rise of Mr. Clinton's popularity and led him to a second term.

Just a few days after 9-11 Geroge W. Bush literally stood atop of the pile of debris in lower Manhattan and gave a stirring speach through a bull horn. Why was he there? To console and lead the nation. Even a guy like me, who disagreed with just about everything President Bush did, was moved by Mr. Bush's actions and speech. There was quite a bit of hooping and hollering for the President before and after his speech. I was proud to be an American and, at that moment, proud of my President. I was glad we had a strong leader. Again, there was a political element to this as well. (If you don't believe me then ask yourself, why did Mr. Bush decide to go to Ground Zero to rally the troops and the nation. His presence caused a slow down in the search for survivors. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do, in fact I think he was in just the right place to begin leading America away from 9-11, I'm just pointing it out.) This moment marked the rise of Mr. Bush's popularity and led him to a second term.

I did not see the memorial in Tuscon. But, from what I gather here, President Obama's speech was good. He is were he should be, consoling and leading in a time of national tragedy. Is there a political aspect to ANY memorial like this? You bet.

I don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

Except it wasn't random. It was a well-planned political assassination attempt - doesn't make it any worse (and it's foolish to attempt to rank tragedies), just makes it different.

No it was a disturbed individual carrying out a violent act regardless of what he in a delusion of grandure decided to call it. By your definition none of the other acts of violence were random either they were all planned. Random is in that it can happen to anyone not random in the perpetrators mind. As for not ranking tragedies we do it all the time; hundereds if not thousands of people will die today many in violent and unexpected ways and though they will all be tragedies to somebody they will not constitute a national tragedy.

Just so I understand your arguement here, you're saying you don't believe that the shooter ment to assassinate a public official. You're saying he randomly went up to a random supermarket and randomly placed his gun to an elected officials head and pulled the trigger? Is this correct?

Please read again random in the grand scheme of things not radom to the shooter. Yes the shooter targeted this person but why, what triggered his animosity? It was specific to him and he appears to have fixated on Rep Gifford but it could have been someone else he fixated on. Why killers pick a specific target vs any other target is a whole branch of inquiry in and of itself but there was no end game to be had in killing her other than to assuage himself.

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

trinnas - 2011-01-13 10:10 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:03 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AMI don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence (I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't understand what you are saying).
I'm flabergasted that you don't consider the the targeted attempted assassination of a public official, in which several others lost their lives, as a national tragedy.
As far as the rest go, yes. These are national tragedies in my book. Each one of them. I'd also add the targeted attempted assassination of Former President Reagan in which Reagan was shot and in which Jim Baker was gravely injured as a national tragedy. Even though no one died in this event. The Reagan attempt, like this attempt, were far from random. They were targated and ment to kill a public official.

Do you not remember when a gunman went into a Luby's Cafeteria (in Texas if I recall) and shot a number of people?

Then you and I have a different threshold for the definition of tragedy. To me they are all sad events but do not rise to the level of tragedy. I also do not see it as a targeted political assissination attempt that is usually a cold blodded act for political gain this was a disturbed individual who commited an act of violence regarless of what, as I said before, delusions of grandure he had. Just because someone kills a politician does not make it political assisination that is simply hystrionics talking.

Yes, I do remember that now. I just didn't know the name of the place.

Then this ^ is where our arguement lies. I believe whenever a person dies it is sad. When a person murdered it is tragic. When a public official is almost murdered and 6 others are murdered becasue they had the misfortue of being around that official it is a national tragedy. As you said before, our definiations differ greatly. I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:18 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 10:10 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:03 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AMI don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence (I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't understand what you are saying).
I'm flabergasted that you don't consider the the targeted attempted assassination of a public official, in which several others lost their lives, as a national tragedy.
As far as the rest go, yes. These are national tragedies in my book. Each one of them. I'd also add the targeted attempted assassination of Former President Reagan in which Reagan was shot and in which Jim Baker was gravely injured as a national tragedy. Even though no one died in this event. The Reagan attempt, like this attempt, were far from random. They were targated and ment to kill a public official.

Do you not remember when a gunman went into a Luby's Cafeteria (in Texas if I recall) and shot a number of people?

Then you and I have a different threshold for the definition of tragedy. To me they are all sad events but do not rise to the level of tragedy. I also do not see it as a targeted political assissination attempt that is usually a cold blodded act for political gain this was a disturbed individual who commited an act of violence regarless of what, as I said before, delusions of grandure he had. Just because someone kills a politician does not make it political assisination that is simply hystrionics talking.

Yes, I do remember that now. I just didn't know the name of the place.

Then this ^ is where our arguement lies. I believe whenever a person dies it is sad. When a person murdered it is tragic. When a public official is almost murdered and 6 others are murdered becasue they had the misfortue of being around that official it is a national tragedy. As you said before, our definiations differ greatly. I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise.

You are likely correct and I really did not mean to hijack the thread my appologies to the OP.

Master

2014

Ohio

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

trinnas - 2011-01-13 10:20 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:18 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 10:10 AM

David tri's - 2011-01-13 10:03 AM

trinnas - 2011-01-13 9:21 AMI don't know maybe my tragedy threshold has been raised but I don't see equating 9/11 or even OKC with this spree killing regardless of who died. I don't see it as a national tragedy, I see it as another radom act of violence. Were the Luby's shooting a national tragedy. How about Columbine, Andrew Cunanan, the day trader who shot up an office bldg, the guy for whom we coined the term going postal, etc., etc., etc., were these national tragedies?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence (I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't understand what you are saying).
I'm flabergasted that you don't consider the the targeted attempted assassination of a public official, in which several others lost their lives, as a national tragedy.
As far as the rest go, yes. These are national tragedies in my book. Each one of them. I'd also add the targeted attempted assassination of Former President Reagan in which Reagan was shot and in which Jim Baker was gravely injured as a national tragedy. Even though no one died in this event. The Reagan attempt, like this attempt, were far from random. They were targated and ment to kill a public official.

Do you not remember when a gunman went into a Luby's Cafeteria (in Texas if I recall) and shot a number of people?

Then you and I have a different threshold for the definition of tragedy. To me they are all sad events but do not rise to the level of tragedy. I also do not see it as a targeted political assissination attempt that is usually a cold blodded act for political gain this was a disturbed individual who commited an act of violence regarless of what, as I said before, delusions of grandure he had. Just because someone kills a politician does not make it political assisination that is simply hystrionics talking.

Yes, I do remember that now. I just didn't know the name of the place.

Then this ^ is where our arguement lies. I believe whenever a person dies it is sad. When a person murdered it is tragic. When a public official is almost murdered and 6 others are murdered becasue they had the misfortue of being around that official it is a national tragedy. As you said before, our definiations differ greatly. I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise.

You are likely correct and I really did not mean to hijack the thread my appologies to the OP.

Indeed. Mine as well.

My Race Log

Master

1440

Subject: RE: Tucson Memorial

A better example would be Bush's presence at the VT shooting. The students and crowd acted with decorum. the speech focued ont he vitims and hyow the nation could recover. It was not political, inspite of calls from the left to increase gun control laws.
Bush did nothing to cheapen the moment.
On the other hand Obama's comments followed with his "but" comments did ntohing to elevagte the discourse.
it is also interestingthat he wants to elavavte the discourse, but during the campagain he was saying "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun" "I want you to get in their face"
After the recent election, his comments aqbout Republicans getting inthe back of the vehicle.
Prior to the presidental election Hillary's famous comment was that she was sick and tired of every time some one called in to question somethign about the war that they were unpatriotic, and tha dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
The democrats want to have their cake and it too.

How about the fact taht Obama's peoiple had souvenior T-shirts ont he charis att he memorial.
Just disgusting.

Edited by verga 2011-01-13 9:36 AM

My Race Log

Tucson Memorial

REGISTER TODAY