Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 112 of 112

Thread: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot

  1. #101  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Doubtful.

    Many of these folks are the same types who reject evolution and anthropogenic global climate change. In other words, this is generally a group for whom facts and alignment with reality tend to lack priority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Doubtful.

    Many of these folks are the same types who reject evolution and anthropogenic global climate change. In other words, this is generally a group for whom facts and alignment with reality tend to lack priority.
    inow, the group that you seem to be making disparaging comments about, numbers tens of millions. Perhaps one day they will think in the correct manner, but until then, you will just have to live with it.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Popularity does not demonstrate merit or validity. Arguing such is also a logical fallacy.

    The fact that there are so many of them only serves to reinforce my dishearteness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Doubtful.

    Many of these folks are the same types who reject evolution and anthropogenic global climate change. In other words, this is generally a group for whom facts and alignment with reality tend to lack priority.
    inow, the group that you seem to be making disparaging comments about, numbers tens of millions. Perhaps one day they will think in the correct manner, but until then, you will just have to live with it.
    You mean kind of like how Muslims number in the tens of millions? (Not sure what percentage are, or are not, fanatics though.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't disagree that the Tea Party's approach is very dangerous. When you know your followers are already inclined to use violence as a means of settling their differences with people, it is certainly irresponsible to incite them further.

    However, Harold has won me over. I'm starting to think that this particular case isn't a whole lot different from John Hinckley's assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan
    OK. But what was the "however" for?

    If you are drawing parallels with Hinckley, who do you place in the Jodie Foster role - the fantasy audience impressed with the deed?

    And what major media influence do you think played the inspirational role of the movie Taxi Driver, with its main character noticeably resembling the Rudolphs and Loughners and other Tea Party faction fringers ?

    Noticing that - unlike Hinckley - Loughner brought a lot of ammo for the crowd, targeted a relatively obscure and nationally little known person and a whole bunch of people just there for the political appearance, and apparently had no specific person in mind to impress - explanations adjusted accordingly.

    Another consideration: Hinckley's deed was not predicted or foreshadowed, Loughner's was - by many people, and several events. The drawing of parallels should take that into account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't disagree that the Tea Party's approach is very dangerous. When you know your followers are already inclined to use violence as a means of settling their differences with people, it is certainly irresponsible to incite them further.

    However, Harold has won me over. I'm starting to think that this particular case isn't a whole lot different from John Hinckley's assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan
    OK. But what was the "however" for?

    If you are drawing parallels with Hinckley, who do you place in the Jodie Foster role - the fantasy audience impressed with the deed?
    His former school mates are viable candidates. Maybe he just wanted to show them that his threatening behavior he'd displayed in school wasn't all talk, that he really had it in him to go shoot someone.


    Another consideration: Hinckley's deed was not predicted or foreshadowed, Loughner's was - by many people, and several events. The drawing of parallels should take that into account.
    The articles mention that Hinckley had scouted the possibility of shooting Carter before Reagan even took office. He just wanted to become famous any way he could so Foster would look at him as an equal.

    I'm not trying to say that the two situations are absolutely identical clones of each other anyway. I mean that they're alike in the sense that it's quite possible that neither of them had any direct political motivation whatsoever. Hinckley's actions proved that a political figure can be targeted for no real reason at all. It's not always an attempt to subvert the democratic process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    His former school mates are viable candidates. Maybe he just wanted to show them that his threatening behavior he'd displayed in school wasn't all talk, that he really had it in him to go shoot someone.
    He was obsessed with impressing his former schoolmates - stalking them, following them around across country, writing them letters and such?

    He thought a bunch of nonentity speech audience members would make an impressive target for an unrelated classroom of apolitical casual acquaintances, fulfilling his brags to strangers, and just happened to pick a local and obscure Congressman and her crowd - the crosshaired "liberal" one - at random?

    Do you believe that?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The articles mention that Hinckley had scouted the possibility of shooting Carter before Reagan even took office. He just wanted to become famous any way he could so Foster would look at him as an equal.
    That's not "any way he could". That's shooting a President of the US that Ms Foster was known to have met and think of, on a national stage, on TV, Hollywood level, Taxi Driver level, getting taken down by the Secret Service and all that good stuff.

    Hinckley didn't pick his targets at random. He didn't just pick out a famous person in a crowd at random, or blow away a bunch of people who happened to wander by his sniper tower, or set out to terrorize a general and hated society in some such aimed-at-everybody fashion. And neither did Loughner.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I mean that they're alike in the sense that it's quite possible that neither of them had any direct political motivation whatsoever.
    We are all agreed on that. We have never been arguing that. Almost nobody thinks Loughner is motivated by a coherent ideology or worked out political positions he thinks he can further through assassination. He's nuts, OK? This stuff about his "political motivation" is a red herring, an irrelevancy calculated to deflect attention from the actual role of the violent and irresponsible and otherwise dangerously inciting rhetoric the wingnut faction has been spewing - with multiple examples of its effects now having established common assumptions, a reality in which public "liberals" are targets of violence and living under physical threat as a matter of course, is simply taken for granted.

    I don't claim the Tea party faction - what used to be called the Confederacy, or the KKK, or the Birchers, or just the local thugs - even has a political ideology or coherent political motivation. Why would I claim Loughner would share one with them?

    Again, if we're going with the Hinckley parallel: what media entity would you identify as parallel to the role of the movie Taxi Driver, with its fringe authoritarian crazy front and center, in Loughner's surroundings?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura

    He thought a bunch of nonentity speech audience members would make an impressive target for an unrelated classroom of apolitical casual acquaintances, fulfilling his brags to strangers, and just happened to pick a local and obscure Congressman and her crowd - the crosshaired "liberal" one - at random?

    Do you believe that?
    Actually I do believe it. I think he was lashing out at the government/system in general, and chose the target merely because it was political in nature, rather than because it was affiliated with the 'liberal' side of the coin. Also, choosing a local target means he can expect that the target will be significant to his former class mates, but not necessarily the rest of the country. (Though it turned out to matter to the rest of the country too.)

    In a sense, that would mean he was lashing out against his community and the government both.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The articles mention that Hinckley had scouted the possibility of shooting Carter before Reagan even took office. He just wanted to become famous any way he could so Foster would look at him as an equal.
    That's not "any way he could". That's shooting a President of the US that Ms Foster was known to have met and think of, on a national stage, on TV, Hollywood level, Taxi Driver level, getting taken down by the Secret Service and all that good stuff.

    Hinckley didn't pick his targets at random. He didn't just pick out a famous person in a crowd at random, or blow away a bunch of people who happened to wander by his sniper tower, or set out to terrorize a general and hated society in some such aimed-at-everybody fashion. And neither did Loughner.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I mean that they're alike in the sense that it's quite possible that neither of them had any direct political motivation whatsoever.
    We are all agreed on that. We have never been arguing that. Almost nobody thinks Loughner is motivated by a coherent ideology or worked out political positions he thinks he can further through assassination. He's nuts, OK? This stuff about his "political motivation" is a red herring, an irrelevancy calculated to deflect attention from the actual role of the violent and irresponsible and otherwise dangerously inciting rhetoric the wingnut faction has been spewing - with multiple examples of its effects now having established common assumptions, a reality in which public "liberals" are targets of violence and living under physical threat as a matter of course, is simply taken for granted.

    I don't claim the Tea party faction - what used to be called the Confederacy, or the KKK, or the Birchers, or just the local thugs - even has a political ideology or coherent political motivation. Why would I claim Loughner would share one with them?

    Again, if we're going with the Hinckley parallel: what media entity would you identify as parallel to the role of the movie Taxi Driver, with its fringe authoritarian crazy front and center, in Loughner's surroundings?
    When you're comparing crazy people, you can't expect a lot of specifics to align. It's the broad motivation, the general goal that was served by their anti-social decisions that merits comparison.

    Hinckley wanted to not be a nobody. He wanted a "somebody" to care about him, so he would feel important. Probably Jodie Foster is simply the celebrity he latched onto, and made her the focus of his broader goal. A guy like that could just as easily choose any number of A list celebrities, or local celebrities from their own high school. (Aspiring to be noticed on a national level vs. aspiring to be noticed on a local level is just a difference in scale - but serves the same emotional needs.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think he was lashing out at the government/system in general, and chose the target merely because it was political in nature, rather than because it was affiliated with the 'liberal' side of the coin
    And you don't see the Tea Party rhetoric there?

    The standard, basic Tea Party rant - that's what you just attributed to Loughner.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Hinckley wanted to not be a nobody. He wanted a "somebody" to care about him, so he would feel important. Probably Jodie Foster is simply the celebrity he latched onto, and made her the focus of his broader goal. A guy like that could just as easily choose any number of A list celebrities, or local celebrities from their own high school. (Aspiring to be noticed on a national level vs. aspiring to be noticed on a local level is just a difference in scale - but serves the same emotional needs.)
    We know within reason the context of Hinckley's motivation, how Foster was chosen, how Hinckley could have seen violence against a political figure as heroic transgression and impressive status acquisition in Foster's eyes particularly, how the act was suggested, etc - from the movie Taxi Driver.

    What, in your opinion, played the media role of Taxi Driver in Loughner's life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think he was lashing out at the government/system in general, and chose the target merely because it was political in nature, rather than because it was affiliated with the 'liberal' side of the coin
    And you don't see the Tea Party rhetoric there?

    The standard, basic Tea Party rant - that's what you just attributed to Loughner.
    Good point. I actually hadn't thought of that. They probably do attract a lot of anti-establishment wackos with that small government drive of theirs, don't they? That's just so ironic when you think about it being started by Republicans.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Hinckley wanted to not be a nobody. He wanted a "somebody" to care about him, so he would feel important. Probably Jodie Foster is simply the celebrity he latched onto, and made her the focus of his broader goal. A guy like that could just as easily choose any number of A list celebrities, or local celebrities from their own high school. (Aspiring to be noticed on a national level vs. aspiring to be noticed on a local level is just a difference in scale - but serves the same emotional needs.)
    We know within reason the context of Hinckley's motivation, how Foster was chosen, how Hinckley could have seen violence against a political figure as heroic transgression and impressive status acquisition in Foster's eyes particularly, how the act was suggested, etc - from the movie Taxi Driver.

    What, in your opinion, played the media role of Taxi Driver in Loughner's life?
    Good question. I think I'll wait until the man has been fully psychoanalyzed. Maybe reading Mein Kompf did it? He had a lot of influences. No way to know just yet which one was the dominant one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Allow me to think outside the box for a moment. Lets see, the US government is responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in iraq, thousands in afghanistan, which it has invaded and is still occupying and we are getting a media circus extravaganza because a member of this government got shot by one of their own citizens? By that logic should we have rooted for the militaristic invasion-happy nazi officials in the movie Valkyrie and againt tom cruise's character?

    (Didnt war criminal Bush cancelled a trip To Switzerland to avoid being charged with war crimes? Imo if Obama continiues the occupation members of his administration should also be arrested to face charges the moment they step foot in a civilized country.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Allow me to think outside the box for a moment. Lets see, the US government is responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in iraq, thousands in afghanistan, which it has invaded and is still occupying and we are getting a media circus extravaganza because a member of this government got shot by one of their own citizens? By that logic should we have rooted for the militaristic invasion-happy nazi officials in the movie Valkyrie and againt tom cruise's character?

    (Didnt war criminal Bush cancelled a trip To Switzerland to avoid being charged with war crimes? Imo if Obama continiues the occupation members of his administration should also be arrested to face charges the moment they step foot in a civilized country.)
    You have strayed a million miles away from the original post, you have got to be a Pinko.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •