Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 112

Thread: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot

  1. #1 Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Democratic congresswoman Giffords from Arizona, who has previously been the target of violence for her support of healthcare, has been shot in the head today.


    WTF is wrong with these people? What is happening in this country?


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47244.html

    Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot in the head and gravely wounded Saturday outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz., while holding a public event, and rushed into surgery.

    The 40-year-old Arizona Democrat was still in surgery Saturday afternoon at University Medical Center in Tucson, according to her spokesman, C.J. Karamargin.


    Interestingly, she was on Sarah Palin's "Cross Hairs" list:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511433.html

    Sarah Palin is targeting -- yes, with gun sights -- House Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform.

    Palin's Facebook page now carries a map featuring 20 gun sights, one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.
    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...are-reform.php

    Sarah Palin posted a picture on her Facebook page this week showing cross hairs over the districts of Democrats who voted for health care reform in districts that Republicans carried.

    On the page, Palin writes:
    With the president signing this unwanted and "transformative" government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let's not get discouraged. Don't get demoralized. Get organized!
    Palin also tweeted the page:

    Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.

    4th down on the left




    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...pt-in-arizona/

    You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.


    Opposition to healthcare reform is really getting (has been??) nuts:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...alth-care.html
    Many of my friends on the right have legitimate technocratic differences with the Affordable Care Act. But many of the politicians they've stood with have not made a legitimate case against the bill. Rather, they've taken a bill that echoes past legislation Republicans have introduced and called it, as Sen. Jon Kyl did, "a stunning threat to liberty." They've told their supporters, as Sen, Chuck Grassley did, that they're right to fear that the health-care bill "determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma." This is not merely legislation that they have some technical or philosophical disagreements with. It is, in the words of Speaker John Boehner, "a monstrosity."

    Yes... a "monstrosity," indeed.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    I've been trying to ignore this stuff, so gee, thank's for reminding me. I'm thinking about heading south and trading papers. Not because I think enslavement to the drug lords is any better or worse than enslavement to the corporofascist robber CEO's, but it is warmer down south. Habla Espanol? Si.

    All joking aside, this is sad and terrible and pisses me off.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    185
    Yeah. Here is Sarah. She could do it.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The suspect's YouTube account here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by simus
    Yeah. Here is Sarah. She could do it.
    Lots of people hunt. The vast majority of us kill animals to eat and survive. That's not at issue. What is at issue here is that the hyperbolic rhetoric and the falsehoods assumed as truth have become rampant in our country and we're facing scenarios like we did during the McCarthy era... or in 1930s Germany, and all under the guise of constitutional patriotism. It's not her "fault" that she put people in the "cross hairs." It was certainly ignorant and in bad taste, but this guy acted on his own. What concerns me is that the rhetoric has become blind to the reality... ideology has trumped common decency... polarization has increased the likelihood of such senseless killings for simple political disagreements.

    I really hope some tea partiers speak out and tone down the rhetoric as a result of this. Many of us "leftie tree hugging liberals" who listen to the "lame stream media" spoke out when people were carrying firearms to political rallies. Our claims that such actions would take us too far past civil discourse are continuing to pan out, and I won't be surprised if this continues.

    Like I said... the leaders of the movement need to set the tone. Thus far, they've simply fanned the flames of hatred and used rhetoric to rile up the base and have ignored the harm they cause to the society they claim to be protecting. It's time for them to "be adults" and admonish this type of activity... to remind their base that it's okay to disagree, but ideas and debate are the way to solve things, not with active, violent, armed revolt.

    What are the chances at that, though? Most of them don't even believe our president was born in the US, and they also seem to think that the possibility of him being a muslim is somehow supposed to matter.


    This is what happens when we let education suffer and when ideology trumps fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm confused that someone can have both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf on their favourite book list, they're ideological opposites. Then again the Ayn Rand would suggest an opposition to both Fascism and Communism.

    This guy just seemed highly disturbed, I'm no psychiatrist but the mind control stuff on his youtube suggests he suffered from paranoid delusions.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    There's no proof this has anything to do with the Tea party.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    It is an indication of the febrile, volatile nature of politics in America that, immediately the news broke, the internet was alive with anger, a dispute between the left and the right”
    End Quote

    Mark Mardell

    BBC North America editor

    Jared Loughner, according to the BBC was " obviously disturbed " Apparently six other people were killed, with little mention of them. Hussein Obama said, " Tragedy For Our Entire Country " Get real, there is no need for hysterics.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145076
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm confused that someone can have both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf on their favourite book list, they're ideological opposites. Then again the Ayn Rand would suggest an opposition to both Fascism and Communism.
    Surely there are lots of similarities between Fascism and Communism.
    Both ideologies come under the umbrella of totalitarianism.
    I do accept that Communist ideology was able to attract good people who were often highly intelligent. Fascism is less an ideology than a mish-mash of fairly stupid ideas. In many ways that makes the faults and failures of Communism far worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm confused that someone can have both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf on their favourite book list, they're ideological opposites. Then again the Ayn Rand would suggest an opposition to both Fascism and Communism.
    Surely there are lots of similarities between Fascism and Communism.
    Both ideologies come under the umbrella of totalitarianism.
    I do accept that Communist ideology was able to attract good people who were often highly intelligent. Fascism is less an ideology than a mish-mash of fairly stupid ideas. In many ways that makes the faults and failures of Communism far worse.
    The similarities are superficial, they are diametric opposites. One is on the extreme right and the other on the extreme left.

    Fascism involves promoting state corporatism, specific elevation of certain groups as naturally privileged above others, and the subjugation of the individual to the good of the state and the ruling elite.

    Communism is supposed to do away with capitalism, make all groups equal, and make all individuals work for the good of all others.

    While in practice totalitarian communism may have a lot in common with the execution of Fascism, there is a reason why fascist like Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini were bitter enemies of communist. As was the apartheid regime in South Africa, which had integrated philosophies of fascism with democracy, so fascism does not even have to be totalitarian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

    BBC North America editor[/color]
    Jared Loughner, according to the BBC was " obviously disturbed " Apparently six other people were killed, with little mention of them. Hussein Obama said, " Tragedy For Our Entire Country " Get real, there is no need for hysterics.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145076
    Except that every single news report does mention six other people. This is hardly hysterics either, a sitting member of government being shot would be major news in any country. Especially when her political rivals called for violent action to be taken against her on a number of occasions.

    Though Loughner is clearly disturbed, he's still alive, it's not outlandish to assume that the political climate didn't provoke the violent behavior. His actual motivations might not come out until his trial, even then they might not be coherent. It's still a good moment to reflect on why any sort of violent rhetoric should be present in civilized political discourse.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There's no proof this has anything to do with the Tea party.
    The association was specific to the rhetoric, not necessarily the people or ideology themselves. With that said, I think there is ABUNDANT proof that this has nearly EVERYTHING to do with the rhetoric... and the climate of hate which has been steadily nurtured and magnified for so long.

    If I see a more direct link, I'll post it here, but for now I think my point about the rhetoric is relatively solid. I'd be curious if others feel otherwise.





    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    it's not outlandish to assume that the political climate didn't provoke the violent behavior. His actual motivations might not come out until his trial, even then they might not be coherent. It's still a good moment to reflect on why any sort of violent rhetoric should be present in civilized political discourse.
    Indeed, but your point assumes we already have "civilized discourse." I think that would perhaps be a tougher argument to make.

    EDIT: Of course there exist pockets of civilized discourse. My focus is more on the trend of the tone, a negative trend at that. Jon Stewart made similar pleas in the rally to restore sanity just 2-3 months ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There's no proof this has anything to do with the Tea party.
    No there isn't, but I think Bill Clinton put it quite well when he said this:

    But what we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or we should reduce our passion for the positions that we hold, but the words we use really do matter because there are — there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space, and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman The Vegan Marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm confused that someone can have both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf on their favourite book list, they're ideological opposites. Then again the Ayn Rand would suggest an opposition to both Fascism and Communism.
    Surely there are lots of similarities between Fascism and Communism.
    Both ideologies come under the umbrella of totalitarianism.
    I do accept that Communist ideology was able to attract good people who were often highly intelligent. Fascism is less an ideology than a mish-mash of fairly stupid ideas. In many ways that makes the faults and failures of Communism far worse.
    Totalitarianism comes in all forms, in all classes. It's not a correct term to adequately define a class system.

    Those who fall in line of fascism has this corporate view of domination, "one race rules all" ideology - which I might add is very totalitarian in itself. Fascism creates totalitarianism. Whereas, under Communism, we have an ideology wanting to redesign all of society under an egalitarian world perspective. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is a representation of workers having proper wages - which is in no way totalitarian.

    I find it interesting that we have people in Cuba trying to assassinate President Castro (both brothers) who are (coincidentally?) either hired by the US, or are being protected by the US, and then we have those in the US assassinating govt. officials, and yet all our govt. talks about is holding hands in prayer instead of actually figuring out the reasons for crime - socially and biologically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I need to acknowledge that when I created this thread yesterday, I was myself guilty of the very behavior I had hoped to lament. "Tea Party Rhetric... Strikes Again." It's sad that I have also contributed to the environment which is fostering these heinous acts. I hope to do better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    ~ communism this, socialism that..., etc ~

    simplistic labels, isms and masks

    just a quick note to point out that
    a) many politicians are liars and corrupt
    b) groups can be highjacked so that the initial goals are the slogans used to fool the people and the executives once in power do something completely different
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    ~ communism this, socialism that..., etc ~

    simplistic labels, isms and masks

    just a quick note to point out that
    a) many politicians are liars and corrupt
    b) groups can be highjacked so that the initial goals are the slogans used to fool the people and the executives once in power do something completely different
    My main point was that someone who seems to enjoy major texts of Fascism, Marxism, and Libertarianism simultaneously probably has issues with producing a coherent political viewpoint. Those three ideologies are incompatible with each other.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Interestingly, in 2009 there was a study by the Department of Homeland Security discussing the rise in extremism across the right-wing of american politics.


    http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
    The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

    <...>

    DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity. Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

    <...>

    Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

    <...>

    Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

    <...>

    Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm confused that someone can have both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf on their favourite book list, they're ideological opposites. Then again the Ayn Rand would suggest an opposition to both Fascism and Communism.
    Surely there are lots of similarities between Fascism and Communism.
    Both ideologies come under the umbrella of totalitarianism.
    I do accept that Communist ideology was able to attract good people who were often highly intelligent. Fascism is less an ideology than a mish-mash of fairly stupid ideas. In many ways that makes the faults and failures of Communism far worse.
    The similarities are superficial, they are diametric opposites. One is on the extreme right and the other on the extreme left.

    Fascism involves promoting state corporatism, specific elevation of certain groups as naturally privileged above others, and the subjugation of the individual to the good of the state and the ruling elite.

    Communism is supposed to do away with capitalism, make all groups equal, and make all individuals work for the good of all others.

    While in practice totalitarian communism may have a lot in common with the execution of Fascism, there is a reason why fascist like Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini were bitter enemies of communist. As was the apartheid regime in South Africa, which had integrated philosophies of fascism with democracy, so fascism does not even have to be totalitarian.
    The similarities are far from being superficial!
    One can visualise the right-left political spectrum as akin to a sphere rather than a straight line. It is only the line version that has Communism and Fascism as "diametric opposites".
    Communism involves promoting the role of the state in the economy. It also advocates "the subjugation of the individual to the good of the state" and, in practice, this also means the needs of the ruling elite. Under communism, we have "the specific elevation of certain groups" such as the bureaucracy "as naturally privileged above others".
    Attitudes towards free speech and other freedoms such as freedom of movement, within Communist and Fascist societies, tend to be similar. Hitler and Mussolini had a lot in common with Mao and Stalin.
    What Communism is "supposed" to do is not particularly relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    ~ communism this, socialism that..., etc ~

    simplistic labels, isms and masks

    just a quick note to point out that
    a) many politicians are liars and corrupt
    b) groups can be highjacked so that the initial goals are the slogans used to fool the people and the executives once in power do something completely different
    My main point was that someone who seems to enjoy major texts of Fascism, Marxism, and Libertarianism simultaneously probably has issues with producing a coherent political viewpoint. Those three ideologies are incompatible with each other.
    The communism this and socialism that comment was not a response to comments already made but about what was sure to follow, ie someone explaining us all about what Communism is based on the ~McCarthy's guide on how to portray Communism in 3 easy steps~.

    If the Green Party takes power, and its leader has all other environmentalists sent to concentration camp and assasinates any potlitical opponent, we'll be told its not important what the Green party is supposed to be, you must conclude that a program to curtail pollution automatically leads to people being sent to concentration camps and anyone saying it would be a good idea to plant trees is secretly plotting to instate a totalitarian dictatorship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo

    The communism this and socialism that comment was not a response to comments already made but about what was sure to follow, ie someone explaining us all about what Communism is based on the ~McCarthy's guide on how to portray Communism in 3 easy steps~.
    What would some sections of the Western left do without McCarthy!
    I have even heard of him being compared to Stalin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Thought Jared Lee Loughner's favorite reading list interesting...

    "He listed his favorite books as "Animal Farm," "Brave New World," "The Wizard of OZ," "Aesop's Fables," "The Odyssey," "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," "Fahrenheit 451," "Peter Pan," "To Kill A Mockingbird," "We The Living," "Phantom Toll Booth," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Pulp," "Through The Looking Glass," "The Communist Manifesto," "Siddhartha," "The Old Man and the Sea," "Gulliver's Travels," "Mein Kampf," "The Republic" and "Meno."



    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1AelqGx9F

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...t08brk-ON.html

    --
    Still haven't seen any connections to the Tea Party, no record of attendence, contributions, or even an indicator he knew about the movement at all, though the national debate seems focused on on that.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Aha! Atheists are to blame.
    Code:
    Loughner wrote that while he was at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Phoenix, where military applicants are screened for eligibility, he was given a "mini Bible" before being tested.
    
    "I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None," Loughner wrote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Peter Pan?

    I think that some other shooter may have seen the Peter Pan movie once as a kid. Anyone who openly admits having read or seen Peter Pan should be considered highly suspicious and potentially deranged and dangerous.


    I admit that so far the shooter has skillfully concealed his affiliation to ~Sarah Palin's Tea Party~ , although he may have gotten rid of his tricorn hat and 'abolish estate taxes for billionaires' sign to avoid any evidence. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Here is a bit of Democratic rhetoric, spouted by Obama no less, in 2008 .
    Obama Flashback: 'If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'...
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...e-bring-a-gun/
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Peter Pan?
    Gays are to blame!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Here is a bit of Democratic rhetoric, spouted by Obama no less, in 2008 .
    Obama Flashback: 'If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'...
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...e-bring-a-gun/
    Here's Carville in 2008 threatening riots if Obama would have lost

    Okay, stand by for Carville's suggestion of riots if Obama loses:

    CARVILLE: Let me be clear, I said you can call the dogs and light the fire and leave the house. I think it sounds over.

    Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are -- bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.

    But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.
    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...#ixzz1AfzcnLJh
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Fox News Warns That Without Angry Rhetoric It Will Have 24 Hours to Fill
    Would Create ‘Giant Hole’ in Program Schedule


    NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Calls for a reduction in violent political rhetoric have plunged the Fox News Channel into chaos, with a Fox spokesperson warning today that such a move “would leave us with 24 hours to fill.”

    “Let’s not underestimate the giant hole this would create,” said spokesperson Carol Foyler. “Fox without violent rhetoric would be like The Weather Channel without maps.”

    Ms. Foyler said Fox was preparing for a “worst-case scenario” in which it was pressured to air responsible statements in place of its current programming: “If it comes to that, God forbid, we’ll just air 24 hours of ‘24’.”

    In contrast with Ms. Foyler’s alarmed comments, Fox host Glenn Beck took the news of a possible programming change in stride: “If I’m kicked off the air, I’ll return to my first love: standing in the back of crowded theaters and yelling, ‘Fire.’”

    But Fox commentator Sarah Palin was less enthusiastic about the new call for tempered rhetoric: “For the first time in my life I don’t have anything to write on my hand.”

    In other cable news developments, CNN confirmed that it was considering dropping Kathleen Parker from its “Parker Spitzer” program, but said it had balked at Elliot Spitzer’s suggestion of “a different woman every night.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    More Democrat hate speech.

    On October 23, The Scranton Times reported that Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott:

    "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...#ixzz1AgwdHnXf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Harold - Is it possible in your mind that the words we use cannot, in fact, cause others to appear more dehumanized and hence become easier to target as enemies? If not, then I'm curious how many psychological studies will be required to help make your position more realistic, or how much I need to show you how military training does exactly this to make killing more palpable. If so, then seriously dude... it's time to stop posting for a bit and realize that instead of denouncing the problem you're choosing instead to add to and magnify it.


    Anecdote Culture or Standard Operating Procedure


    This isn't a left/right nor liberal/conservative issue. It's an issue about the climate in which we presently exist having a real impact on the actions of those who exist within it. Pound the war drum enough and you can't act surprised when someone steps out and attacks "the enemy." To assert that the "left" calls for violence as regularly as the "right" is to posit a false equivalence with zero basis in fact or reality.




    Now...Okay. This sort of thing bothers me on a visceral level. Does my pointing that out mean I'm somehow inciting violence?

    http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011...ah-palins.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    To assert that the "left" calls for violence as regularly as the "right" is to posit a false equivalence with zero basis in fact or reality.
    That is your perception. Doesn't mean it's true. I think there are two reasons that you think that way. One is that you are a Democat, so you are more sensitive to attacks on your party. The other is that the news media are pro-Democrat and play up some stories more than others. Did you ever hear about those remarks by Obama about bringing a gun to a knife fight? I know I hadn't.

    [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    That is your perception. Doesn't mean it's true.
    Well, the thing is, Harold, it is not my perception alone on which I am relying to find the assertions truth value. It's the evidence, and your examples of it happening on the "left" are much more uncommon and difficult to find... They are anecdotes, and anecdote evidence.

    What is seemingly ingrained in the culture of the right (references to violence, making points intended more on riling up a base (sometimes with complete falsehoods and hyperbole) instead of addressing an issue, dehumanizing the "other" side...and whatever else... my list is not exhaustive, but is trying to call attention to a tone) is much more an often out of place exception with the left.

    Please don't misconstrue my argument. I am not saying there is no partisan rhetoric, and I am not saying there are no personal attacks from the left. Further, I would be a fool to sit here suggesting that inappropriate comments or calls to violence are never made by those on the left, and that is not what I am saying. The difference is that one is a relatively uncommon exception (with the left) whereas the other is closer to standard operating procedure (with the right).

    The evidence supports my position, and I'm curious how you can so unashamedly cast that aside as a mere "perception" and call it a day.



    What further bothers me is how quickly people are saying, "Nope... rhetoric has nothing to do with the tragedy" or arguing instead with tu quoque that "the left does it too!" as opposed to saying, "Yeah... Our words do have consequences... We should, in fact, be more aware and I am sorry for anything I may have said which went too far. I certainly never wanted anyone to be hurt."

    But, no. We just don't see that. We don't seem to have people willing to step up and be a good leader and quality human being.











    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Wish she and other injured people get better soon.
    This appeared on nearly every major news in China, it is said healthcare system or migration issues may be the cause.
    I can't image why the man had to this. Except electing people whose political idea you like, is there any other way to influence the politic in USA? In China, there is one way called shangfang(go to assigned higher government office to discuss problems with lower office), but shameful it seems works very not healthy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Interestingly, she was on Sarah Palin's "Cross Hairs" list:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_511433.html
    Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe the rhetoric of the left. that's borderline extreme though... the Huffington Post...

    Those markings in the map, are surveyor symbols. Not cross-hairs. That one is used to mark map locations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    There's no proof this has anything to do with the Tea party.
    No there isn't, but I think Bill Clinton put it quite well when he said this:

    But what we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or we should reduce our passion for the positions that we hold, but the words we use really do matter because there are — there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space, and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.
    Though I disagreed with much of President Clinton's ideals, he was indeed a great leader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Those markings in the map, are surveyor symbols. Not cross-hairs. That one is used to mark map locations.
    Yes, and it's consistent with her reputation as a theodolite toating protector of our freedoms

    --

    And still no evidence the assasin even know about the tea party....
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Why doesn't it surprise me that you believe the rhetoric of the left. that's borderline extreme though... the Huffington Post...

    Those markings in the map, are surveyor symbols. Not cross-hairs. That one is used to mark map locations.
    I don't blame Palin for the shooting, but it takes some sort of fantastic mental gymnastics to some how argue that they intended to use benchmark symbols, which mark locations where surveying was done from on a topological survey map, instead of crosshairs. Exactly how was the Palin map about topography.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    It is idiotic to even be discussing Sarah Palin's map. So what if it is crosshairs. You have heard of targeting legislative districts. That doesn't mean you shoot the congressman.

    What do you suppose happened here? This guy sees the map, then says to himself: Crosshairs.... Must.... Klll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    That is your perception. Doesn't mean it's true.
    Well, the thing is, Harold, it is not my perception alone on which I am relying to find the assertions truth value. It's the evidence, and your examples of it happening on the "left" are much more uncommon and difficult to find... They are anecdotes, and anecdote evidence.
    What is the difference between my anecdote and the evidence you claim there is. I suppose that if an army of editorial writers and television commentators would have started crying about Obama's remarks like they do about Palin's, that would change it from an anecdote to evidence?

    Maybe the reason you can't find examples on the left is because you think Republicans are greedy, selfish, and ignorant people who don't care about poor sick people or children, and are trying to ruin the world. So when people say that, you see nothing unusual about it.
    What is seemingly ingrained in the culture of the right (references to violence, making points intended more on riling up a base (sometimes with complete falsehoods and hyperbole) instead of addressing an issue, dehumanizing the "other" side...and whatever else... my list is not exhaustive, but is trying to call attention to a tone) is much more an often out of place exception with the left.

    The evidence supports my position, and I'm curious how you can so unashamedly cast that aside as a mere "perception" and call it a day.
    You have no evidence. It's a day.

    Oh, by the way, here's another one.

    While you’re reading all those HuffPo articles filled with hand-wringing sanctimony about the current state of Republican political discourse, keep in mind that according to New York Magazine, the founder of the Huffington Post filmed a role in a sci-fi fantasy film where the two heroes of the film attempt to rid the world of evil by assassinating President George W. Bush:

    The two soldiers’ relationship blossoms, and Butch begins to get to know his lover’s family. But after he inadvertently draws attention to their ancestral home, disaster strikes. This tragedy radicalizes the pair and they become convinced that the only way to rid the world of evil is to kill the architect of the invasion, the then-president of the United States, George W. Bush. And so, during one of the president’s secret sorties to Iraq, they attempt to assassinate him.
    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jj...-fantasy-film/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "So Palin & crew are feeling unjustly blamed for the actions of an extremist. Maybe they can ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that."
    Priceless :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I really hope some tea partiers speak out and tone down the rhetoric as a result of this. Many of us "leftie tree hugging liberals" who listen to the "lame stream media" spoke out when people were carrying firearms to political rallies. Our claims that such actions would take us too far past civil discourse are continuing to pan out, and I won't be surprised if this continues.

    Like I said... the leaders of the movement need to set the tone. Thus far, they've simply fanned the flames of hatred and used rhetoric to rile up the base and have ignored the harm they cause to the society they claim to be protecting. It's time for them to "be adults" and admonish this type of activity... to remind their base that it's okay to disagree, but ideas and debate are the way to solve things, not with active, violent, armed revolt.
    .
    I think the problem with that is that the Sarah Palin camp plays more to the less educated people with (probably) a lower scholastic IQ. For people like that, settling something via debate is the same as conceding, because they know they'll get out argued by the other person who knows how to do it better than they do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    "So Palin & crew are feeling unjustly blamed for the actions of an extremist. Maybe they can ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that."
    Priceless :wink:
    You bring up a good point. A radical Muslim in Fort Hood sprays bullets at American soldiers while shouting Allahu Akbar, yet
    Attorney General Eric Holder has declined to state that radical Islam was the major motive for Hasan's attack.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan
    That doesn't stop you from pinning the Arizona massacre on the tea party with no evidence whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Harold, are you trying to suggest that Islamic Extremists are liberals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Harold, are you trying to suggest that Islamic Extremists are liberals?
    No but liberals are strangely tolerant of islamic extremists, and give them a lot more latitude than they give to conservatives. I say strangely, because the islamic extremists have no love or tolerance for liberals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Harold, are you trying to suggest that Islamic Extremists are liberals?
    No but liberals are strangely tolerant of islamic extremists, and give them a lot more latitude than they give to conservatives. I say strangely, because the islamic extremists have no love or tolerance for liberals.

    Liberals are afraid disdain toward extremists will become racism against Arabs. That is not in the least intended as tolerance for the extremists themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    This makes good reading. " Ready. Blame. Shoot. " However the left wing seem to want it all their own way. Left wingers are good people, right wingers are bad people.

    In 2004 the Democratic Party used a map of the USA with the headline ‘Targeting’ and bull eyes over states they were concentrating on, the blurb talked about operating behind enemy lines. This may have been less overtly violent than Palin’s cross hairs but is in the same vein, as is Barack Obama’s - ‘If they bring a knife we’ll bring a gun’ speech in 2008.

    http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmat...6-2896db34946a
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Liberals are afraid disdain toward extremists will become racism against Arabs. That is not in the least intended as tolerance for the extremists themselves.
    If Holder cannot bring himself to call Hasan a Muslim terrorist, that's tolerance for extremism, bordering on insanity actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    This makes good reading. " Ready. Blame. Shoot. " However the left wing seem to want it all their own way. Left wingers are good people, right wingers are bad people.

    In 2004 the Democratic Party used a map of the USA with the headline ‘Targeting’ and bull eyes over states they were concentrating on, the blurb talked about operating behind enemy lines. This may have been less overtly violent than Palin’s cross hairs but is in the same vein, as is Barack Obama’s - ‘If they bring a knife we’ll bring a gun’ speech in 2008.
    Good find, Dave. There is a good list here as well: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

    It includes these gems:

    Chris Matthews fantasizing on air about seeing Rush Limbaugh shot in the head

    Sandra Bernhard: Sarah Palin should be GANG RAPED if she comes to New York

    The Craig Kilborn Show superimposing the words "Snipers Wanted" over the face of President George W. Bush

    Nobel "Peace Prize" winner Betty Williams publicly stating her desire to murder President George W. Bush.

    Pelosi and company slander teens and toddlers calling them nazis

    British film makers Gabriel Range and Simon Finch making a 2006 movie fantasizing about assassinating President George W. Bush

    Alec Baldwin urging the murder of Henry Hyde, his family, and ALL Congressional Republicans and their families on national television

    David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, two America-hating left-wing terrorists, were arrested by the FBI after conspiring to firebomb Republicans at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The American Media refused to report the story.

    NPR commentator and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg wishes death by AIDS on Senator Jesse Helms and/or his grandchildren.

    Julianne Malveaux publicly wishes death on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Obama supporter bites off finger of Tea Party supporter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Liberals are afraid disdain toward extremists will become racism against Arabs. That is not in the least intended as tolerance for the extremists themselves.
    If Holder cannot bring himself to call Hasan a Muslim terrorist, that's tolerance for extremism, bordering on insanity actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    This makes good reading. " Ready. Blame. Shoot. " However the left wing seem to want it all their own way. Left wingers are good people, right wingers are bad people.

    In 2004 the Democratic Party used a map of the USA with the headline ‘Targeting’ and bull eyes over states they were concentrating on, the blurb talked about operating behind enemy lines. This may have been less overtly violent than Palin’s cross hairs but is in the same vein, as is Barack Obama’s - ‘If they bring a knife we’ll bring a gun’ speech in 2008.
    Good find, Dave. There is a good list here as well: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

    It includes these gems:

    Chris Matthews fantasizing on air about seeing Rush Limbaugh shot in the head

    Sandra Bernhard: Sarah Palin should be GANG RAPED if she comes to New York

    The Craig Kilborn Show superimposing the words "Snipers Wanted" over the face of President George W. Bush

    Nobel "Peace Prize" winner Betty Williams publicly stating her desire to murder President George W. Bush.

    Pelosi and company slander teens and toddlers calling them nazis

    British film makers Gabriel Range and Simon Finch making a 2006 movie fantasizing about assassinating President George W. Bush

    Alec Baldwin urging the murder of Henry Hyde, his family, and ALL Congressional Republicans and their families on national television

    David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, two America-hating left-wing terrorists, were arrested by the FBI after conspiring to firebomb Republicans at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The American Media refused to report the story.

    NPR commentator and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg wishes death by AIDS on Senator Jesse Helms and/or his grandchildren.

    Julianne Malveaux publicly wishes death on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Obama supporter bites off finger of Tea Party supporter
    More proof that the Democrats are not the "Goodytwoshoes" that they purport to be.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    After reading the last several exchanges, a few of my key points obviously went unnoticed or ignored. I will repeat them now in hopes that comments will adapt accordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Please don't misconstrue my argument. I am not saying there is no partisan rhetoric, and I am not saying there are no personal attacks from the left. Further, I would be a fool to sit here suggesting that inappropriate comments or calls to violence are never made by those on the left, and that is not what I am saying. The difference is that one is a relatively uncommon exception (with the left) whereas the other is closer to standard operating procedure (with the right).

    <...>

    What further bothers me is how quickly people are saying, "Nope... rhetoric has nothing to do with the tragedy" or arguing instead with tu quoque that "the left does it too!" as opposed to saying, "Yeah... Our words do have consequences... We should, in fact, be more aware and I am sorry for anything I may have said which went too far. I certainly never wanted anyone to be hurt."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    After reading the last several exchanges, a few of my key points obviously went unnoticed or ignored. I will repeat them now in hopes that comments will adapt accordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Please don't misconstrue my argument. I am not saying there is no partisan rhetoric, and I am not saying there are no personal attacks from the left. Further, I would be a fool to sit here suggesting that inappropriate comments or calls to violence are never made by those on the left, and that is not what I am saying. The difference is that one is a relatively uncommon exception (with the left) whereas the other is closer to standard operating procedure (with the right).

    <...>

    What further bothers me is how quickly people are saying, "Nope... rhetoric has nothing to do with the tragedy" or arguing instead with tu quoque that "the left does it too!" as opposed to saying, "Yeah... Our words do have consequences... We should, in fact, be more aware and I am sorry for anything I may have said which went too far. I certainly never wanted anyone to be hurt."
    I don't think your comments were ignored. They were refuted. Inappropriate comments and calls for violence from the left are quite common, not an exception. Dave and I have abundantly demonstrated that. Now, let's see your list of the calls for violence from the right.


    Oh, by the way, here is the 2004 map with bulls-eyes on the red states targeted by Democrats. Now let's see. What do you do with a target? Shoot at it, naturally.
    http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/demo...t-map-in-2004/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    BS. It's a very common metaphor for goal setting, business achievements and meeting benchmarks--some of us even shop there.

    Do I think the rhetoric will chill down...no not really. Not at least until it starts to effect ratings or voter count--just the opposite of what's been happening in the economy driven hysteria of the past couple years. It's easy to stir people who are desperate and largely out of work, or having lost a house etc to a frenzy.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370

    Oh, by the way, here is the 2004 map with bulls-eyes on the red states targeted by Democrats. Now let's see. What do you do with a target? Shoot at it, naturally.
    http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/demo...t-map-in-2004/
    Except that very few democrats actually own guns.

    A joke is only a joke if you really know for sure nobody's going to follow through and bring it into reality. Which is why a gun toting culture has to be held to different standards of joking than a non-gun toting culture. Why do republicans talk so much about responsible gun ownership, if they don't actually feel that gun owners ought to behave responsibly? Clearly what they really want is is quite the opposite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Except that very few democrats actually own guns.
    That's quite a stereotype. Clinton made a show of duck hunting when he was on the campaign trail. So did Kerry. I know a number of Democrats who own guns.

    A joke is only a joke if you really know for sure nobody's going to follow through and bring it into reality.
    What joke are you referring to?
    Which is why a gun toting culture has to be held to different standards of joking than a non-gun toting culture. Why do republicans talk so much about responsible gun ownership, if they don't actually feel that gun owners ought to behave responsibly? Clearly what they really want is is quite the opposite.
    What was irresponsible? The crosshairs on a map are no different than the targets. It is the same identical idea. Exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    [BS. It's a very common metaphor for goal setting, business achievements and meeting benchmarks--some of us even shop there.
    I see. When Democrats use metaphors, they're metaphors. When Republicans do it, they are accessories to murder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    [BS. It's a very common metaphor for goal setting, business achievements and meeting benchmarks--some of us even shop there.
    I see. When Democrats use metaphors, they're metaphors. When Republicans do it, they are accessories to murder.
    Dude I've been a Republican all my life. You'd have to pry my weapons from the hands of my dead body before taking them. But even I can see that the generalized use of bullseyes without supporting rhetoric is much less heated than using cross hairs on a map occupied by terms such as "reload" and "2nd amendment remedy" to a crowd who carries weapons to rallies to hear a gun toting politician.

    As I've said several times I dont' think it had a damn thing to do with the shooting. Nor do I think it will change because it was wildly successful at getting out the Republican voters. But the symbolism and language was far more aggressive than anything I've seen at the national level since I voted for Reagan so many years ago.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Now, let's see your list of the calls for violence from the right.
    How would performing such a task help us toward an agreement that such calls for violence are inherently unnecessary, wrong, and harmful to our collective well-being?

    Also, you seem to (despite your claim to the contrary) be ignoring my point that tu quoque is not at all useful here.




    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I see. When Democrats use metaphors, they're metaphors. When Republicans do it, they are accessories to murder.
    No. That is not an accurate description of the discussion. This is about culture, not ideology. We can disagree on the role of government, and we can disagree on how best to solve problems. But we can no longer disagree on when it's time to stop defending violent rhetoric and we can no longer ignore nor defend the inherent weakness in the position of those who fail to acknowledge that we need to do better.

    And who the frak said anyone was an accessory to murder? Good grief, Harold. Can you not acknowledge the importance of the role we all play in avoiding the dehumanization of others... the maturity which comes with openly stating that we should be more careful with our words so as not to make it easier for less stable people to make the imagery a reality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    How would performing such a task help us toward an agreement that such calls for violence are inherently unnecessary, wrong, and harmful to our collective well-being?

    Also, you seem to (despite your claim to the contrary) be ignoring my point that tu quoque is not at all useful here.
    You continue to assert that it is standard operating procedure for the right and rare on the left. I am not about to proceed with the discussion on that basis. Either offer some evidence for your statement, or withdraw it.

    We cannot have a fruitful discussion about a problem until we identify what the problem is, if there is a problem. You think there is a problem of right-wing hate speech. I don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Except that very few democrats actually own guns.
    I really do wonder, why you think that very few Democrats actually own guns.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Except that very few democrats actually own guns.
    I really do wonder, why you think that very few Democrats actually own guns.
    My working hypothesis is that he gets most things wrong most of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    We cannot have a fruitful discussion about a problem until we identify what the problem is, if there is a problem. You think there is a problem of right-wing hate speech. I don't.
    No, I think there is a problem with hate speech in general. I find it more prevalent from the right. You don't accept the premise. No problem. That's fine. I'm not looking to circumvent any burden of truth here. I'll just say that I'm confident in the validity of my position, and stipulate that I am not willing to do an exhaustive study to demonstrate that, so accept your equivocation that both sides are equal offenders (even though such an equivocation is so obviously fallacious).

    It's hardly critical to the larger point that there is no place for calls to violence in our politics, and that such rhetoric hinders and often completely extinguishes reasonable debate and discourse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Except that very few democrats actually own guns.
    I really do wonder, why you think that very few Democrats actually own guns.
    Not really true. You forget the blue dog democrats who mostly own guns--others do as well for home protection etc. According to the latest poll I could find about a 3rd of democrats own guns. That puts the number of Democrats with guns at something like 20 million. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun...democrats.aspx

    What I've never heard about is democrats bringing their guns to political rallies by the masses.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    It appears that Gabrielle Giffords ( according to Wiki ) is considered a " Blue Dog " Democrat, and that she does have a political position on gun rights but this is perhaps not appreciated by the N.R.A.
    " Gun rights, Giffords supports gun rights.[59] She opposed the Washington D.C. gun ban, signing an Amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.[59][60]

    Despite her stated support, gun rights groups typically give her low grades on the topic. She has a D+ rating from the NRA[61] and a D− from the GOA.[62] "


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Gun rights? How is that relevant, exactly? I am fairly confident all of you would quickly label/dismiss me as a liberal, but I too am a gun owner and solid marksman. What's the point again? Seems like a silly and childish off-topic exploration, if you ask me.


    A good article here:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/op...14krugman.html
    On Wednesday, President Obama called on Americans to “expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Those were beautiful words; they spoke to our desire for reconciliation.

    But the truth is that we are a deeply divided nation and are likely to remain one for a long time. By all means, let’s listen to each other more carefully; but what we’ll discover, I fear, is how far apart we are. For the great divide in our politics isn’t really about pragmatic issues, about which policies work best; it’s about differences in those very moral imaginations Mr. Obama urges us to expand, about divergent beliefs over what constitutes justice.

    And the real challenge we face is not how to resolve our differences — something that won’t happen any time soon — but how to keep the expression of those differences within bounds.

    What are the differences I’m talking about?

    One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

    The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

    There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.

    This deep divide in American political morality — for that’s what it amounts to — is a relatively recent development. Commentators who pine for the days of civility and bipartisanship are, whether they realize it or not, pining for the days when the Republican Party accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state, and was even willing to contemplate expanding it. As many analysts have noted, the Obama health reform — whose passage was met with vandalism and death threats against members of Congress — was modeled on Republican plans from the 1990s.

    But that was then. Today’s G.O.P. sees much of what the modern federal government does as illegitimate; today’s Democratic Party does not. When people talk about partisan differences, they often seem to be implying that these differences are petty, matters that could be resolved with a bit of good will. But what we’re talking about here is a fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. <continue reading>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It's hardly critical to the larger point that there is no place for calls to violence in our politics, and that such rhetoric hinders and often completely extinguishes reasonable debate and discourse.
    Nobody is overtly calling for violence. That would be a terroristic threat and they'd likely be arrested. In order to have a useful discussion on this subject one would need to define the terms.

    I think you are talking about some sorts of rhetoric that you find offensive, or that you think is code words for violence. And no two people will agree on what that means.

    To some people an image of crosshairs translates to homicide. If you watch a lot of police dramas on television you would make that association. To others, it may just be a convenient graphic symbol for a very precise way of targeting one's political campaign against the most vulnerable legislative districts. Am I allowed to say vulnerable? After all, it comes from a Latin root word meaning "to wound."

    I suggest watching some of the football playoff games this weekend. Then look up the fan discussion forums for the participating teams. See if the fans agree if the officiating of the game was fair, or which team the officials were favoring. Now imagine if there weren't even a rulebook. How closely do you think the fans will agree? that's about how likely we are to agree on this topic.

    Speaking of code words, that reminds me of the (leftist) rioting during the sixties. Some people were calling for law and order. The people doing the rioting claimed that "law and order" was code for racism. To which somebody replied, well then tell me the code words for "law and order."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Nobody is overtly calling for violence
    BS.

    " “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

    I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?”
    Sherron Angle.

    While I think she was technically correct about the funders intent. She connected it directly to solutions related to using violence to usurp the past election. It was an unambiguous call for violence which should have been resoundingly and loudly rejected by the Republican talking heads. Instead at the time folks like Limbaugh Beck and others added to the fire bring it to life with revisionist history.

    Even after the current event rather than back off a bit and suggest the rhetoric was perhaps too heating, charges the Democrats of a conspiracy to shoot the Congressmen to make the right look bad and Palin barely addressing the subject.

    Unfortunately the Republicans aren't unified enough for anyone to resounding send the message "enough is enough" though we should appreciate Boehner's attempt in calling for civility, at least within the house.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    I think what the "right" lacks at the moment is strong leadership, or at least someone to take the lead and say "lets all take a step back, catch a breath and calm down".
    There are too many loose cannons at the moment, and no strong leadership there to keep it in check. People are too quick to lump all republicans in the looney bin while quoting some inexplicably insane quotes from the far right.

    I am of the opinion that the best government is a Democratic government with a strong well structured opposition from the right, it keeps everyone sharp and prevents the leading party getting complacent.

    But they way Amercian politics has presented itself to the world in the wake of this horrific crime has been cringe-worthy. The line of argument from both sides has become so heated the underlying real issues have been lost under a pile of mud slinging.

    I hope Obama's speech combined with the emergence of strong reasoned leadership on the right will serve to put an end to it, and the next "news cycle" won't be a repeat of some of the depressing dialogue of the last few weeks.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    I have just watched a video made by Jared Loughner ( courtesy of Sky News ) he makes no mention of the Tea Party or Republicans. However Sky News mentions this,
    "Meanwhile, a man who was wounded in last week's shooting rampage allegedly threatened a "tea party" activist at a town hall meeting of victims and witnesses of the attack.

    James Eric Fuller, a former campaign volunteer for Congresswoman Giffords, was arrested after shouting "You're dead!" at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan said.

    The 63-year-old Democratic activist, who was shot in the knee during the rampage, was charged with making threats, intimidation and disorderly conduct and was involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation. "


    http://goo.gl/zDGBB
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    I hope Obama's speech combined with the emergence of strong reasoned leadership on the right will serve to put an end to it, and the next "news cycle" won't be a repeat of some of the depressing dialogue of the last few weeks.
    I've been hoping for the same, but am not optimistic that we will find such leadership any time soon. Even here in this thread people continue with the tu quoque argumentative approach. Should I say, "Oh well," or is there anything which can be done to actually move the direction of the ship on this? I don't know.


    Below is a video from a year and a half ago which touches on many of the themes this event has raised... at least in my view. It discusses how evangelicalism is rotting the brains of americans (a direct quote), and calls attention to some of the more troubling aspects of politics in the US (including the lack of leadership who can effectively speak out against events like this and adjust the overall climate).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s6JFoIVnTw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Let me summarize a few thoughts since the polarization seems to continue. I want to, at the very least, ensure clarity and understanding.

    The event which happened in Arizona cannot be blamed on any single cause.
    This does not, however, mean that we can summarily dismiss surrounding circumstances as not having played a role.

    The shooter was obviously acting in a way which runs counter to the norms of our culture, and it could easily have been either a right or left wing ideologue who did it.
    We are not sure what political leanings the shooter had, and we are unsure if any specific thing led to this heinous act.
    We are sure that discourse in our country continues to degrade.
    We are sure that we have a culture where worldview too often trumps fact and evidence.
    The norms of our culture are shifting, and the extremes are given greater attention. We are sure of that, too.

    We know that there is a balance between freedom and security to be found, and we know that we should avoid a military state.
    We know that there are very real questions where we have very real disagreements, but also know that we share a very real desire to improve our system, even though we may disagree on how best to do so.
    We know that we can and must do better.
    We know that we have more in common than we have in difference... We simply don't seem to talk about this enough.


    There are many factors which lead to tragedies such as this, and we know that one of our few options is to improve ourselves and lead by example. We know it's often hard to look inward to find ways in which we could improve ourselves, but those improvements could help to reduce the risk which stems from a culture of hate such as the one we've been nourishing for far too long.


    I'm not blaming any single thing. I'm looking for ways to be better as a community. Am I alone in that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by inow


    I'm not blaming any single thing. I'm looking for ways to be better as a community. Am I alone in that?
    inow you certainly are not alone in that. I would like to ask you a question which is this. " After having had a few days to reflect on the tragic events that took place in Arizona, would you ( if posting your original post today) have come up with the same title for that post " ?
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    inow you certainly are not alone in that. I would like to ask you a question which is this. " After having had a few days to reflect on the tragic events that took place in Arizona, would you ( if posting your original post today) have come up with the same title for that post " ?
    Dave - I believe I already addressed that question without it being asked. I did so on the first page of this thread, less than a day within creating it. I'll quote myself again here below:


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I need to acknowledge that when I created this thread yesterday, I was myself guilty of the very behavior I had hoped to lament. "Tea Party Rhetric... Strikes Again." It's sad that I have also contributed to the environment which is fostering these heinous acts. I hope to do better.

    I think part of the challenge we face when coming together is that such acknowledgments like mine above often go unnoticed or quickly forgotten.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    inow, to my shame, I had forgotten.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    After reading the last several exchanges, a few of my key points obviously went unnoticed or ignored. I will repeat them now in hopes that comments will adapt accordingly.


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Please don't misconstrue my argument. I am not saying there is no partisan rhetoric, and I am not saying there are no personal attacks from the left. Further, I would be a fool to sit here suggesting that inappropriate comments or calls to violence are never made by those on the left, and that is not what I am saying. The difference is that one is a relatively uncommon exception (with the left) whereas the other is closer to standard operating procedure (with the right).

    <...>

    What further bothers me is how quickly people are saying, "Nope... rhetoric has nothing to do with the tragedy" or arguing instead with tu quoque that "the left does it too!" as opposed to saying, "Yeah... Our words do have consequences... We should, in fact, be more aware and I am sorry for anything I may have said which went too far. I certainly never wanted anyone to be hurt."
    I don't think your comments were ignored. They were refuted. Inappropriate comments and calls for violence from the left are quite common, not an exception. Dave and I have abundantly demonstrated that. Now, let's see your list of the calls for violence from the right.


    Oh, by the way, here is the 2004 map with bulls-eyes on the red states targeted by Democrats. Now let's see. What do you do with a target? Shoot at it, naturally.
    http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/demo...t-map-in-2004/
    I agree.

    I guess I'll say this now. Inow, you took off on an agenda and used what appears to me, your bias to do so, without understanding the facts at hand. I'm glad you realized your mistake. At least the science was more sound than with other topics that you seem to blindly support.

    Funny, as we learn more and more about this guy, he seems more and more to the left rather than right. If someone wants to make it political, keep that in mind. facts are, he was a mental case. He was an occult worshiper, conspiracy theorist, and I think he would have taken out any politician he had the opportunity to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Along with the attempts to equate target bullseyes - used in everything from dart boards to department store logos - with rifle crosshairs, we have this:

    Good find, Dave. There is a good list here as well: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

    It includes these gems:

    Chris Matthews fantasizing on air about seeing Rush Limbaugh shot in the head

    Sandra Bernhard: Sarah Palin should be GANG RAPED if she comes to New York

    The Craig Kilborn Show superimposing the words "Snipers Wanted" over the face of President George W. Bush

    Nobel "Peace Prize" winner Betty Williams publicly stating her desire to murder President George W. Bush.

    Pelosi and company slander teens and toddlers calling them nazis

    British film makers Gabriel Range and Simon Finch making a 2006 movie fantasizing about assassinating President George W. Bush

    Alec Baldwin urging the murder of Henry Hyde, his family, and ALL Congressional Republicans and their families on national television

    David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, two America-hating left-wing terrorists, were arrested by the FBI after conspiring to firebomb Republicans at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The American Media refused to report the story.

    NPR commentator and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg wishes death by AIDS on Senator Jesse Helms and/or his grandchildren.

    Julianne Malveaux publicly wishes death on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    Obama supporter bites off finger of Tea Party supporter
    The first thing noticed is that these people are not all leftists - in particular, the major media figures such as Chris Mathews are part of the problem as described by the left, not the right. The actual leftists there, few in number, are also obscure. No one there compares with the amplified and national audience equipped violence promoters of the Republican lineup.

    The second thing is that the descriptions of the supposed leftwing violence advocacy is not accurate. In the cases I can check from other info, they are so far from reasonable as to be fairly described as dishonest - Alec Baldwin's comments, say, or the description of the FBI arrestees in Minneaopolis.

    And the third is that quite a few of these quotes appear to be list filler - not violent, but objectionable for some other reason and thrown in here for padding. Calling people Nazis, for instance. (And I don't trust the paraphrase, given the standards of reporting and integrity of argument visible throughout/.)

    At any rate, the net result is that Mitt Romney or John McCain of Sarah Palin can speak in public, campaign, etc, at much lower risk than Hilary Clinton, say. They're in public, but the crazy light is not shining on them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The first thing noticed is that these people are not all leftists - in particular, the major media figures such as Chris Mathews are part of the problem as described by the left, not the right. The actual leftists there, few in number, are also obscure. No one there compares with the amplified and national audience equipped violence promoters of the Republican lineup.
    Oh, Chris Matthews is on the left all right. He was one of the many media figures blatantly campaigning for Obama in 2008.

    The second thing is that the descriptions of the supposed leftwing violence advocacy is not accurate. In the cases I can check from other info, they are so far from reasonable as to be fairly described as dishonest - Alec Baldwin's comments, say, or the description of the FBI arrestees in Minneaopolis.
    I read a thread on Democratic Underground trying to defend Baldwin's rant. It was pretty funny. It went something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by DU
    As noted in post #6 below, there is a transcript from Media Research Center, which is a RW media 'watchdog', meaning they comment on how terrible it was while completely ignoring the context. That context being, as shown in the transcript, that 'IF WE WERE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY we would..." He is in no way advocating violence, but rather, commenting on how other people in other countris might treat politicians who make unfounded charges against popular leaders.There is absolutely nothing to this.
    Funny stuff.
    And the third is that quite a few of these quotes appear to be list filler - not violent, but objectionable for some other reason and thrown in here for padding. Calling people Nazis, for instance. (And I don't trust the paraphrase, given the standards of reporting and integrity of argument visible throughout/.)

    At any rate, the net result is that Mitt Romney or John McCain of Sarah Palin can speak in public, campaign, etc, at much lower risk than Hilary Clinton, say. They're in public, but the crazy light is not shining on them.
    I would be very interested to see the quotes from Mitt Romney, John McCain and Sarah Palin that you are concerned about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Left or right, he believed in small government. That is where I drew the link to tea party. Regardless... left, right, they do it too, he started it, and all that elementary school classroom bullshit aside... The fact of the matter is that violence in rhetoric is harmful.

    Why is finding agreement here proving so challenging?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Left or right, he believed in small government. That is where I drew the link to tea party. Regardless... left, right, they do it too, he started it, and all that elementary school classroom bullshit aside... The fact of the matter is that violence in rhetoric is harmful.

    Why is finding agreement here proving so challenging?
    The thing is, inow, I think this is a bogus issue that is being used by news media to selectively to punish Republicans and conservatives. I am not really concerned that some nut is going to stone Henry Hyde and his family because the idiot Alec Baldwin makes some bonehead, unfunny remark. So, all I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy.

    If there really is a political assassination some time in the future, it will probably be because somebody has very strong feelings about politics. That could happen. But guess what, strong feelings about politics is also what brings voters out to the polls. So, don't look for that to change any time soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    Funny, as we learn more and more about this guy, he seems more and more to the left rather than right. If someone wants to make it political, keep that in mind. facts are, he was a mental case. He was an occult worshiper, conspiracy theorist, and I think he would have taken out any politician he had the opportunity to.
    Yeah, but even crazy guys want their actions to be seen as popular. When a person with a large popular following winks and nods to the effect that causing someone's death would be praiseworthy, Mr. Crazy thinks he sees an opportunity to make people like him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The thing is, inow, I think this is a bogus issue that is being used by news media to selectively to punish Republicans and conservatives.
    Which issue specifically are you discussing? The idea that the rhetoric we use can create a climate where deeds like this become more likely, or perhaps something different?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I am not really concerned that some nut is going to stone Henry Hyde and his family because the idiot Alec Baldwin makes some bonehead, unfunny remark.
    But, I would be... If it more than just Alec Baldwin... if it were many of the most prominent talking heads of the movement and ideology... if it were many of the elected leaders themselves regularly voicing such violent and hyperbolic exaggerations... if it were part of the culture, and not some relatively random anecdote.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    So, all I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy.
    I understand that has been your approach. I also noted that I find this to be a false equivocation. We agreed to disagree.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    But guess what, strong feelings about politics is also what brings voters out to the polls. So, don't look for that to change any time soon.
    Indeed. I think that's very true. At the same time, I'd like us both to be careful not to conflate "strong feelings" with calls for violence... implicit or otherwise. These are not the same things... not even close... and we need to be cognizant of that distinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I am not really concerned that some nut is going to stone Henry Hyde and his family because the idiot Alec Baldwin makes some bonehead, unfunny remark.
    But, I would be... If it more than just Alec Baldwin... if it were many of the most prominent talking heads of the movement and ideology... if it were many of the elected leaders themselves regularly voicing such violent and hyperbolic exaggerations... if it were part of the culture, and not some relatively random anecdote.
    Yeah. I agree that a professional politician should be more aware of the likely behavioral consequences of what they say or do than an ordinary celebrity. If they're not aware of those likely consequences, then they're not skilled enough to make good lawmakers or magistrates either.


    It's important to remember that Sarah Palin is aspiring to a role that carries a higher level of responsibility than most of us bear. If she's going to put all the blame on the psycho and none on herself, well.... a person's behavior during campaign (or pre-campaign) is a tell tale sign of how they will lead. Do you want Ms. Teflon "the-buck-stops-somewhere-else-but-not-here" to be your next president?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's important to remember that Sarah Palin is aspiring to a role that carries a higher level of responsibility than most of us bear. If she's going to put all the blame on the psycho and none on herself, well.... a person's behavior during campaign (or pre-campaign) is a tell tale sign of how they will lead. Do you want Ms. Teflon "the-buck-stops-somewhere-else-but-not-here" to be your next president?
    I don't think that's much of an issue considering that we already have a president who told his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight. Figuratively, of course. Wink, wink. Scroll back a few pages to find the exact quote.

    Now it seems that the anti-tea party hatefest in the media has inspired somebody to threaten the life of a tea party leader.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-sho...ry?id=12628357
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Now it seems that the anti-tea party hatefest in the media has inspired somebody to threaten the life of a tea party leader.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-sho...ry?id=12628357
    You do realize that the guy who made that threat was physically present at the Gifford shooting, and took one of the bullets himself, don't you? That's probably not rhetoric. That might just be a guy who's mad because he blames the Tea Party for what happened to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by The ABC News Article
    Fuller, a naval air veteran, was one of 19 people shot at a Tucson, Ariz. Safeway grocery store at a "Congress on Your Corner" event with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who still remains in critical condition with a bullet wound to the head.

    Speaking with CBS' "The Early Show" on Tuesday, Fuller explained how he felt a bullet that hit his knee, but didn't know he had also been struck in the back. According to the Arizona Daily Star, Fuller drove himself to Northwest Hospital after being shot and later was taken to Tucson's University Medical Center, and was released two days later.

    He described the shootings as "like a bad crime drama, with a gun being pointed towards me, and a very, seemed like athletic young man pumping rounds off at everybody, and taking aim at us."
    You don't think you might be a little bit angry and/or irrational if you were one of the people who got a gun aimed at him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Quote Originally Posted by The ABC News Article


    He described the shootings as "like a bad crime drama, with a gun being pointed towards me, and a very, seemed like athletic young man pumping rounds off at everybody, and taking aim at us."
    You don't think you might be a little bit angry and/or irrational if you were one of the people who got a gun aimed at him?
    The guy who was recovering from the gun shot wound, most probably was angry and irrational, but you have to ask yourself, " Why did he threaten a Tea Party member, why did he blame the Tea Party ? " I will tell you why, the rhetoric from the Left Wing driven media told told him so, and he is also a campaigner for the Democrats, so if he ever stands for election, well who knows.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I give up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I give up
    If I can ignore Dave, you can too.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    My last post was meant to be ironic, but hey ho.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    My last post was meant to be ironic, but hey ho.
    I took it as being quite literal, and absolutely true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Quote Originally Posted by The ABC News Article


    He described the shootings as "like a bad crime drama, with a gun being pointed towards me, and a very, seemed like athletic young man pumping rounds off at everybody, and taking aim at us."
    You don't think you might be a little bit angry and/or irrational if you were one of the people who got a gun aimed at him?
    The guy who was recovering from the gun shot wound, most probably was angry and irrational, but you have to ask yourself, " Why did he threaten a Tea Party member, why did he blame the Tea Party ? " I will tell you why, the rhetoric from the Left Wing driven media told told him so, and he is also a campaigner for the Democrats, so if he ever stands for election, well who knows.
    He also knows that he was shot simply for disagreeing with the Tea Party.

    Now, the question for me is: how much effort has the tea party taken to denounce this shooter? I know it almost goes without saying, but I'm curious how clearly they've stated their total disdain for this lunatic, and what a disgrace he's been to them.

    In the military section, when people talk about radical Islam, the notion constantly comes up that we want to see Moderate Muslims actively denouncing their extremist peers. How well is the Tea Party doing in this area? Are they making it clear to this guy that he is not their friend, and they are not his friend, and that they greatly resent him for what he has done, or are they just chiding him for taking things a little too far?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    He also knows that he was shot simply for disagreeing with the Tea Party.
    He knows that, does he?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    He also knows that he was shot simply for disagreeing with the Tea Party.
    He knows that, does he?
    We all know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    He also knows that he was shot simply for disagreeing with the Tea Party.

    Now, the question for me is: how much effort has the tea party taken to denounce this shooter? I know it almost goes without saying, but I'm curious how clearly they've stated their total disdain for this lunatic, and what a disgrace he's been to them.
    Very curiously (in the absence of inow or GiantEvil) will you please direct me to some sort of evidence to back up your claims.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92 Re: Tea Party Rhetoric Strikes Again: US Congresswoman Shot 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scienceinproducts
    Please, KNOW SOMETHING before forming an opinion!
    Please read the whole frigging thread before jumping to a concussion.

    Edit: And while we are at it, please remove all that spam from your frigging signature.
    Yours affectionately,
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    He also knows that he was shot simply for disagreeing with the Tea Party.

    Now, the question for me is: how much effort has the tea party taken to denounce this shooter? I know it almost goes without saying, but I'm curious how clearly they've stated their total disdain for this lunatic, and what a disgrace he's been to them.
    Very curiously (in the absence of inow or GiantEvil) will you please direct me to some sort of evidence to back up your claims.
    Clearly Mr. Laughner made the decision to attack that particular gathering (as opposed to another gathering) on some basis or another. His disagreement with the political views of Senator Gifford is certainly the most probable candidate.

    What is your counter hypothesis? Are you suggesting that Mr. Laughner chose his target at random?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Clearly Mr. Laughner made the decision to attack that particular gathering (as opposed to another gathering) on some basis or another. His disagreement with the political views of Senator Gifford is certainly the most probable candidate.

    What is your counter hypothesis? Are you suggesting that Mr. Laughner chose his target at random?
    The man is crazy. How can you determine his motive? In 2007 he went to a “Congress on Your Corner” event and wrote the following question: "Is government real if words have no meaning?" Not exactly a tea party talking point. Congresswoman Giffords did not answer his question. Apparently he took it personally.

    Here are the views of a clinical psychiatrist.

    http://telldrd.net/imjustsayin/jared-loughners-motive

    Seventy years ago psychoanalytic theory was still espousing that we could understand psychosis by analyzing the delusional, rambling thoughts of the patient. We now know that nothing could be further from the truth.


    Psychosis is caused by a broken brain and the symptoms include illogical thinking, paranoia and sometimes violence. You can’t try to analyze this jumbled nonsense and assign a motive. This is a medical condition that needs to be evaluated and treated with medication and supportive therapy.


    Until we stop assigning a motive to fit our ideology for every newsworthy event involving a mentally ill person, then the real losers, along with the victims, will be those that have these conditions and suffer alone in their delusional world because no one recognizes the warning signs or symptoms in order to prompt early intervention and treatment.


    Dr Dale Archer
    Clinical Psychiatrist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't know why you picked the last part of that article to post. Some of the earlier parts are much more convincing.

    he right (reacting to the left) described the shooter as a ‘leftist lunatic’, because The Communist Manifesto was listed as a favorite book. While the Jews said this was clearly ant-Semitic (Giffords was Jewish) due to another book favorite of Loughner’s, Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler.

    Ms. Giffords father, when asked if she had enemies, said ‘Yeah, the whole tea party’ and in what I can only label as surreal Keith Olbermann indirectly points to the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. The only theory missing, and it’s early yet, is that he was a rabid misogynist and shot Ms. Giffords because she was a woman. No one is explaining why he shot an additional nineteen people including a nine year old girl.

    Here are the facts: Jared’s internet postings did state that the government was controlling our minds via……grammar. That’s right grammar! He also had rambling posts about literacy, birds, numbers, sleep and language.

    As for his book list, yes it did include The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf but it also included One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Aesop’s Fables, Peter Pan and Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. I wonder why no one has a theory that includes all the books rather than just picking out the one that serves their purpose?
    I'm definitely starting to see your point. I'm not seeing that Laughner had a whole lot of direct affiliation with the Tea party. Maybe Gifford's rally was just the closest rally he could get at? Like choosing McDonald's over Burger King simply because there's no Burger King in your home town?

    The "just plain hates government" theory is starting to look more valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    The "just plain hates government" theory is starting to look more valid.
    That would be an example of likely Tea Party influence - using "Tea Party" as a shorthand label for the violence prone and rhetorically threatening faction of the American rightwing that was its founding base.

    The question of ideological or political motive is not really relevant: most of these crazies with guns are motivated by way of personal reactions against disappointing lives, culminating in a passionate desire for revenge or heroic deed, and in the best case both together. Loughner seems to be in the wannabe hero camp, and the question of influence comes down to his choice of means and target - where did he get the fantasy of being heroic, and in front of whom, by shooting those people in that circumstance?

    What the "Tea Party" faction has done since Reagan - and the forerunners or nurturing base are included in the faction label, going back to Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and so forth (long list) - is sic the crazies on their enemies. As playground thugs select and identify targets for their jackal buddies to pick on, these guys have made "liberals" vulnerable to the loose cannons of American society. The goal is intimidation, physical threat and mental cowing, and I think it's more than half conscious.

    The crazies know, by soaking up the carefully and diligently manipulated cultural ambience, that shooting an inspiring and beloved Republican noteworthy like a Palin or a televangelist or a rightwing pundit would just be despised and contemptible - not even worth thinking about. But a "liberal" who has been put in the crosshairs of inspirational violent rhetoric? Someone the inspiring callers to action and heroism have described as a traitor, a betrayer of all that is good and worthy, a threat to us all, someone who needs to be "taken out"?

    It's not by chance that Jews, rather than the Mormons (say), find themselves targeted by crazies in the US - by the schizoid, not the ideological. They're crazy, sure - but the craziness is bent, influenced, even directed. The mathematician of "A Beautiful Mind" renown, John Nash, when he flipped out, raved against the Jews - that wasn't ideology, and it wasn't random. If you examine Loughneresque violent perps, you won't find "political motive" in the sense of ideology or analytical justification - but you can make very good guesses at the likely characteristics of their victims.

    So we see that the Mitt Romneys and Mike Huckabees and John McCains of the world have comparatively little to worry about, while the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas need very alert bodyguards and constant vigilance. Ted Kennedy campaigned in a bullet proof vest - Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul needn't bother.

    And the Tea Party folks have a hell of a lot to answer for, in their role as aimers of the spooky and crackbrained violent. If they didn't know better, they should have - how dumb and naive are we supposed to think they are?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The "just plain hates government" theory is starting to look more valid.
    That would be an example of likely Tea Party influence - using "Tea Party" as a shorthand label for the violence prone and rhetorically threatening faction of the American rightwing that was its founding base.

    The question of ideological or political motive is not really relevant: most of these crazies with guns are motivated by way of personal reactions against disappointing lives, culminating in a passionate desire for revenge or heroic deed, and in the best case both together. Loughner seems to be in the wannabe hero camp, and the question of influence comes down to his choice of means and target - where did he get the fantasy of being heroic, and in front of whom, by shooting those people in that circumstance?

    What the "Tea Party" faction has done since Reagan - and the forerunners or nurturing base are included in the faction label, going back to Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and so forth (long list) - is sic the crazies on their enemies. As playground thugs select and identify targets for their jackal buddies to pick on, these guys have made "liberals" vulnerable to the loose cannons of American society. The goal is intimidation, physical threat and mental cowing, and I think it's more than half conscious.

    The crazies know, by soaking up the carefully and diligently manipulated cultural ambience, that shooting an inspiring and beloved Republican noteworthy like a Palin or a televangelist or a rightwing pundit would just be despised and contemptible - not even worth thinking about. But a "liberal" who has been put in the crosshairs of inspirational violent rhetoric? Someone the inspiring callers to action and heroism have described as a traitor, a betrayer of all that is good and worthy, a threat to us all, someone who needs to be "taken out"?

    It's not by chance that Jews, rather than the Mormons (say), find themselves targeted by crazies in the US - by the schizoid, not the ideological. They're crazy, sure - but the craziness is bent, influenced, even directed. The mathematician of "A Beautiful Mind" renown, John Nash, when he flipped out, raved against the Jews - that wasn't ideology, and it wasn't random. If you examine Loughneresque violent perps, you won't find "political motive" in the sense of ideology or analytical justification - but you can make very good guesses at the likely characteristics of their victims.

    So we see that the Mitt Romneys and Mike Huckabees and John McCains of the world have comparatively little to worry about, while the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas need very alert bodyguards and constant vigilance. Ted Kennedy campaigned in a bullet proof vest - Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul needn't bother.

    And the Tea Party folks have a hell of a lot to answer for, in their role as aimers of the spooky and crackbrained violent. If they didn't know better, they should have - how dumb and naive are we supposed to think they are?
    I agree. http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...stic+terrorism
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    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. Sometimes people just plain want to be important. Hinkley was driven by a desire to make Jodie Foster see him as a fellow celebrity (and had stalked Jimmy Carter earlier, so clearly not concerned with the politics of his victim.) I wouldn't be surprised if our new nut job's motives were along the same lines.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_...nation_attempt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    On Tea Party related news, Michele Bachmann, leader of the Tea Party caucus in Congress, recently made quite a big gaff when she said in a speech that the Founding Fathers fought tirelessly until slavery was ended... oh my.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...diversity.html
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    On Tea Party related news, Michele Bachmann, leader of the Tea Party caucus in Congress, recently made quite a big gaff when she said in a speech that the Founding Fathers fought tirelessly until slavery was ended... oh my.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...diversity.html
    One has to wonder if some Republicans are having buyer's remorse.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •