Tucson And The Political Debate

Remove all ads!

Um, this is an internet forum. Typing doesn't have pronunciation.

 

That was actually a line by the character played by Sean Connery. He also said if he [Capone] sends one of your guys to the hospital, you send two of his to the morgue.

IN AMERICAN? I was unaware "American" was a language. I always thought I write and speak in English.

 

Did someone mention Rachel? [my "ignore list" seems to be functioning very well ] "The push-back from the right-wing loonies would be amusing if their excuses weren't such an insult to thinking people everywhere. "Skate Boarders?" The tea baggers aren't even serious in their push-back, it seems.

 

Oh, NOGfflinger…I wish I knew how to quit you.

The effort you put into missing the most obvious point all the time should get you an award or something. THE MACHINE GUN, Nog. A friggin' M-16 in a political ad. That's appropriate to you?

How about I write this in "American" in the hopes that you don't miss the point now for the third time:

You provided 3 examples of the left being "just as bad" as the right when it comes to employing violent rhetoric. Your worst examples? A congressman you STILL can't name, a private citizen, and a British film maker. That you think they somehow compare to people who make MILLIONS, professionally, influencing the public discourse with their political opinions every day (members of Congress, TV and radio personalities) is incomprehensible to me. The effigy guy was in the news for a single day, never made a dime and was quickly forgotten. Glenn Beck is on the air 5 hours a day, every single day, and is paid insane amounts of money to do it. They are not even close to the same, no matter how desperately you want them to be, and Beck isn't even the worst offender. And I'll ask you a second time, since you failed to answer before: can you name ONE person on the left equally as influential employing such rhetoric? (Edit: you did mention Rachel Maddow, but not what she said that you object so much to. But if she's the best you've got...)

Point, again, missed by a mile. You know why it was notable that Obama said that? Because he isn't known for saying things like that. Palin is, and conservatives love her for it. She's built an empire invoking phrases like that. As has Limbaugh, and Beck, and Levin, and the other extremely influential leaders of the conservative movement. In fact, conservatives who DON'T speak in those terms are all but considered RINO's. Democrats do so in rare instances only, and they always catch hell for it. Your red-colored glasses need a polish, son.

You don't seem to understand that not every gun metaphor is created equal. Military metaphors are common in American culture. "No defeat, no surrender!" can be heard at any highschool football game, and no one bats an eye. The difference is using rhetoric that invokes violence that is specifically directed at ones opponents (like Sharon Angle's "second amendment solutions" line which, though you may have found distasteful, didn't seem to dissuade Arizona Republicans from voting for her in droves). One is perfectly ordinary, the other has no place in public discourse. Especially when tempered with words like "tyranny," or "fascism," or a dozen other inflammatory words carelessly flung about these days.

Good, you do that. But bare in mind you just proved my point. I don't have to go digging and do research to find 5 examples of Republicans invoking the kind of messaging I'm talking about. 5 is not a lot. If both sides are equally guilty, 5 you should be able to do off the top of your head. Like this:

• Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies," above
• Rick Barber's infamous "Gather Your Armies" founding fathers commercial, link
• Rep. Michelle Bachmann's "I want people armed and dangerous…Jefferson told us revolution is a good thing," link
• Rep. Gregg Harper's "We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition," link
• Rep. Allen West's "If ballots don't work, bullets will," link

And that's just a list of people who ran for congress. It doesn't include the nasty sh*t said by Tea Party leaders, talk radio hosts, prominent bloggers or Fox News personalities. That kind of implied violence as a means of problem solving simply doesn't exist in any significant way on the left (at least, not the left that anyone listens to). It's dangerous, it's unnecessary, and it needs to stop.

And if you say "but they didn't mean that literally!" I'm going to drive to Virginia Beach punch you in the nuts.

You're reaching here. A sheriff's job is to keep order and ensure safety. If he feels the public is doing something that increases risk - such as lighting fireworks in a dry season - it is his DUTY to request the public reconsider its behavior to prevent further danger. Saying what he said is what any decent sheriff would do in the environment he is in. And, no, he didn't blame the rhetoric directly for what happened. What he said was it wasn't helping the situation. And he's right. You seem to not know the difference between a contributing factor and a direct cause.

As for your arrogant and deliciously self-unaware claim that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to psychology, all I can say is 1) I've been debating you on these boards for 4 years now, and I can categorically say you NEVER know what you're talking about (yet unmercifully don't spare us the joy of your uneducated opinion), and 2) show me a psychologist who agrees with your premise - which seems to be that cultural environment in no way influences the insane to take the drastic actions they do, even when that rhetorical environment reinforces their delusions that the government is out to get them personally, puts them in immediate danger and therefore a violent solution is in order (as Loughner's ramblings clearly suggest) - and I'll show you a psychologist who got her degree online.

 

Not to be nitpicky, but Angle is from Nevada - she lost her Senate race to Harry Reid.

 

Just to clarify, is this thread is really for DR and NOG to argue in novel long posts and everyone else is just going to interject with smart-ass comments? ..... ok, proceed.

On topic....

IMO, 6 months from now they will be talking about this guy in only terms of that he was a loony. Politics won't be part of the equation. "Political Points" will be mute.

 

Aldeth - You're right, she is from Nevada. But she barely lost, which was my point.

I guess I was thinking about Arizona's Governer, Jan Brewer, who talked at length about Mexican cartels beheading people all over the place, only to retract it later (because it was baseless and unnecessarily incited fear amongst the public). Hmmm...and she's also a popular Republican official in a position of authority and influence...

 

We will if Sarah decides to go for it. That's pretty unlikely after this. I suspect that even she gets that her chances are pretty much over, despite her inane comment about "blood libel." Or maybe she is that clueless.

Despite the extreme right and its apologists, like we keep hearing from, I want to take my hat off to the Repulbicans in the House, who I watched today on CSAPN, and who had so many kind words for Gabby Giffords and her family. I'm glad there is still some class left in the Republican Party, depite the shrill rhetoric from Tea Potters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-0113-arizona-shooting-20110113,0,4911748.story

 

Now is the time for people to come together and regardless of partisan views, denounce this disgusting event.

That said, those attacking the Right "have a point" and when those on the right defend themselves from such attacks, THEY are the ones who "lack class"? Give me a fricking break. BOTH sides need to take this as an opportunity to come together and, in unison, denounce the use of violence in the public sphere. This sniping from the Left, that obviously provokes a reaction from the Right, is just as bloody tasteless and inappropriate. Any Right wingers who pre-emptively get defensive are similarly douchebags for not focussing on what really matters - the lives and suffering of the victims.

 

Sorry, I did not know that you were a fan of Beck, Rush, Palin, and the like. That's right and I'll say it again so that YOU don't misunderstand me: "They have no class." And that's one of the NICER things I can say for them. As for attacking the "Right" I guess the Republican members of the House, whom I just credited for having class, would be surprised to learn that they are not a part of the "right." I was careful to give them credit so that there would not be a misunderstanding on that point, that there is class left in the Republican Party. But hey, it's your rant. My rant was directed at a particular segment of the "Right" and we all know who the usual suspects are. I don't mean to speak for DR, but I'm sure his rant was similar. These people reveal themselves for what they are, as we can see and judge for ourselves.

 

Boehner's remarks seemed very sincere and heartfelt - moreso even than Pelosi's - or perhaps she just did a better job of maintaining her composure. Much respect for him for that.

 

I agree. I can't say why, but she never seems sincere, at least to me. It's odd, because I often agree with her. But there is something about her that seems artificial, for lack of a better word.

 

As do the people making insinuations against them. I'm no mindless fan of the people you mentioned, and yes they lack class at sensitive times. What I am saying is that those who attack them, using this issue as leverage, are also lacking in class. But if someone said to me "LKD, you are, in a small way, responsible for what happened", I would come out and defend myself, as would any sane person. I take responsibility for my own actions, not those of others, and I accord the same privilege to others. Unless people can come up with a much better connection between this shooter and anyone they are making accusations / insinuations about, I am going to hold them just as guilty of partisanship as I do Beck, Hannity, and the rest of the gang.

Self defense in the face of untrue accusations is not an unreasonable act.

 

LKD,

I guess all I can say is, when you have one side that says "let's all tone down the rhetoric!" and another side that says "we don't need to tone down the rhetoric, how dare YOU politicize things!" you can't - as you just did - complain that both sides aren't being sufficiently cuddly with one another. Neither side caused this tragedy, and neither side benefits from this tragedy. But it's no coincidence that the tragedy took place in a highly-charged environment where the victim was painted with a metaphorical target. There are always unstable people in society, but certain things tend to make a tragic event more likely. The side most responsible for fomenting the tension in that environment deserves a little criticism, I'm sorry. I'm not going to sit here and let all irresponsible people off the hook just because it's nicer. What Boehner and others said on the house floor today was an excellent start. But it in no way excuses months and months of inflammatory, intemperate rhetoric on their parts.

 

Well, that I can get behind -- I'm not saying for one minute that I am comfortable with the gun / violence / sports imagery used in American politics -- we just don't have that level of vitriol here in Canada on such a regular basis (isolated incidents do pop up) but my discomfort goes beyond the fixation on gun imagery. I see it as a universal, non-partisan problem that pervades American culture at all levels.

Acts of violence like this have been going on long before the rhetoric got so wound up. I mean, how many US Presidents have been assassinated? Lots. The problem is far more long reaching than that, and it's not as simple as gun laws or government policies.

That said, I can see levelling a little criticims at those whose voices have become too strident and inflammatory. But the criticism needs to stop well short of implying causality, because that's nonsense, as you yourself adroitly said:

 

Well, that would be Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK. Only one in recent times. Though Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan were victims of failed attempts as well. I believe I have read that there has been around 22 attempts on Presidents and Presidential Canidates over the years. Scary stuff.

 

I find it amusing at people trying to link Palin, Beck, Rush to these murders, when there's absolutely zero evidence that the killer was influenced by them at all. According to one of his close friends, "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right." Source.

My favorite video to come out of this tragedy is the hateful Twitter death threats/wishful thinking against Palin shortly after the shootings. Stay classy.

 

It's too easy to get a gun in the USA. In Europe you can't get one without a psychologic test first. OK unless you get an illegal one. But that is more effort, not so easy to everyone. I know there was a thread called "gun control rant" before. But I wanted to mention nonetheless. It's just not fine that someone such as this guy could go to a shop and get a gun.

 

Europeans don't hunt????

 

Sorry, that should have been "America". The place, not a language. My mistake.

Yes, I've noticed you and others have been confusing the two, though I think confusing me and Martaug has been more common since he left. Stop it. It's insulting to you and me both. The ways you and others twist everything I post only proves to me that you don't actually care about a real, reasonable discussion, only about beating the other guy down until he shuts up.

The gun is also a standard part of the stereotyped image. I figured you were smart enough to figure that out. So is the Humvee (at least that's what it looks like) that he's sitting on and the apparant military-base setting, though that can also be switched out for a desert environ or some middle-eastern looking village.

No, I don't compare the two at all. You do. I compare Glenn Beck to Rachael Maddow. I compare Rush Limbaugh to Kieth Olbermann. I think those are sound comparisons. The rest are just examples of a generalization. I'll get to more detailed examples in a moment, though.

So, because there are a lot of gun-oriented idioms in conservative circles (especially circles in Alaska, where there are also a lot of guns, and hunting), you think it offensive that they use the terms they're used to? Thanks for clearing that point up. You're right. I did miss it. And, incidentally, I wasn't giving Obama hell for what he said. It's perfectly reasonable. Just like if Palin had said 'stick to your guns' instead. More on that later, too.

I'll agree, if you're limiting it to Angles quote. If you're extending it to Palin's, it is you who missed the point.

How about 'radical'? How about 'religious extremists'? How about 'trying to take over the country'? Those are all things I've heard come out of Maddow's mouth, by the way, and they're only the beginning. Yes, they're offensive, and insulting, and I don't like them. But they don't lead to people shooting each other, and trying to say that they do is 1,000X worse than anything that's been said by Glenn Beck.

No, not really. The fact that you can pull those 5 off the top of your head and I can't do the same says more about you and me than it does about either political party. You, apparently, hold onto these things. I don't.

Yes, wonderful way to tone down the rhetoric, there. Threatening physical violence against another board member. Don't worry, though, there's worse coming. I would like to say that I wouldn't say that, anyway; that the difference between an idiom or coloquialism and an implied threat is clear as day. Sadly, the glee with which you and others have jumped on Palin's 'don't retreat, reload' quote proved me wrong.

A sheriff's job is to present facts and keep the people safe. There was 0 reason to suspect that anything similar was likely to happen (despite what the sheriff later stated). His job is not to place blame or inflame public opion. And as for blaming, he took the time out of the very first press conference, the first official words on the matter, to mention it. He didn't specifically say 'the right', but his statement of 'individuals in radio and certain individuals on the television' leave little doubt what he meant.

And you would be wrong. Dead wrong. There's no official diagnosis, but the conclusion of paranoid schizophrenia seems to be pretty universal at the moment. And no, I never said environment can't influence things. I said it can't predictably influence things. I said that Angle's talk about 'second amendment remedies' are no more likely to result in violent action than the letters on a street sign. Thanks for understanding.


Now, for the list you asked me about. Here goes:

"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009

"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden and other Maryland democrats calling Michael Steele an 'Uncle Tom'.

'Taliban Dan'

Rep. Paul Kanjorski from Pensylvania calling for his opponent to be stood up against a wall and shot

As you can see, the Left is no stranger to talking about 'punishing' their political opponents, comparing them to terrorists, to hostage takers, using imagery of bombs, guns, and the like. They also appear eager to engage in racism, as politicians, not just a few private citizens. To be clear, I consider anything Palin has said to pale in comparison to any of those, though Sharon Angle's 'second amendment remedies' fit just between those last two in my book. I also don't think any of Obama's words there are really bad. Regrettable, maybe. A mistake, maybe. Worthy of censor or blaming violent lunatic activity on? Not a chance.

More over, let's do some comparisons. The media has used two major examples of the 'vitrioilic rhetoric': Palin's campaign map and her use of the phrase 'Don't retreat, reload'.

Now, for her campaign map, they objec to the use of cross-hairs targetting political opponents' districts. Of course, the imagery of 'targetting' an opponent is nothing new. The left and right have both used the same imagery for campaign maps for years. But it goes deeper than that. The idea of 'targetting' is ingrained deeply in American communication. We have 'target groups' for products and commercials, 'targetted stimulus', and the like. My work even refers to a 'target aircraft'. We aren't threatening to shoot it down. We're using it as a referene for distance. But that's what it's called. The sudden objection to the imagery in this case, because one of the 'targets' was later the victim of a shooting, is ridiculous.

For her now-famous catch-phrase, "Don't retreat, reload", let me ask you your honest opinion. Would you object if she had said, "Stick to your guns"? It's the same gun-oriented imagery. It even has the same meaning of 'don't back down' or 'don't compromise your morals'. But one is a phrase you're almost certainly familiar with, while the other isn't. If you do object to it, then you have no reason to excuse Obama's use of “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” It's just as bad, and just as not-bad. If you don't object to the common phrase, then what we can really see is that what you're objecting to isn't the gun analogy, but the fact that it's not something you're familiar with. It is, apparently, something she's familiar with, though. So, basically, you're objecting to her using an idiom from her upbringing, but not from yours. You're objecting to her being unfamiliar, different, strange. It's a sort of culture clash, and believe me, America is big enough to generate them (especially when comparing anything else to Alaska).

I'd also like to ask you if you had any similar reaction to this when it happened. Once more, a mentally derainged man took guns to innocent bystanders. This time, the political connection wasn't in the target, but in the motive. He was spouting extremist ideals from the Green movement. Did you blame those Green extremists? Did you blame PETA, who's well known for extreme ad campaigns? Did you blame Sea Shepherd, who clearly views the preservation of nature as more important than the laws of man? No? Then why make the connection now? It's the same situation, just a little reversed. And no, for the record, I don't blame any of those groups, either.

Palin actually had a good name for what has been going on since this tragic shooting: blood libel. Politicians and political journalists on the left have taken a national tragedy and tried to paint the blood of the slain innocent onto the hands of their opposition to score political points. And yes, some of them are outright placing blame. In doing so, they only get that blood on their own hands. And some are making money doing so.

Some people on these forums were offended when Pat Robertson said that Hurricane Katrina was a result of this nation's turn away from God. I feel that this is just as bad, if not worse. At least I suspect that Pat Robertson may have genuinely believed that. If the left wants to have a discussion on the direction political rhetoric has taken over the past few years, I won't complain. I'll even engage in it if it comes here. But please, please don't try to link it to a disturbed murderer for whom there's absolutely 0 evidence that political rhetoric had any influence at all.

Now that a little time has passed, some facts are comming out. For example, it looks like his fixation on Giffords (and mental illness) dates back to at least 2007 after, at a similar meeting, she failed to adequately answer a question he asked. A question which has been reported as 'not making much sense'. Following that, he obsessed about her, he isolated himself more and more, and he started yelling at anyone who disagreed with him on anything and calling them 'stupid' (and later illiterate). There is still, however, no evidence that he even had exposure to or knowledge of the 'vitriolic rhetoric' coming from Palin, Angle, Limbaugh, or others (and depending on how thoroughly he isolated himself, it's quite possible he didn't). Of course, some on the left didn't bother waiting for facts. See here.

The news article was written the day after this shooting. The advice had to be given that day or late in the day before.

I'm glad to hear you admit the first part, but it really does look like parts of one side did try to benefit from the tragedy. I think in the long run it'll backfire on them, badly, but they tried.

... And you were doing so well, too. *sigh* There's no conclusive proof yet, but odds (and all evidence to date, limited though it may be) are that it was, indeed, a coincidence. Even trying to assign one iota of the blame for this to them is worse than blaming Jodie Foster for John Hinckley, Jr. At least there, there's actual proof of a connection.