well at least all of the rhetoric spewed out in this thread hasn't taken the attention away from the actual tragedy/story itself in a vain attempt to show how worldly, smart, and politically savvy the members of this board are.
You mean like you just did for yourself right there? Sorry if my reflections don't meet your lofty standards of behavior.
.
no you're not. you love to read your words on a computer screen too much to be apologetic.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
President Obama, also, has publicly chastised fox news on several occasions.
OMG!
It's a short step from that to complete government censorship!
And by the way, Howard Dean is not the DNC chair and hasn't been since 2009.
You're right; Dean is no longer the DNC chairman, but that doesn't change the substance of my statement. Dean certainly still holds an influence on the party as a whole, and is a figure head leader of the more progressive elements of the Democratic party. His statements aren't made from some margainalized extreme of the greater party.
i find it interesting this time around that the majority of the response to this tragedy has been revolved around the political discourse that might have contributed to this event and very little mention yet of hand gun regulation that definitely contributed to this event..
probably a win for the NRA that these horrible events (Tucson, V-Tech) seem to bring up less and less discussion about hand gun regulation, and more and more about how other factors (media's role in politics, social media, psychiatric issues of assailants, etc.) contribute to violence.
Also (and i don't know this answer) does the NRA differentiate the types of 'arms' in its Charter/Manifesto for gun regulation? Although I don't know this for sure (so please feel free to correct), I continue to find it odd that there seem to be similar rules from owning different types of guns. The primary purpose/use of a Hunting Rifle and a Semi-Automatic handgun seem so blatantly different (bar marksmanship), but my understanding is the the regulation to purchase them are similar.
I am sure the NRA is working up a PR campaign as we sit talking about how more people should have had handguns in this scenario so that this assailant could have been stopped sooner.
well at least all of the rhetoric spewed out in this thread hasn't taken the attention away from the actual tragedy/story itself in a vain attempt to show how worldly, smart, and politically savvy the members of this board are.
You mean like you just did for yourself right there? Sorry if my reflections don't meet your lofty standards of behavior.
.
no you're not. you love to read your words on a computer screen too much to be apologetic.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
President Obama, also, has publicly chastised fox news on several occasions.
OMG!
It's a short step from that to complete government censorship!
And by the way, Howard Dean is not the DNC chair and hasn't been since 2009.
You're right; Dean is no longer the DNC chairman, but that doesn't change the substance of my statement. Dean certainly still holds an influence on the party as a whole, and is a figure head leader of the more progressive elements of the Democratic party. His statements aren't made from some margainalized extreme of the greater party.
Dr. Gonzo: Just play this through for us...what exactly would you expect the Obama admin to do in order to censor the press? You think DOJ is going to start prosecuting Fox or MSNBC for treason or something?
I just can't imagine an scenario in which this incident ---> press censorship. Doesn't make any sense how the two are linked.
For those trying to paint the Palin connection as being raised in hindsight in an opportunistic attempt to attack her, get your facts straight - this "crosshairs" campaign of hers was criticized at the time it appeared, by many, as a potential incitement to violence .... so people aren't digging this up for convenience, many of them are seeing it as what they feared coming true. The link from MLJ to her opponent's "shoot an M16" event is a shocking (for many) and disturbing (hopefully for most) indicator of the climate this woman was working in. While this event may not have been inevitable, or even the direct result of this political rhetoric of gun play and violence, anyone denying that politicians on the right are dangerously exploiting this "us vs them" and militant mindset for political gain - with potentially disastrous results like what took place yesterday - is either ignorant or lying.
For those trying to paint the Palin connection as being raised in hindsight in an opportunistic attempt to attack her, get your facts straight - this "crosshairs" campaign of hers was criticized at the time it appeared, by many, as a potential incitement to violence .... so people aren't digging this up for convenience, many of them are seeing it as what they feared coming true. The link from MLJ to her opponent's "shoot an M16" event is a shocking (for many) and disturbing (hopefully for most) indicator of the climate this woman was working in. While this event may not have been inevitable, or even the direct result of this political rhetoric of gun play and violence, anyone denying that politicians on the right are dangerously exploiting this "us vs them" and militant mindset for political gain - with potentially disastrous results like what took place yesterday - is either ignorant or lying.
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
Dr. Gonzo: Just play this through for us...what exactly would you expect the Obama admin to do in order to censor the press? You think DOJ is going to start prosecuting Fox or MSNBC for treason or something?
I just can't imagine an scenario in which this incident ---> press censorship. Doesn't make any sense how the two are linked.
I envision radio and television personalities might be called to testify before congress, and the FCC (not the doj) proposing more media regulation.
Again, I don't think it's really a huge leap to think politicians might use underhanded tactics to silence their critics. Don't think that because you perceive this administration as the "good guys" (an assumption. Apologies if this is inacurate) that they are above dirty politics.
For those trying to paint the Palin connection as being raised in hindsight in an opportunistic attempt to attack her, get your facts straight - this "crosshairs" campaign of hers was criticized at the time it appeared, by many, as a potential incitement to violence .... so people aren't digging this up for convenience, many of them are seeing it as what they feared coming true. The link from MLJ to her opponent's "shoot an M16" event is a shocking (for many) and disturbing (hopefully for most) indicator of the climate this woman was working in. While this event may not have been inevitable, or even the direct result of this political rhetoric of gun play and violence, anyone denying that politicians on the right are dangerously exploiting this "us vs them" and militant mindset for political gain - with potentially disastrous results like what took place yesterday - is either ignorant or lying.
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
"All politicians" use this rhetoric? Come on. They do no such thing. Sarah Palin makes this gun-toting bullshit a core element of her persona. You think some vague one-time statement by Obama that you can't source or even quote accurately is even worth mentioning in that context? That's like the Indoor World Record for False Equivalency.
Can I trade you a dollar for all of your worldly possessions? They both have value, right? So it's the same thing!
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
"???If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,??? Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. ???Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I???ve seen Eagles fans.???"
For those trying to paint the Palin connection as being raised in hindsight in an opportunistic attempt to attack her, get your facts straight - this "crosshairs" campaign of hers was criticized at the time it appeared, by many, as a potential incitement to violence .... so people aren't digging this up for convenience, many of them are seeing it as what they feared coming true. The link from MLJ to her opponent's "shoot an M16" event is a shocking (for many) and disturbing (hopefully for most) indicator of the climate this woman was working in. While this event may not have been inevitable, or even the direct result of this political rhetoric of gun play and violence, anyone denying that politicians on the right are dangerously exploiting this "us vs them" and militant mindset for political gain - with potentially disastrous results like what took place yesterday - is either ignorant or lying.
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
"All politicians" use this rhetoric? Come on. They do no such thing. Sarah Palin makes this gun-toting bullshit a core element of her persona. You think some vague one-time statement by Obama that you can't source or even quote accurately is even worth mentioning in that context? That's like the Indoor World Record for False Equivalency.
Can I trade you a dollar for all of your worldly possessions? They both have value, right? So it's the same thing!
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
SoulOnIce said:
either ignorant or lying.
Right. Since I don't agree with you, I must be ignorant or a lier. Look past the bias of your own beliefs. Liberals and conservatives; Republicans and Democrats; both parties engage in irresponsible rhetoric and dirty politics. It's almost immposible to get ahead in politics without these tactics. One is not inherently good and the other inherently bad. In my opinion, they're both bad.
Additionally, I think what's been lost in this debate is that right now, there is only one person to blame: THE SHOOTER.
"???If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,??? Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. ???Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I???ve seen Eagles fans.???"
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
"???If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,??? Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. ???Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I???ve seen Eagles fans.???"
If the next day some lunatic took a gun and killed a bunch of Republicans would we be blaming the Prez?
I wouldn't.
Nor would I. And I don't see anyone blaming anyone other than this shooter for the actual shooting, either.
Hey, if you think the current political climate in Arizona is just peachy and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise, that's your call. Giffords thought otherwise and said so not so long before some nut with an anti-government axe to grind shot her. Maybe this is a good time to talk about her concerns, even if it harshes various mellows.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
I've already retracred my use of "all"
Yeah, but then you used it twice in this post... "all liberal rhetoric," "all conservative rhetoric."
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
why dont you use the word "equivocation", considering it's the ACTUAL word used for everything you're describing and not just a loaded buzz-word? is it because it doesn't implicity detract from whoever you're speaking with?
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
First off, as a newbie here on this board, let me state that I only intend on engaging in friendly healthy debate. I don't plan on making personal attacks, and I don't want to receive them either.
That being said, what I percieve as your point by using the term "false equivalency" is that two people can engage in the same style of rhetoric, but one is deplorable, while the other is acceptable. While I disdain Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck every bit as much as you do, I couldn't disagree with your false equivalency argument more.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
First off, as a newbie here on this board, let me state that I only intend on engaging in friendly healthy debate. I don't plan on making personal attacks, and I don't want to receive them either.
That being said, what I percieve as your point by using the term "false equivalency" is that two people can engage in the same style of rhetoric, but one is deplorable, while the other is acceptable. While I disdain Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck every bit as much as you do, I couldn't disagree with your false equivalency argument more.
i find it interesting this time around that the majority of the response to this tragedy has been revolved around the political discourse that might have contributed to this event and very little mention yet of hand gun regulation that definitely contributed to this event..
probably a win for the NRA that these horrible events (Tucson, V-Tech) seem to bring up less and less discussion about hand gun regulation, and more and more about how other factors (media's role in politics, social media, psychiatric issues of assailants, etc.) contribute to violence.
Also (and i don't know this answer) does the NRA differentiate the types of 'arms' in its Charter/Manifesto for gun regulation? Although I don't know this for sure (so please feel free to correct), I continue to find it odd that there seem to be similar rules from owning different types of guns. The primary purpose/use of a Hunting Rifle and a Semi-Automatic handgun seem so blatantly different (bar marksmanship), but my understanding is the the regulation to purchase them are similar.
I am sure the NRA is working up a PR campaign as we sit talking about how more people should have had handguns in this scenario so that this assailant could have been stopped sooner.
The wild west indeed
Good point. Since I haven't seen the specifics mentioned here yet :
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation into law in April of 2010 making it legal for anyone over the age of 21 to carry a concealed weapon without the need of a permit or background check in Arizona. In my eyes, especially given the climate of inflammatory, violent rhetoric coming from the likes of Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck et al., that should make her prosecutable as an accessory to murder.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
why dont you use the word "equivocation", considering it's the ACTUAL word used for everything you're describing and not just a loaded buzz-word? is it because it doesn't implicity detract from whoever you're speaking with?
No, I use "equivalency" instead of "equivocation" because equivocation doesn't mean what I want to say.
It's not like I invented the term, either. Here it is in another context:
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
First off, as a newbie here on this board, let me state that I only intend on engaging in friendly healthy debate. I don't plan on making personal attacks, and I don't want to receive them either.
That being said, what I percieve as your point by using the term "false equivalency" is that two people can engage in the same style of rhetoric, but one is deplorable, while the other is acceptable. While I disdain Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck every bit as much as you do, I couldn't disagree with your false equivalency argument more.
Your perception is wrong. It doesn't matter if there are people "on both sides" using questionable rhetoric. If there are thousands of examples on the right and a hundred examples on the left, and you claim both sides are equally engaged, then you're ignoring reality and claiming a false equivalency.
Volume and frequency matter. There's a lot more of this noise on the right, and that's just a fact. And the elected/political leadership on the right is far more indulgent and supportive of extreme rhetoric than their "left" counterparts are right now. Am I wrong about that?
That's why I say it's wrong to shake your head and say, "both sides do it" without acknowledging that one side is doing it a whole lot more. It strikes me as weird and intellectually lazy. The Pacific Ocean and Lake Tahoe are both bodies of water, but only one of them features tsunamis. It's an important difference.
[Nor would I. And I don't see anyone blaming anyone other than this shooter for the actual shooting, either.
I agree.......this dude is solely responsible for his actions......and he obviously has a mental illness.
Not sure why Palin, Beck or anyone else who has nothing to do with this terrible crime was ever mentioned in this thread other than looking for somewhere to place blame......almost as absurd as charging the wacky Governor of Arizona as an accessory to murder.
Comments
no you're not. you love to read your words on a computer screen too much to be apologetic.
You're right; Dean is no longer the DNC chairman, but that doesn't change the substance of my statement. Dean certainly still holds an influence on the party as a whole, and is a figure head leader of the more progressive elements of the Democratic party. His statements aren't made from some margainalized extreme of the greater party.
probably a win for the NRA that these horrible events (Tucson, V-Tech) seem to bring up less and less discussion about hand gun regulation, and more and more about how other factors (media's role in politics, social media, psychiatric issues of assailants, etc.) contribute to violence.
Also (and i don't know this answer) does the NRA differentiate the types of 'arms' in its Charter/Manifesto for gun regulation? Although I don't know this for sure (so please feel free to correct), I continue to find it odd that there seem to be similar rules from owning different types of guns. The primary purpose/use of a Hunting Rifle and a Semi-Automatic handgun seem so blatantly different (bar marksmanship), but my understanding is the the regulation to purchase them are similar.
I am sure the NRA is working up a PR campaign as we sit talking about how more people should have had handguns in this scenario so that this assailant could have been stopped sooner.
The wild west indeed
True. The "sorry" was purely sarcastic.
I thought that was obvious.
It's still a big stretch.
I just can't imagine an scenario in which this incident ---> press censorship. Doesn't make any sense how the two are linked.
All politicians use this rhetoric. Candidate Obama himself once said something to the affect of - if they bring a knife to the fight, I'm bringing a gun. That's paraphrased, but the sentiment is there. Both sides use militaristic or violent language when discussing political strategy.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what our politics are, we usually believe that our opponents and their rhetoric is somehow more dangerous and damaging than that of those we agree with. Olbermann deserves to be mentioned in the same boat with beck and hannity. Obama, pelosi, and Reid are in the same boat as bush Cheney and rove.
I envision radio and television personalities might be called to testify before congress, and the FCC (not the doj) proposing more media regulation.
Again, I don't think it's really a huge leap to think politicians might use underhanded tactics to silence their critics. Don't think that because you perceive this administration as the "good guys" (an assumption. Apologies if this is inacurate) that they are above dirty politics.
"All politicians" use this rhetoric? Come on. They do no such thing. Sarah Palin makes this gun-toting bullshit a core element of her persona. You think some vague one-time statement by Obama that you can't source or even quote accurately is even worth mentioning in that context? That's like the Indoor World Record for False Equivalency.
Can I trade you a dollar for all of your worldly possessions? They both have value, right? So it's the same thing!
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
Ooh.
Yeah, totally the same thing. In a totally serious context and everything. Scary. Ranks right up there with:
"Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly"
Just both sides doing the same thing. Move along, nothing happening here.
Stop using the term false equivalacey. Maybe using the phrase "all politicians" was over reaching, but members of both political parties use this rhetoric. My point is that liberals find all liberal rhetoric to be fair. Conservatives find all conservative rhetoric to be fair.
I can't stop using the term "false equivalency" because I think it's the defining feature of today's political climate.
I also don't find your conclusion about liberals and conservatives and how they view rhetoric to be true. You should probably avoid the use of "all" as well as false equivalencies.
Additionally, I think what's been lost in this debate is that right now, there is only one person to blame: THE SHOOTER.
If the next day some lunatic took a gun and killed a bunch of Republicans would we be blaming the Prez?
I wouldn't.
I've already retracred my use of "all"
Nor would I. And I don't see anyone blaming anyone other than this shooter for the actual shooting, either.
Hey, if you think the current political climate in Arizona is just peachy and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise, that's your call. Giffords thought otherwise and said so not so long before some nut with an anti-government axe to grind shot her. Maybe this is a good time to talk about her concerns, even if it harshes various mellows.
Yeah, but then you used it twice in this post... "all liberal rhetoric," "all conservative rhetoric."
why dont you use the word "equivocation", considering it's the ACTUAL word used for everything you're describing and not just a loaded buzz-word? is it because it doesn't implicity detract from whoever you're speaking with?
First off, as a newbie here on this board, let me state that I only intend on engaging in friendly healthy debate. I don't plan on making personal attacks, and I don't want to receive them either.
That being said, what I percieve as your point by using the term "false equivalency" is that two people can engage in the same style of rhetoric, but one is deplorable, while the other is acceptable. While I disdain Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck every bit as much as you do, I couldn't disagree with your false equivalency argument more.
First off, as a newbie here on this board, let me state that I only intend on engaging in friendly healthy debate. I don't plan on making personal attacks, and I don't want to receive them either.
That being said, what I percieve as your point by using the term "false equivalency" is that two people can engage in the same style of rhetoric, but one is deplorable, while the other is acceptable. While I disdain Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck every bit as much as you do, I couldn't disagree with your false equivalency argument more.
Good point. Since I haven't seen the specifics mentioned here yet :
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation into law in April of 2010 making it legal for anyone over the age of 21 to carry a concealed weapon without the need of a permit or background check in Arizona. In my eyes, especially given the climate of inflammatory, violent rhetoric coming from the likes of Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck et al., that should make her prosecutable as an accessory to murder.
No, I use "equivalency" instead of "equivocation" because equivocation doesn't mean what I want to say.
It's not like I invented the term, either. Here it is in another context:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php
Your perception is wrong. It doesn't matter if there are people "on both sides" using questionable rhetoric. If there are thousands of examples on the right and a hundred examples on the left, and you claim both sides are equally engaged, then you're ignoring reality and claiming a false equivalency.
Volume and frequency matter. There's a lot more of this noise on the right, and that's just a fact. And the elected/political leadership on the right is far more indulgent and supportive of extreme rhetoric than their "left" counterparts are right now. Am I wrong about that?
That's why I say it's wrong to shake your head and say, "both sides do it" without acknowledging that one side is doing it a whole lot more. It strikes me as weird and intellectually lazy. The Pacific Ocean and Lake Tahoe are both bodies of water, but only one of them features tsunamis. It's an important difference.
I agree.......this dude is solely responsible for his actions......and he obviously has a mental illness.
Not sure why Palin, Beck or anyone else who has nothing to do with this terrible crime was ever mentioned in this thread other than looking for somewhere to place blame......almost as absurd as charging the wacky Governor of Arizona as an accessory to murder.