[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.
Of course she can't be charged.
But there would be nothing wrong with suggesting that maybe a kid whose college had banned him for behavioral problems might not have been able to buy a semi-automatic weapon with no waiting period. Similarly there's nothing wrong with suggesting that a lunatic political climate might have some bearing on an event like this. It's not like it's never been suggested before.
"The latest issue of Vanity Fair includes a story entitled "A Clash of Camelots," by Sam Kashner. But it is not set in the present. Kashner's subject is the story behind William Manchester's The Death of a President, the definitive account of John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Manchester, Kashner reports, found that in the third year of the Kennedy presidency, "a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed 'Impeach Earl Warren.' Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas. . . . Radical right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy's name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars."
Kashner continues: "A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as 'the Democratic flag.' A wanted poster with JFK's face on it was circulated, announcing 'this man is wanted' for - among other things - 'turning the sovereignty of the U.S. over to communist-controlled United Nations' and appointing 'anti-Christians . . . aliens and known communists' to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in the Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party; when it was shown to the president, he was appalled. He turned to Jacqueline, who was visibly upset and said, 'Oh, you know, we're headed into nut country today.' "
No wonder Kennedy was warned not to make the trip. "Evangelist Billy Graham had attempted to reach Kennedy . . . about his own foreboding. The Dallas mood was no secret," Manchester wrote. U.S. Sen. William Fulbright (D., Ark.) told Kennedy that Dallas was "a very dangerous place. I wouldn't go there. Don't you go."
According to Kashner, Manchester determined that the last words Kennedy heard were those of Nellie Connally, wife of Texas Gov. John Connally. "Delighted by the enthusiastic crowd along the motorcade route, she turned around in her seat and said, 'Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you.' And then the first shot rang out," Kashner wrote."
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.
You seem to forget that eight years ago the situation was completely flipped around. The most vitriolic rhetoric usually comes from the opposition. The left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years.
@Rockadelic
I agree 100%. The only people that bear responsibility here, are the ones that pulled the trigger.
[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.
Maybe I overstate her culpability, but I think a case could be made that her irresponsible leadership is as responsible as anything or anyone for this obviously mentally ill (by your own admission) individual having a semi-automatic pistol with a cartridge extender. She might as well have handed it to him and said "go to town." Similarly, those who spew the violent trigger-happy rhetoric and imagery should be held accountable for the same reasons it is illegal in this country to use speech which encourages illegal violence if the threat of violence is imminent.
In other words, irresponsible behavior has consequences and to pretend this nutcase acted in a vacuum with no influences from his environment is naive.
Similarly, those who spew the violent trigger-happy rhetoric and imagery should be held accountable for the same reasons it is illegal in this country to use speech which encourages illegal violence if the threat of violence is imminent.
Would you include the President stating "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" when referring to Republicans in this type of violent trigger happy rhetoric??
Similarly, those who spew the violent trigger-happy rhetoric and imagery should be held accountable for the same reasons it is illegal in this country to use speech which encourages illegal violence if the threat of violence is imminent.
You seem to forget that eight years ago the situation was completely flipped around. The most vitriolic rhetoric usually comes from the opposition. The left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years.
Hoo boy.
You should change your username. The stuff you're peddling here would make Hunter Thompson throw up in his own mouth.
One of my closest friends made an excellent parallel comparing those politicians who used crosshairs and childish "shoot an M16" faux (or not faux) threats in their ads to rappers who make songs such as "F*ck The Police."
Yeah, your actions and words may not be (and in this case, most likely are NOT) responsible AT ALL for the motives of a sick and crazy person, but when you do and say some sh*t like that you damn well better expect to have fingers pointed at you and your purpose(s) questioned. The only difference really is that these people are too f*cking chickensh*t to stand behind their words and actions. As far as I know, they took it down without explanation nor an apology. (If she's done that, fantastic. Has she though?) I don't have any respect for Sarah Palin, but if I did I'd have a little more if she had kept that website up and offered a valid explanation for it, even if it was as simple as "I hate these people."
You walk into a restaurant tatted up, dressed like a juggalo, wearing a goddamn chicken suit, you better KNOW and ACCEPT that people are gonna look at you weird. It may not necessarily be "right" nor respectful nor courteous, but it's human nature and really, YOU'RE the stupid one to get upset over it. (Personally, I won't look at them BECAUSE I feel they want me to. I'm not giving you the benefit of satisfying your ego.)
Furthermore, if someone...anyone...made jokes, drew pictures, wished harm on anyone I love, if that person I love is hurt or killed BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCE I'm punching that dumb, disrespectful motherf*cker in the face and maybe doing worse ON PRINCIPLE. And I'm a peaceful ass dude.
Well, I'm certainly not going to defend rappers who use violent imagery. I hate them and I think they contribute to the prevalence of thuggish, rude and idiotic attitudes in America today.
Obama's statement isn't one of his best, but it's a general metaphor and not a specific targeting of individuals ala Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" campaign.
Obama's statement isn't one of his best, but it's a general metaphor and not a specific targeting of individuals ala Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" campaign.
It was also part of a joke. I included the context and a source up above.
I guess Rockadelic missed it. Or just hates context on general principle.
You seem to forget that eight years ago the situation was completely flipped around. The most vitriolic rhetoric usually comes from the opposition. The left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years.
Hoo boy.
You should change your username. The stuff you're peddling here would make Hunter Thompson throw up in his own mouth.
Easy there, fella.
You think Hunter Thompson would puke in his mouth over a 1st amendment issue. You're certainly not suggesting that he opposed free speech, are you?
You seem to forget that eight years ago the situation was completely flipped around. The most vitriolic rhetoric usually comes from the opposition. The left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years.
Hoo boy.
You should change your username. The stuff you're peddling here would make Hunter Thompson throw up in his own mouth.
Easy there, fella.
You think Hunter Thompson would puke in his mouth over a 1st amendment issue. You're certainly not suggesting that he opposed free speech, are you?
Oh no. I'm suggesting that he wouldn't have bought this "the left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years" nonsense for a second.
Obama's statement isn't one of his best, but it's a general metaphor and not a specific targeting of individuals ala Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" campaign.
It was also part of a joke. I included the context and a source up above.
I guess Rockadelic missed it. Or just hates context on general principle.
And of course a mentally ill murdering maniac would be able to determine context and act accordingly.
Would you suggest the context of Palin's "Take Back The 20" was intended to tell supporters that if you go out and kill these 20 people those jobs will be automatically filled by Tea Party Republicans?
I'm just saying I don't want to be the one to regulate political speech(or music) and have to decide what's "a joke", what's in or out of context or what is hate speech that leads to a third party committing violence.
In the words of Bolder Damn..."You can kill the man, can you kill the idea".
I'm not sure what you find vomit worthy about suggesting that proponents on the left can be just as nasty as those on the right.
That's not what you said.
Are you even paying attention to anything I've said here?
1. Yes, there's nasty on both sides.
2. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there is on the left.
3. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there was on the left when Bush was president, and it's coming from much more prominent places.
4. More matters even if you don't think it does.
Obama's statement isn't one of his best, but it's a general metaphor and not a specific targeting of individuals ala Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" campaign.
It was also part of a joke. I included the context and a source up above.
I guess Rockadelic missed it. Or just hates context on general principle.
And of course a mentally ill murdering maniac would be able to determine context and act accordingly.
Would you suggest the context of Palin's "Take Back The 20" was intended to tell supporters that if you go out and kill these 20 people those jobs will be automatically filled by Tea Party Republicans?
I'm just saying I don't want to be the one to regulate political speech(or music) and have to decide what's "a joke", what's in or out of context or what is hate speech that leads to a third party committing violence.
In the words of Bolder Damn..."You can kill the man, can you kill the idea".
Who said anything about "regulation"?
I'm suggesting an old-fashioned societal solution - treating the idiots who indulge in that sort of violent rhetoric with disgust.
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.
I'm not sure what you find vomit worthy about suggesting that proponents on the left can be just as nasty as those on the right.
That's not what you said.
Are you even paying attention to anything I've said here?
1. Yes, there's nasty on both sides.
2. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there is on the left.
3. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there was on the left when Bush was president, and it's coming from much more prominent places.
4. More matters even if you don't think it does.
We are at an impass. I think you're deceiving yourself to say it's any different know than it was then. The only difference for you is that back then, you agreed with the rhetoric (some referred to it as "vitriolic") coming from the left. So in your mind it was justified.
My point is that it wasn't justified then, and it's not jusified now. And no matter how bad the rhetoric is either instance, it isn't responsible for the violent acts of individuals.
Do I beleive that statements made by politicians ,or would be politicians, invoking gun imagery is distatseful?
Yes, and I hope people like Sarah Palin never get elected to any public office.
Do I think they should be silenced?
No. they are entitled to Free Speech like the rest of us.
[We are at an impass. I think you're deceiving yourself to say it's any different know than it was then. The only difference for you is that back then, you agreed with the rhetoric (some referred to it as vitriolic) coming from the left. So in your mind it was justified.
If you say so. You're not offering any specifics, which fits into your false equivalency. I'm saying that it's very different now, and much more violence-oriented. It's a fact, for instance, that Obama gets many more death threats than Bush did. It's a fact that we didn't have Democrats treating Bush with open disrespect in the Chamber during his SOTU addresses, while 2 Republicans have done so to Obama so far. It's a fact that there was never any liberal equivalent to conservative talk radio during the Bush years. It's a fact that no Democrats ran for office in 2004 or 2006 suggesting that there should be a violent insurrection if the Republicans won, but in 2010 we had several Republicans saying there should be one if Democrats won.
But some dudes called Bush Hitler! So it's just the same now as it was then! Because everything is always the same, or something.
Would you suggest the context of Palin's Take Back The 20 was intended to tell supporters that if you go out and kill these 20 people those jobs will be automatically filled by Tea Party Republicans?
.
No, I wouldn't go that far. But I think her & some of her ilk's constant resort to gun culture language ("Reload!", fucking crosshairs fer chrissakes) amounts to a bunch of idiots playing with matches at a gas station. Only they should know better, because they're not children. They can't be entirely ignorant of the fact that an individual in their audience is more likely to be an NRA supporter than a gun control advocate. They are more likely than not aware of the "Tiller the Baby Killer" tirades of Bill O'Reilly and subsequent assassination of George Tiller by Scott Roeder.
So they're playing with matches, and I believe they know they are but refuse to own up to the consequences.
If a Muslim posted a map of the USA with bullseyes, a list of names and the message, "These are the people we need to target," and one of them were shot, the right wing & Fox News (and likely a lot of Democrats and liberals too) would go ballistic. I just don't understand how anyone can deny there is a cause for concern with the tone of so much Republican politics of late and that there are valid reasons to criticize such tactics in light of the Tucson shootings.
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.
lol. way to lay the groundrules dude. good luck with that.
If a Muslim posted a map of the USA with bullseyes, a list of names and the message, "These are the people we need to target," and one of them were shot, the right wing & Fox News (and likely a lot of Democrats and liberals too) would go ballistic. I just don't understand how anyone can deny there is a cause for concern with the tone of so much Republican politics of late and that there are valid reasons to criticize such tactics in light of the Tucson shootings.
I also know people who think Ozzy Osbourne and Iron Maiden have made people commit suicide and/or kill others.
And those who think people who release violent messages like "Kill Tha Police" should be in jail.
Do you have some sort of info that this loony tune in Az. was even aware of such political rhetoric?
Comments
Of course she can't be charged.
But there would be nothing wrong with suggesting that maybe a kid whose college had banned him for behavioral problems might not have been able to buy a semi-automatic weapon with no waiting period. Similarly there's nothing wrong with suggesting that a lunatic political climate might have some bearing on an event like this. It's not like it's never been suggested before.
"The latest issue of Vanity Fair includes a story entitled "A Clash of Camelots," by Sam Kashner. But it is not set in the present. Kashner's subject is the story behind William Manchester's The Death of a President, the definitive account of John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Manchester, Kashner reports, found that in the third year of the Kennedy presidency, "a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed 'Impeach Earl Warren.' Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas. . . . Radical right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy's name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars."
Kashner continues: "A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as 'the Democratic flag.' A wanted poster with JFK's face on it was circulated, announcing 'this man is wanted' for - among other things - 'turning the sovereignty of the U.S. over to communist-controlled United Nations' and appointing 'anti-Christians . . . aliens and known communists' to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in the Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party; when it was shown to the president, he was appalled. He turned to Jacqueline, who was visibly upset and said, 'Oh, you know, we're headed into nut country today.' "
No wonder Kennedy was warned not to make the trip. "Evangelist Billy Graham had attempted to reach Kennedy . . . about his own foreboding. The Dallas mood was no secret," Manchester wrote. U.S. Sen. William Fulbright (D., Ark.) told Kennedy that Dallas was "a very dangerous place. I wouldn't go there. Don't you go."
According to Kashner, Manchester determined that the last words Kennedy heard were those of Nellie Connally, wife of Texas Gov. John Connally. "Delighted by the enthusiastic crowd along the motorcade route, she turned around in her seat and said, 'Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you.' And then the first shot rang out," Kashner wrote."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/post_1537_b_806383.html
The whole thing is worth reading.
You seem to forget that eight years ago the situation was completely flipped around. The most vitriolic rhetoric usually comes from the opposition. The left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years.
@Rockadelic
I agree 100%. The only people that bear responsibility here, are the ones that pulled the trigger.
Maybe I overstate her culpability, but I think a case could be made that her irresponsible leadership is as responsible as anything or anyone for this obviously mentally ill (by your own admission) individual having a semi-automatic pistol with a cartridge extender. She might as well have handed it to him and said "go to town." Similarly, those who spew the violent trigger-happy rhetoric and imagery should be held accountable for the same reasons it is illegal in this country to use speech which encourages illegal violence if the threat of violence is imminent.
In other words, irresponsible behavior has consequences and to pretend this nutcase acted in a vacuum with no influences from his environment is naive.
Would you include the President stating "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" when referring to Republicans in this type of violent trigger happy rhetoric??
and there goes all my favorite rappers.....
you sound
Poorlike Tipper Gore.Hoo boy.
You should change your username. The stuff you're peddling here would make Hunter Thompson throw up in his own mouth.
Yeah, your actions and words may not be (and in this case, most likely are NOT) responsible AT ALL for the motives of a sick and crazy person, but when you do and say some sh*t like that you damn well better expect to have fingers pointed at you and your purpose(s) questioned. The only difference really is that these people are too f*cking chickensh*t to stand behind their words and actions. As far as I know, they took it down without explanation nor an apology. (If she's done that, fantastic. Has she though?) I don't have any respect for Sarah Palin, but if I did I'd have a little more if she had kept that website up and offered a valid explanation for it, even if it was as simple as "I hate these people."
You walk into a restaurant tatted up, dressed like a juggalo, wearing a goddamn chicken suit, you better KNOW and ACCEPT that people are gonna look at you weird. It may not necessarily be "right" nor respectful nor courteous, but it's human nature and really, YOU'RE the stupid one to get upset over it. (Personally, I won't look at them BECAUSE I feel they want me to. I'm not giving you the benefit of satisfying your ego.)
Furthermore, if someone...anyone...made jokes, drew pictures, wished harm on anyone I love, if that person I love is hurt or killed BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCE I'm punching that dumb, disrespectful motherf*cker in the face and maybe doing worse ON PRINCIPLE. And I'm a peaceful ass dude.
Obama's statement isn't one of his best, but it's a general metaphor and not a specific targeting of individuals ala Sarah Palin's "Take Back the 20" campaign.
It was also part of a joke. I included the context and a source up above.
I guess Rockadelic missed it. Or just hates context on general principle.
Easy there, fella.
You think Hunter Thompson would puke in his mouth over a 1st amendment issue. You're certainly not suggesting that he opposed free speech, are you?
Oh no. I'm suggesting that he wouldn't have bought this "the left was equally as inflamatory during the Bush years" nonsense for a second.
And of course a mentally ill murdering maniac would be able to determine context and act accordingly.
Would you suggest the context of Palin's "Take Back The 20" was intended to tell supporters that if you go out and kill these 20 people those jobs will be automatically filled by Tea Party Republicans?
I'm just saying I don't want to be the one to regulate political speech(or music) and have to decide what's "a joke", what's in or out of context or what is hate speech that leads to a third party committing violence.
In the words of Bolder Damn..."You can kill the man, can you kill the idea".
That's not what you said.
Are you even paying attention to anything I've said here?
1. Yes, there's nasty on both sides.
2. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there is on the left.
3. There's a lot more of it on the right now than there was on the left when Bush was president, and it's coming from much more prominent places.
4. More matters even if you don't think it does.
Who said anything about "regulation"?
I'm suggesting an old-fashioned societal solution - treating the idiots who indulge in that sort of violent rhetoric with disgust.
Thompson = Gonzo journalism
We are at an impass. I think you're deceiving yourself to say it's any different know than it was then. The only difference for you is that back then, you agreed with the rhetoric (some referred to it as "vitriolic") coming from the left. So in your mind it was justified.
My point is that it wasn't justified then, and it's not jusified now. And no matter how bad the rhetoric is either instance, it isn't responsible for the violent acts of individuals.
Do I beleive that statements made by politicians ,or would be politicians, invoking gun imagery is distatseful?
Yes, and I hope people like Sarah Palin never get elected to any public office.
Do I think they should be silenced?
No. they are entitled to Free Speech like the rest of us.
Yes. I just disagree with many of your assertions
If the world was a giant internet site we could just BAN the people who say things we find offensive or distasteful.
If you say so. You're not offering any specifics, which fits into your false equivalency. I'm saying that it's very different now, and much more violence-oriented. It's a fact, for instance, that Obama gets many more death threats than Bush did. It's a fact that we didn't have Democrats treating Bush with open disrespect in the Chamber during his SOTU addresses, while 2 Republicans have done so to Obama so far. It's a fact that there was never any liberal equivalent to conservative talk radio during the Bush years. It's a fact that no Democrats ran for office in 2004 or 2006 suggesting that there should be a violent insurrection if the Republicans won, but in 2010 we had several Republicans saying there should be one if Democrats won.
But some dudes called Bush Hitler! So it's just the same now as it was then! Because everything is always the same, or something.
It's more fun to keep them around. Otherwise the disgust muscles get weak over time.
Would you suggest the context of Palin's Take Back The 20 was intended to tell supporters that if you go out and kill these 20 people those jobs will be automatically filled by Tea Party Republicans?
.
No, I wouldn't go that far. But I think her & some of her ilk's constant resort to gun culture language ("Reload!", fucking crosshairs fer chrissakes) amounts to a bunch of idiots playing with matches at a gas station. Only they should know better, because they're not children. They can't be entirely ignorant of the fact that an individual in their audience is more likely to be an NRA supporter than a gun control advocate. They are more likely than not aware of the "Tiller the Baby Killer" tirades of Bill O'Reilly and subsequent assassination of George Tiller by Scott Roeder.
So they're playing with matches, and I believe they know they are but refuse to own up to the consequences.
either that, or we could cry & ask the admin to delete our accounts when things don't go our way
Not sure why you want to throw out an insult but no one was crying.
I simply decided to no longer be a member of a group who did things I didn't agree with...it's called integrity.
Sorry you see it some other way.
lol. way to lay the groundrules dude. good luck with that.
"THERES GONNA BE SOME CHANGES AROUND HERE!"
But that's okay.
I also know people who think Ozzy Osbourne and Iron Maiden have made people commit suicide and/or kill others.
And those who think people who release violent messages like "Kill Tha Police" should be in jail.
Do you have some sort of info that this loony tune in Az. was even aware of such political rhetoric?
A lot of assuming in this thread.