For the most part these are mainstream, popular conservatives - not fringe characters at all. And they're a pack of bloodthirsty assholes who use violent imagery constantly. Nothing has changed.
But, but, but, Whoopi Goldberg or someone once said Rush Limbaugh should be slapped in the teeth or something, so both sides do it.
has this event changed anyone's views on gun control?
The reaction by people who support gun rights is always: If more people had guns, someone would have shot him dead before he killed all of those people. It's never less guns, always more guns.
Not sure how that would play out here. AZ has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country (which, of course, is partially how our shooter was able to buy the gun he used, legally). The whole rally could have been strapped up; that wouldn't have prevented the shooter from emptying most of his clip before anyone could react.
Gun nuts can't make political lemonade here. Best they can hope for is that everyone will focus on Palin's tweets and ignore the legal side.
I'm not saying that gun control advocates are going to find their goals any easier but it sure as shit isn't going to be harder.
Not sure why this has to be couched as an either/or.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
Not sure how that would play out here. AZ has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country (which, of course, is partially how our shooter was able to buy the gun he used, legally). The whole rally could have been strapped up; that wouldn't have prevented the shooter from emptying most of his clip before anyone could react.
Gun nuts can't make political lemonade here. Best they can hope for is that everyone will focus on Palin's tweets and ignore the legal side.
I'm not saying that gun control advocates are going to find their goals any easier but it sure as shit isn't going to be harder.
It's not just the gun. The shooter had an extended magazine that held 30+ bullets. The standard clip holds 15 bullets. Arizona is one of the few states that allows the open sale of these extended magazines.
It's important because it makes it possible for a shooter to hurt more people much more quickly. This guy was disarmed while changing clips. He'd completed the change but he was tackled before he could resume shooting. Bad as it was, it could have been worse.
Not sure why this has to be couched as an either/or.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
The issue we can tackle most easily is the guns. Let's give it a [del]shot[/del] try with no guns for awhile, then move onto the speech. I'd be more comfortable with that.
The issue we can tackle most easily is the guns. Let's give it a [del]shot[/del] try with no guns for awhile, then move onto the speech. I'd be more comfortable with that.
Not sure why this has to be couched as an either/or.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
Good article.....and I agree with his statement ..... It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be....but do so with the understanding that at this point it's all speculation and that until facts are revealed these are nothing more than common everyday conspiracy theories.
No one has really raised the idea of somehow LEGISLATING some kind of "reduction in heated rhetoric" or whatever. The main call is: "yo, can we chill out a bit?" First Amendments protectors need not get in a tizzy yet.
Bob: Good point about the extended clip. I forgot that detail but yeah - his weapons of choice were all completely legal under AZ gun laws. Whether this incident will change that direction - in AZ - is doubtful but I could see it as a way to get other states/cities to reconsider what they have on the books.
Not sure why this has to be couched as an either/or.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
Good article.....and I agree with his statement ..... It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be....but do so with the understanding that at this point it's all speculation and that until facts are revealed these are nothing more than common everyday conspiracy theories.
The last part isn't what Fallows is saying or implying and I think you're confusing "everyday conspiracy theories" of the grassy-knoll variety with the argument - put out in this case - that the political climate in AZ is goading people into extremist behavior.
Wait until the State of the Union address in a few weeks. GOP is (rightfully) shook and I can see the rumored splinters in their party becoming more pronounced as more moderate Republicans try to avoid any association with the far wing.
Not sure why this has to be couched as an either/or.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
Good article.....and I agree with his statement ..... It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be....but do so with the understanding that at this point it's all speculation and that until facts are revealed these are nothing more than common everyday conspiracy theories.
The last part isn't what Fallows is saying or implying and I think you're confusing "everyday conspiracy theories" of the grassy-knoll variety with the argument - put out in this case - that the political climate in AZ is goading people into extremist behavior.
Those are two very very very different ideas.
Yes, which one is it, legitimate discussion, or kooky conspiracy theory?
[quote author="BobDesperado" date="1294643169 I've made it clear that I'm not interested in any such prosecutions.
My endgame is that I'd like more reasonable and truthful political discourse in this country. My opinion is that most of the craziness in that field is being driven by the right-wing and has been for decades, for a variety of reasons.
I find it interesting that you claim I'm the one who is so biased, but when I talk about actual events and offer actual evidence for my position you don't even bother to try to offer any for your own. So your position seems to be that political discourse is always static, with an equal amount of noise coming from the left speaker and the right speaker, all the time, regardless of what's actually happening.
Okay. It seems like you'd have to know nothing about history in order to maintain that fantasy, but if it helps you sleep at night carry on.
I wasn't singling you out as biased. We all have our biases, and they affect how we interpret information and perceive reality. Before I finish taking apart your commentary, let me once again state that there is no evidence that this kid was influenced by beck or palin, or had a political agenda whatsoever. When pressed, even Sheriff Dupnik stated that Loughner made no pro right wing proclamations while in custody. On the contrary, the sheriff called him unstable.
But I digress. If you want specific examples, look at the symmetry between the "birthers" vs. the "truthers." Both camps base their beleifs on a lack of hard evidence. In response to your claim that there is no equivelant to right wing talk radio: ok. Maybe not on the radio. But what of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Bill Mahr, and the entire entertainment industry? Are you saying anti Bush and anto conservative sentiments wern't given ample airtime by any of these outlets and individuals?
In response to your claim that there is no equivelant to right wing talk radio: ok. Maybe not on the radio. But what of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Bill Mahr, and the entire entertainment industry?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA.... HA..... HA!
Gonzo: You need to reformat your post. It's not clear what's a quote and what's you. Right now, you sound like you're arguing with yourself.
And the idea that the mainstream media is the equivalent to right wing talk radio suggests you've never listened to the latter. There is no equivalent on the left, there never has been (not for lack of trying but see how successful Air America was).
I've made it clear that I'm not interested in any such prosecutions.
My "endgame" is that I'd like more reasonable and truthful political discourse in this country. My opinion is that most of the craziness in that field is being driven by the right-wing and has been for decades, for a variety of reasons.
I find it interesting that you claim I'm the one who is so biased, but when I talk about actual events and offer actual evidence for my position you don't even bother to try to offer any for your own. So your position seems to be that political discourse is always static, with an equal amount of noise coming from the left speaker and the right speaker, all the time, regardless of what's actually happening.
Okay. It seems like you'd have to know nothing about history in order to maintain that fantasy, but if it helps you sleep at night carry on.
I wasn't singling you out as biased. We all have our biases, and they affect how we interpret information and perceive reality. Before I finish taking apart your commentary, let me once again state that there is no evidence that this kid was influenced by beck or palin, or had a political agenda whatsoever. When pressed, even Sheriff Dupnik stated that Loughner made no pro right wing proclamations while in custody. On the contrary, the sheriff called him unstable.
But I digress. If you want specific examples, look at the symmetry between the "birthers" vs. the "truthers." Both camps base their beleifs on a lack of hard evidence. In response to your claim that there is no equivelant to right wing talk radio: ok. Maybe not on the radio. But what of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Bill Mahr, and the entire entertainment industry? Are you saying anti Bush and anto conservative sentiments wern't given ample airtime by any of these outlets and individuals?
In your confused ramblings you've just pretty much proved BobDesperados' point - which you still seem to completely misunderstand and misrepresent, even though you've gone over the same thing for the last 8 pages.
Please take your list of "false equivalency" (including the entire entertainment industry!) and cite actual quotes where their rhetoric has been anything like rightwing examples that have been cited in this thread.
Gonzo: You need to reformat your post. It's not clear what's a quote and what's you. Right now, you sound like you're arguing with yourself.
And the idea that the mainstream media is the equivalent to right wing talk radio suggests you've never listened to the latter. There is no equivalent on the left, there never has been (not for lack of trying but see how successful Air America was).
How so? The quote I'm responding to is above my text. As to your 2nd statement, I admited there was no equivelent on the radio, but that doesn't mean that these ideas weren't amply represented in the media. BobDesperado's point was that right wing rhetoric is much worse that it's left wing counterpart because it was/is more prevelant. My point is that both are reprehensible.
At this point, I'd like to expicitly state that I am NOT a conservative. My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
In response to your claim that there is no equivelant to right wing talk radio: ok. Maybe not on the radio. But what of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Bill Mahr, and the entire entertainment industry?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA.... HA..... HA!
oh man.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
whew. Thanks, that was rich
Was there an actual point here? Does liberal bias not exist in any of these?
Whether these liberal or conservative media outlets are equally extreme or not is besides the point. They're both used to influence opinion and I don't see much of a difference between being subversive or blantant.
My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
That rationale is akin to saying you can yell fire in a crowded theatre thanks to the 1st amendment. Responsibility > rhetoric.
Moreover, no one is saying this rhetoric can't "exist". I think it's more the issue that public rhetoric comes with some level of public accountability.
My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
That rationale is akin to saying you can yell fire in a crowded theatre thanks to the 1st amendment. Responsibility > rhetoric.
Moreover, no one is saying this rhetoric can't "exist". I think it's more the issue that public rhetoric comes with some level of public accountability.
My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
That rationale is akin to saying you can yell fire in a crowded theatre thanks to the 1st amendment. Responsibility > rhetoric.
Moreover, no one is saying this rhetoric can't "exist". I think it's more the issue that public rhetoric comes with some level of public accountability.
True, but we don't yet know if that rhetoric has any relevance in this story.
My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
That rationale is akin to saying you can yell fire in a crowded theatre thanks to the 1st amendment. Responsibility > rhetoric.
Moreover, no one is saying this rhetoric can't "exist". I think it's more the issue that public rhetoric comes with some level of public accountability.
True, but we don't yet know if that rhetoric has any relevance in this story.
Comments
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/03/eliminationism-in-america-appendix.html
For the most part these are mainstream, popular conservatives - not fringe characters at all. And they're a pack of bloodthirsty assholes who use violent imagery constantly. Nothing has changed.
But, but, but, Whoopi Goldberg or someone once said Rush Limbaugh should be slapped in the teeth or something, so both sides do it.
Yeah, sure.
Not sure how that would play out here. AZ has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country (which, of course, is partially how our shooter was able to buy the gun he used, legally). The whole rally could have been strapped up; that wouldn't have prevented the shooter from emptying most of his clip before anyone could react.
Gun nuts can't make political lemonade here. Best they can hope for is that everyone will focus on Palin's tweets and ignore the legal side.
I'm not saying that gun control advocates are going to find their goals any easier but it sure as shit isn't going to be harder.
I'm as socialist pussy homo commie as the next manchild, I really am, but this one seems Gun Nut before anything else.
#1: When's the last time there was a rampage shooter who wasn't suffering from mental illness? "Nut" sort of comes with the territory, at least in America.
#2: You can be whacked out and still have a political agenda of sorts. Not a rational one (since, again, rampage shooting = not a great way to sell a political point) but still politically influenced. That, to me, is not a *cause*. But it does lend some context to understand how and why a particular target was chosen.
James Fallows has had some good things to say about this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-cloudy-logic-of-political-shootings/69147
It's not just the gun. The shooter had an extended magazine that held 30+ bullets. The standard clip holds 15 bullets. Arizona is one of the few states that allows the open sale of these extended magazines.
It's important because it makes it possible for a shooter to hurt more people much more quickly. This guy was disarmed while changing clips. He'd completed the change but he was tackled before he could resume shooting. Bad as it was, it could have been worse.
I agree with all of this.
The issue we can tackle most easily is the guns. Let's give it a [del]shot[/del] try with no guns for awhile, then move onto the speech. I'd be more comfortable with that.
*slowly takes off elf queen wig*
Good article.....and I agree with his statement ..... It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be....but do so with the understanding that at this point it's all speculation and that until facts are revealed these are nothing more than common everyday conspiracy theories.
Bob: Good point about the extended clip. I forgot that detail but yeah - his weapons of choice were all completely legal under AZ gun laws. Whether this incident will change that direction - in AZ - is doubtful but I could see it as a way to get other states/cities to reconsider what they have on the books.
The last part isn't what Fallows is saying or implying and I think you're confusing "everyday conspiracy theories" of the grassy-knoll variety with the argument - put out in this case - that the political climate in AZ is goading people into extremist behavior.
Those are two very very very different ideas.
I mean, talk about protesting too much.
Cause I don't see how it can be both.
My endgame is that I'd like more reasonable and truthful political discourse in this country. My opinion is that most of the craziness in that field is being driven by the right-wing and has been for decades, for a variety of reasons.
I find it interesting that you claim I'm the one who is so biased, but when I talk about actual events and offer actual evidence for my position you don't even bother to try to offer any for your own. So your position seems to be that political discourse is always static, with an equal amount of noise coming from the left speaker and the right speaker, all the time, regardless of what's actually happening.
Okay. It seems like you'd have to know nothing about history in order to maintain that fantasy, but if it helps you sleep at night carry on.
I wasn't singling you out as biased. We all have our biases, and they affect how we interpret information and perceive reality. Before I finish taking apart your commentary, let me once again state that there is no evidence that this kid was influenced by beck or palin, or had a political agenda whatsoever. When pressed, even Sheriff Dupnik stated that Loughner made no pro right wing proclamations while in custody. On the contrary, the sheriff called him unstable.
But I digress. If you want specific examples, look at the symmetry between the "birthers" vs. the "truthers." Both camps base their beleifs on a lack of hard evidence. In response to your claim that there is no equivelant to right wing talk radio: ok. Maybe not on the radio. But what of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, Bill Mahr, and the entire entertainment industry? Are you saying anti Bush and anto conservative sentiments wern't given ample airtime by any of these outlets and individuals?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA.... HA..... HA!
oh man.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
whew. Thanks, that was rich
And the idea that the mainstream media is the equivalent to right wing talk radio suggests you've never listened to the latter. There is no equivalent on the left, there never has been (not for lack of trying but see how successful Air America was).
In your confused ramblings you've just pretty much proved BobDesperados' point - which you still seem to completely misunderstand and misrepresent, even though you've gone over the same thing for the last 8 pages.
Please take your list of "false equivalency" (including the entire entertainment industry!) and cite actual quotes where their rhetoric has been anything like rightwing examples that have been cited in this thread.
How so? The quote I'm responding to is above my text. As to your 2nd statement, I admited there was no equivelent on the radio, but that doesn't mean that these ideas weren't amply represented in the media. BobDesperado's point was that right wing rhetoric is much worse that it's left wing counterpart because it was/is more prevelant. My point is that both are reprehensible.
At this point, I'd like to expicitly state that I am NOT a conservative. My "defense" of right wing rhetoric is based solely on the fact that the 1st amendment guarentees the right for that rhetoric to exsist.
Was there an actual point here? Does liberal bias not exist in any of these?
You're missing
http://www.businessinsider.com/alleged-az-shooter-may-have-links-to-pro-white-racist-organization-2011-1
That rationale is akin to saying you can yell fire in a crowded theatre thanks to the 1st amendment. Responsibility > rhetoric.
Legitimate discussion or Conspiracy theory?
More at 11.
Moreover, no one is saying this rhetoric can't "exist". I think it's more the issue that public rhetoric comes with some level of public accountability.
Just so I don't misunderstand you here, are you saying free speech should be limited?
True, but we don't yet know if that rhetoric has any relevance in this story.
You're missing the bigger picture here.
How so? Pundits voicing opposition to a sitting admin. is akin to shouting fire in a theater?