Have you heard about...? (Politics edition)

[VDB]

That's why I said that in no way does Palin belong in prison for words or images on her site. I will defend anybody's right to use words. But they have to be taken to task for those words. Nobody should find this rhetoric acceptable. This is where I think Olberman is right. The leadership of the r Republican party should repudiate the violent rhetoric. Bhoener should hold a press conference and call for an end to violent rhetoric.

while you are corerct, this should not be a Republican/Democrat, left/right debate.  Blaming one side or the other gets this country nowhere and certainly doesn't stop the violence

As someone who considers himself no partisan ideologue, I'm inclined to be attracted to this position, but only to the extent that the facts support it. All I can say is that, which it may sound "fair" and "reasonable" to point out that there are extremists on both fringes of the political spectrum, and that everyone should condemn violence and tone down their rhetoric, my own observations sure do support the impression that most of this objectionable noise has been coming from the right. Sometimes you just gotta call it as you see it.

[Hicks]

that actual link was from here:
http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/

but like i said, its literally all over the internet.

Well, its a blog that makes a very convincing argument. 

People can read into things all they want.  Charlie Manson admitted to being inspired by portions of the White Album, this is especially concerning considering the fact that the Beatles advocated themes of partner abuse/murder (Run For Your Life), vigilante justice (Rocky Raccoon), and drug hookups (Dr. Roberts), in other songs.

LOL

It's getting pretty difficult to take your posts seriously here.

[nab]

that actual link was from here:
http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/

but like i said, its literally all over the internet.

Well, its a blog that makes a very convincing argument. 

People can read into things all they want.  Charlie Manson admitted to being inspired by portions of the White Album, this is especially concerning considering the fact that the Beatles advocated themes of partner abuse/murder (Run For Your Life), vigilante justice (Rocky Raccoon), and drug hookups (Dr. Roberts), in other songs.

LOL

It's getting pretty difficult to take your posts seriously here.

Well hopefully you understand that I was being purposefully ridiculous with the Beatles comment.


Still doesn't change my position.  No one should be made to retract their expression.  Pressured by the court of public opinion, sure, fine. 

[Hicks]

that actual link was from here:
http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/

but like i said, its literally all over the internet.

Well, its a blog that makes a very convincing argument. 

People can read into things all they want.  Charlie Manson admitted to being inspired by portions of the White Album, this is especially concerning considering the fact that the Beatles advocated themes of partner abuse/murder (Run For Your Life), vigilante justice (Rocky Raccoon), and drug hookups (Dr. Roberts), in other songs.

LOL

It's getting pretty difficult to take your posts seriously here.

Well hopefully you understand that I was being purposefully ridiculous with the Beatles comment.


Still doesn't change my position.  No one should be made to retract their expression.  Pressured by the court of public opinion, sure, fine.

Gotcha, I agree that Palin shouldn't go to jail or anything that extreme.

But when inflammatory rhetoric and hate mongering costs people their lives I think we do have a responsibility as a society to do something about it.   Not sure what that is myself, but incidents like this will continue as long as the talking heads continue to heap hyperbole and unfounded accusations upon those that they disagree with.

[nab]

My point still remains that there isn't any substantial proof that this guy drew his inspiration from any talking head.  That hasn't stopped anyone from making an assumption.  It may turn out that he did, but is that still any justification for silencing people?  It's in this mindset that I drew on the silly Beatles comment.


 

[Hicks]

Arizona political ad:

[rowjimmy]

Moore wasn't saying that Palin should be jailed. He's suggesting that there is an imbalance in what is accepted in what passes for our political discourse.

Violent rhetoric begets violence.

[PIE-GUY]

Like the New Yorker piece states, it does not even matter what this kid's motive, the violent rhetoric needs to stop and people need to speak out against it. I am going speak out against it every step of the way.

There is simply no room in politics for violence... Rhetorical or otherwise. It really is that simple. 

[mbw]

My point still remains that there isn't any substantial proof that this guy drew his inspiration from any talking head.  That hasn't stopped anyone from making an assumption.  It may turn out that he did, but is that still any justification for silencing people?  It's in this mindset that I drew on the silly Beatles comment.

the point isnt silencing 'people.'  you said you weren't sure who you feared more....
i think its pretty obvious.  i dont know of a single person on the left who is pro censorship of joe public and whatever crazy things he/she wants to say.

but i sure as hell dont think mainstream politicians should be using words like "take aim," "target" etc when describing opposition to their opponents.

they have the 'right,' as does any wing nut, but should they?  clearly not.

*edited due to horrible grammar.

[nab]

Isn't the point of showcasing talk as dangerous the first step to silencing it out of existence?



I'll be more clear about it then:

The Left is politicizing this action to showcase violent rhetoric by those on the right.  It is hoped that by making the other side look ridiculous and dangerous, they will be able to marginalize those who don't agree with their political stance.  That the dialogue of the right is potentially dangerous is beside the point.  The end result is the same: entrenchment and marginalization.

Hopefully this will quell some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the right, but making this a political action only serves to divide the people even more.

Has anyone ever taken the time to objectively consider why there is a left and right in this country?  I've played heavily in both arenas, starting as a lefty, moving right, and settling on neither.

[Hicks]

Isn't the point of showcasing talk as dangerous the first step to silencing it out of existence?



I'll be more clear about it then:

The Left is politicizing this action to showcase violent rhetoric by those on the right.  It is hoped that by making the other side look ridiculous and dangerous, they will be able to marginalize those who don't agree with their political stance.  That the dialogue of the right is potentially dangerous is beside the point.  The end result is the same: entrenchment and marginalization.

Hopefully this will quell some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the right, but making this a political action only serves to divide the people even more.

Has anyone ever taken the time to objectively consider why there is a left and right in this country?  I've played heavily in both arenas, starting as a lefty, moving right, and settling on neither.

You may think you're neither, but you sure sound like a conservative apologist to me.

[VDB]

Here's an angle that I don't think it's been looked at from yet.

People (that is, audiences) on the receiving end of this kind of rhetoric need to realize that they're simply being used. This language has one purpose and one purpose only: to win elections.

Of course neither Sarah Palin nor Sharon Angle nor any other pol is actually trying to orchestrate some violent insurrection wherein Democrats are hunted down and killed. But they know their supporters eat this shit up, get boners over all this gun talk (videos of reasonably attractive women shooting guns? boner city), and can be relied upon to get whipped into a frenzy and show up on election day. This Pavlovian view of the electorate would be insulting to its intelligence if it didn't prove to be so correct.

So forget about violent acts and gun rhetoric and cause and effect for a moment. These politicians are just exploiting the public's baser thoughts and instincts for their own personal gain, and you'd think people would object to being manipulated like that, no matter what the particular angle of approach is.

[nab]

Isn't the point of showcasing talk as dangerous the first step to silencing it out of existence?



I'll be more clear about it then:

The Left is politicizing this action to showcase violent rhetoric by those on the right.  It is hoped that by making the other side look ridiculous and dangerous, they will be able to marginalize those who don't agree with their political stance.  That the dialogue of the right is potentially dangerous is beside the point.  The end result is the same: entrenchment and marginalization.

Hopefully this will quell some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the right, but making this a political action only serves to divide the people even more.

Has anyone ever taken the time to objectively consider why there is a left and right in this country?  I've played heavily in both arenas, starting as a lefty, moving right, and settling on neither.

You may think you're neither, but you sure sound like a conservative apologist to me.

What part of pointing out that the left is politicizing this action, a point I maintain through lack of direct association between the action and the speech of the right, makes me a conservative apologist?  I call it taking an objective look at the situation as it is at the moment.  When more information is available, the conversation may change, but that is how I see it at the moment. 

[PIE-GUY]

I have a pretty darn good understanding of "why" we have a left and right in this country. I also know why I'm on the left of things. I believe healthcare on some level should be a right. I believe a hardworking busboy at a small restaurant should not lose his house because his appendix ruptured.

I also support the second amendment on many levels. I support the first on every level.

All that said, violent rhetoric will never get my support. It should be silenced not by law, but by decent people on any side of any American argument. The revolution is over. Freedom won. 

[VDB]

The AP helpfully offered this little chestnut in its profile on the shooter:

[Former classmate Grant] Wiens also told the Associated Pres that Loughner used to speak critically about religion, and liked to smoke pot.

Umm.....

Pot-smoking atheists everywhere surely appreciated this helpful bit of reporting.

I'm also curious what kind of movies he prefers and what his favorite brand of breakfast cereal is. Those details, too, might shed some light on this troubled mind.