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

[mbw]

I believe a hardworking busboy at a small restaurant should not lose his house because his appendix ruptured.

you know busboys at small restaurants who own homes?  fuck, i'm doing it wrong.

[PIE-GUY]

You also live in chicago not tonapah.

[mbw]

You also live in chicago not tonapah.

if i can make minimum wage there, and own a home, i moving.
gas-city here i come with employee discounts on cigs!

[sls.stormyrider]

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the authorities in power. Not only that, but people should disagree and be vocal about it. I respect anyone for devoting themselves to serving the public in that matter.

But - with rights come responsibilities. and, imo, people in the public eye should be held to a higher standard.
So, good for Palin that she has devoted her life to her cause, but there are enough ways for Palin, Beck etc to vocalize their opposition without spewing violence and hatred.
It's clear to me that SP really didn't want someone to shoot Gifford, but it's also clear to me that part of their method is to get people riled up, and doing it with violent metaphors is potentially dangerous (serve 'em some red meat was a popular phrase during the 08 election).

The bottom line, imo, is that the talking heads have the responsibility to, well, be responsible.

[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.

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.

Because your refusal to admit that it is highly likely that this was politically motivated is irrational to me.

If the guy had shot up a bank but never made it to the teller window to demand money would you be arguing that there is no evidence that it was a botched robbery and people shouldn't be suggesting that it probably was?

[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.

Because your refusal to admit that it is highly likely that this was politically motivated is irrational to me.

If the guy had shot up a bank but never made it to the teller window to demand money would you be arguing that there is no evidence that it was a botched robbery and people shouldn't be suggesting that it probably was?

While it may be (probably is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110109/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot)  a politically motivated attack, it doesn't change the fact that the act is still being politicized by an opposition party.  After reflecting over this over the day, I see two major problems:

1.  Adding to the politicization of the act by the opposition increases divisiveness in the nation.  I see this as a major cause for the environment that makes such hate speak possible. 

2. Further politicizing the act has the potential to encourage more violent rhetoric by further marginalizing the most extreme members of the right.  It also may marginalize more centrist members into further right positions.



The right has become a haven for those who wish to use fear to manipulate people.  What the left fails to realize is that that fear isn't always explained away by ignorance on behalf of the people who harbor that fear.  The main motivation for this fear, from my perspective, is a perceived loss of cultural capital.  People feel that their ability to exercise their cultural mores is under attack.  What is happening, again from my perspective, is that the United States is becoming more visually culturally diverse as once suppressed voices are gaining leverage in the national conversation. 

The left often is guilty of explaining away culturally conservative, christian, motivations as backwards and motivated by ignorance.  This breeds a perfect situation for those right wing organizations and mouthpieces to say "See, they hate you.  I know you are right, and they are immoral.  Come with us and take back the nation.". 

Is this correct?  No, I don't think so.  But the inability for either side to positively engage the other is the ultimate cause for the divisive atmosphere imo. 

Does this make me a conservative apologist?  I really feel as though I try to approach things from a centrist point of view.  I usually find that in a room of liberals, I appear conservative.  Likewise, in a room of conservatives, I appear liberal.  Maybe I'm just a contrarian.      My main political stance as of the last few months has been to try and expose divisiveness and call attention to the fact that this divisiveness is allowing elites of both left and right persuasions to concentrate many different types of capital to swing things in their favor. 

[sls.stormyrider]

this guy had it right

[mbw]

this guy had it right

i've been thinking this all day.   
i kinda took the side of olbermann after all that happened, but now i see the error of my ways.

[Hicks]

this guy had it right

Completely agree.  I've been thinking of the time he asked Tucker Carlson to stop hurting America quite a bit today.

[Buffalo Budd]

Guy opened fire on some people in Arizona, 6 dead.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gabrielle-giffords-20110109,0,961233.story

You should read a thread before you post in it...

/just sayin'

Sorry, my mistake.  Usually I do, was in a hurry at the time and just heard that news.

[rowjimmy]

Guy walks up to a public, political, event and points his gun at the head of the single elected official at the front of the event...

Clearly this is not political, just the random act of a nutbag with a gun.

We shouldn't look to politics for the answer or reasoning here, we should lock up all the crazy, pot-smoking, atheists.

(oh, wait)
:roll:

[birdman]

Guy walks up to a public, political, event and points his gun at the head of the single elected official at the front of the event...

Clearly this is not political, just the random act of a nutbag with a gun.

We shouldn't look to politics for the answer or reasoning here, we should lock up all the crazy, pot-smoking, atheists.

(oh, wait)
:roll:

I heard he just didn't like her fashion sense.

[nab]

A political action in that this guy shot a politician at a political event.  Given
A political act in that the guy is an anti-authoritarian nutbag.  Given.
A political act in that the guy was specifically influenced by right wing talking heads.  Still no evidence.   

[qop24]

A political action in that this guy shot a politician at a political event.  Given
A political act in that the guy is an anti-authoritarian nutbag.  Given.
A political act in that the guy was specifically influenced by right wing talking heads.  Still no evidence.

So we should all just push this aside and let everyone continue using violent/hateful rhetoric, so that when someone else goes on a rampage directly referencing the rhetoric we can then say "oops I guess this isn't a positive way to campaign"

[PIE-GUY]

A political action in that this guy shot a politician at a political event.  Given
A political act in that the guy is an anti-authoritarian nutbag.  Given.
A political act in that the guy was specifically influenced by right wing talking heads.  Still no evidence.

I really don't care... I said it once and I will say it again... Violence, whether physical or rhetorical, has no place in American politics.