This is topic Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), federal Judge John Roll, and others shot at campaign event in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:We spoke to an eyewitness, Steven, Rayle who was on the scene at the time of the shooting and helped to hold the suspect down while waiting for police. Here's what he said:
The event was very informal: Gifford had set up a table outside the Safeway and about 20-30 people were gathered to talk to her. The gunman, who may have come from inside the Safeway, walked up and shot Gifford in the head first. According to Rayle, who is a former ER doctor, Gifford was able to move her hands after being shot.
After shooting Gifford, the gunman opened fire indiscriminately for a few seconds, hitting a number of people, including a kid no older than 10 years old. Rayle hid behind a concrete pole and pretended to be dead. When the gunman apparently ran out of ammunition he attempted to flee, but a member of Gifford's staff tackled him. The Rayle helped hold him down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-or 20 minutes later. 30 minutes later the EMS came.
The man was young, mid-to-late 20s, white clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down. He didn't look like a businessman, but more of a "fringe character," our source said.
Edited the title, because she may not be dead. Edit again, a federal judge is among the injured.
[ January 08, 2011, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is very, very bad.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes. Yes it is.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
NPR now says there are "conflicting" reports as to whether or not she was killed.
Giffords' husband and brother-in-law are both astronauts by the way - they're the Twins everyone keeps hearing about.
More info from a friend and party colleague of Giffords: the assailant wasn't silent - "called out" a staffer specifically. So maybe she wasn't the target. source Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Giffords reading the First Amendment yesterday during the reading of the Constitution in Congress: C-Span Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
MSNBC Shooter was born in 1988 13 shot including one child under 12, many killed including federal judge John Roll FoxNews reports that someone in the group returned fire Congresswoman downplayed prior threats (source)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
AP identifies shooter:
quote:ALERT: Suspect involved in today's shooting of Rep. Giffords identified as Jared Laughner, 22
. Reports also say that a second person has been arrested.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
His youtube channel is here. Sounds like a crazy person.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Fox News is reporting that she is alive and will recover, despite being shot in the head and the bullet "entering one side of her head and out the other."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: His youtube channel is here. Sounds like a crazy person.
I clicked on it out of morbid curiosity. But he doesn't even seem like an interesting crazy person.
Glad to hear she seems to have lived, but it sounds like not everyone did. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Who else saw stuff like this coming?
Remember: don't retreat, reload!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Assuming that is the guy who was arrested, at least he doesn't seem politically motivated in the Left vs. Right sense, at least, unless he was possibly trying to make some obscure point.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
This happened about 3 miles from my apartment. I picked up my prescriptions from the Walgreens in that shopping center last night...Almost put it of until today. Glad I didn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Assuming that is the guy who was arrested, at least he doesn't seem politically motivated in the Left vs. Right sense, at least, unless he was possibly trying to make some obscure point.
I, individually, don't want to mutely accept dangerous rhetoric from the side that constantly references violence. I am utterly unsurprised that a multi-year spike in irresponsible, alarmist, right-wing rhetoric with allusions to violence and 'second amendment solutions' has coincided with a violent assassination attempt against a democrat.
Even if this man turns out to have NOTHING to do with any conservative leanings at all, even if the judge was the primary target or something, I don't see how democrats are wrong to feel worried by a mass rise in hate speech and terrorist attacks. The FBI are even reporting on it. this is not an imaginary bogeyman that Democrats are making up.
Frankly, I don't think liberals speak out enough against our current environment.
The one thing I want to see come out of this hideous event (besides the absolutely anticipated 'he's not OUR fault' spree) is the death of the goddamned irresponsible violent rhetoric: sarah palin's 'don't retreat, just reload!' and putting literal crosshairs on democrats (including today's victim), the tea party's "take aim" and "put the sights on Giffords" style egging. There's a culture of rhetoric like this that has grown like a cancer within Republican politics over the last two years, and now that there was a political shooting like this, the least we can get out of it is a realization that it is pathetic and irresponsible and should end immediately.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Samp, I'm going to copy and past that, and if it turns out that Giffords wasn't the primary target, I'm going to demand a public apology from you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
How many Cho Seung Hui and Jared Loughner situations have to happen before somebody passes some effective gun control laws?
It's useless to expect the Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs to tone down the rhetoric. Those people literally make their money from alarmist rabble-rousing. It would hit them in the pocketbook to tone things down. They'd lose listeners/viewers/customers.
If you want to get rich, go into conservative politics. If you want to get even richer, spout extremist conservative rhetoric. It's like printing money. My friends in politics have shared this bit of wisdom with me. Convervative politics pays a LOT better than liberal.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Baseless accusations made about somebody planning to commit a crime is a new kind of ridiculous steven. Stop immediately please.)
[ January 09, 2011, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Boris: Maybe you should read a little more closely:
As he said, " even if the judge was the primary target or something, I don't see how democrats are wrong to feel worried by a mass rise in hate speech and terrorist attacks. The FBI are even reporting on it. this is not an imaginary bogeyman that Democrats are making up."
I think he spent a large portion of his post making a point on the thing you're stating.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Using this tragedy for political gain before *any* facts are forthcoming is despicable. Blaming rhetoric that only a completely insane person would view as a serious call for violence for this is, at best, stupid, at worst, completely insane itself. Also, how could "effective" gun control laws stop someone from using an *already illegal* automatic weapon in a crowd of people?
And this:
quote: Don't you have someone to assassinate, Boris? Aren't you planning a pulse bomb attack somewhere?
I'm going to demand an apology right the hell now for this.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Using this tragedy for political gain before *any* facts are forthcoming is despicable. Blaming rhetoric that only a completely insane person would view as a serious call for violence for this is, at best, stupid, at worst, completely insane itself. Also, how could "effective" gun control laws stop someone from using an *already illegal* automatic weapon in a crowd of people?
And this:
quote: Don't you have someone to assassinate, Boris? Aren't you planning a pulse bomb attack somewhere?
I'm going to demand an apology right the hell now for this.
mmkay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Samp, I'm going to copy and past that, and if it turns out that Giffords wasn't the primary target, I'm going to demand a public apology from you.
You could do that, but it would be staggeringly, stunningly useless on your part. It would only show your inability or unwillingness to figure out what my point is, in favor for some reactionary backbite.
Hell, I even literally said "Even if this man turns out to have NOTHING to do with any conservative leanings at all, even if the judge was the primary target or something, I don't see how democrats are wrong to feel worried by a mass rise in hate speech and terrorist attacks."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A lil' bit more, too!
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Using this tragedy for political gain before *any* facts are forthcoming is despicable. Blaming rhetoric that only a completely insane person would view as a serious call for violence for this is, at best, stupid, at worst, completely insane itself.
1. facts are forthcoming, for those who bothered enough to look. I've already combed through his various manifestos and have a good idea of what sort of a nutcase this guy was. It pre-empts my point, which doesn't hinge on the assumption that this was a 'right-wing killing' on any fundamental level. If anyone wishes to suggest that this was not in any significant sense a politically motivated assassination attempt, they may waste all the time they wish on that, boris.
2. Right wingers using violent language to spur on people to vote might not be condoning actual violence, but they need to hold themselves to some degree responsible for the fact that there are a lot of unhinged people in this country right now who don't need someone egging them on to "take back" their country. That's the lesson at hand.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar," he says.
--j_k
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It was politically motivated in the sense that the guy was crazy in the kind of way that makes one suspicious, paranoid, and violent about authority figures (fictional and fact).
So, virtually irrelevantly.
There's plenty to condemn about using violence-laden rhetoric to advance political goals, though.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:In an interview after the vandalism, Giffords referred to the animosity against her by conservatives. Palin listed Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections because of the lawmakers' support for the health care law.
"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.
In the hours after the shooting, Palin issued a statement in which she expressed her "sincere condolences" to the family of Giffords and the other victims.
quote:During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Using this tragedy for political gain before *any* facts are forthcoming is despicable. Blaming rhetoric that only a completely insane person would view as a serious call for violence for this is, at best, stupid, at worst, completely insane itself. Also, how could "effective" gun control laws stop someone from using an *already illegal* automatic weapon in a crowd of people?
And this:
quote: Don't you have someone to assassinate, Boris? Aren't you planning a pulse bomb attack somewhere?
I'm going to demand an apology right the hell now for this.
mmkay.
You just said that I was the type of person who would do something like this, and refuse to apologize when called out about it? You are a truly valueless human being.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Using this tragedy for political gain before *any* facts are forthcoming is despicable. Blaming rhetoric that only a completely insane person would view as a serious call for violence for this is, at best, stupid, at worst, completely insane itself. Also, how could "effective" gun control laws stop someone from using an *already illegal* automatic weapon in a crowd of people?
And this:
quote: Don't you have someone to assassinate, Boris? Aren't you planning a pulse bomb attack somewhere?
I'm going to demand an apology right the hell now for this.
mmkay.
You just said that I was the type of person who would do something like this, and refuse to apologize when called out about it? You are a truly valueless human being.
Yes, yes, that's true, that's true.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think it is shameful for some pundits to immediately start blaming their political opponents for being responsible for such atrocities. Some Democrats are already going out of their way to try to smear the Tea Party in any way they can. All that shows is whom they fear the most politically.
Gabrielle Giffords herself has long been a supporter of the second amendment right to bear arms. She owns guns herself. It will be interesting to see if she changes her position on that in the future.
I think the proper thing to complain about is how even in an "open carry" state like Arizona, an obvious nutcase was allowed to own a semi-automatic handgun.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's plenty to condemn about using violence-laden rhetoric to advance political goals, though.
This, Boris. Simply this. The First Amendment has some moral responsibilities, surely you must agree with that, yes? And when public figures fill the public's ears (and yes, we we as the public demand it from them being a representative society) with toxic rhetoric, if toxic things happen that are tied to that rhetoric...it is tied to that rhetoric, at least in some way! Everyone comes to that conclusion, every time, except when it's about one of their own particular agendas. Whether it's video games, cigarettes, pornography, fuel efficiency, what have you.
quote:You just said that I was the type of person who would do something like this, and refuse to apologize when called out about it? You are a truly valueless human being.
Case in point. Sure, steven can certainly get quite tedious when discussing politics what with the tendency towards hyperbole and incredibly sweeping judgments and attacks. But 'valueless'?
Imagine you're a very powerful, revered public figure, Boris. Millions of people across the country respect and admire you. Of those millions, tens of thousands really respect and admire you. Of those tens of thousands, an even smaller fraction idolize you. And of that number, there are the true fanatics. Most of them probably just buy as much of your merchandise as they can afford, if not more. But some of those fanatics are going to be, statistically speaking, prone to violence. It's just a given, human beings being what they are. You know this about both your rhetoric and its impact on human beings, or you should if you're a responsible public speaker. You've just called someone 'valueless'. One of these nuts acts on that statement violently. Is it your fault? Of course not. But...you influenced a crazy person. You didn't have to say that he was valueless, particularly because it obviously wasn't true in the first place.
Steven's behaving like a jackass. Your response is to...be a jackass right back? Some conservatives really can't stand the way many politicians are running the government, so their response is that it's time to start ratcheting up the fear-mongering, violence-laden rhetoric? No. It's irresponsible, childish, non-productive (of anything good, at least), immoral, and unnecessary. Someone else being a schmuck doesn't entitle you to be one as well, Boris. That's one of the most foolish defenses that ever gained common acceptance among human beings as ever was.
ETA: Sorry to get so preachy, Boris. It's just that it's so frustrating when I hear conservatives (and this is where the pendulum is right now) behave as though the behavior of millions of conservatives nationwide is completely divorced from the rhetoric of conservative leadership when that is so obviously, thoroughly not true, because if it were, why would political leaders try so damned hard to be persuasive?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it is shameful for some pundits to immediately start blaming their political opponents for being responsible for such atrocities. Some Democrats are already going out of their way to try to smear the Tea Party in any way they can. All that shows is whom they fear the most politically.
Who's done so, Ron? I'm just curious as to who you're criticizing at 9:57pmEST on 1-8-11. Your premise is fundamentally flawed too: that's not all that is shown, for one thing, and of course it depends what is being criticized, exactly, but by all means continue putting up straw men.
quote:I think the proper thing to complain about is how even in an "open carry" state like Arizona, an obvious nutcase was allowed to own a semi-automatic handgun.
That's another proper thing to complain about. Not the only thing. Though of course the fearsome Tea Party would, insofar as they can be grouped together, have been very much against the kinds of tightened regulations that would've made it more difficult for this suspect to have obtained and carried a gun in Arizona, as I think you very well know, or do you disagree?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sure, boris is reacting petulantly to steven's prodding, but out of anyone else in this thread, steven's being completely useless and should shut up.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It was politically motivated in the sense that the guy was crazy in the kind of way that makes one suspicious, paranoid, and violent about authority figures (fictional and fact).
So, virtually irrelevantly.
Not at all irrelevant to the virulent modern environment of violent, alarmist political extremism being pushed by the right wing. This is an unavoidable lesson. This will be recalled as a political shooting, and for good reason. It's not 'irrelevantly political.' When shootings like this start happening, we've well passed the point of relevance of discussing the role of politics in actualizing the danger that these people present by feeding their paranoia.
Let's pull on Fallows to discuss that more in depth.
quote:Shootings of political figures are by definition "political." That's how the target came to public notice; it is why we say "assassination" rather than plain murder.
But it is striking how rarely the "politics" of an assassination (or attempt) match up cleanly with the main issues for which a public figure has stood. Some killings reflect "pure" politics: John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln, the German officers who tried to kill Hitler and derail his war plans. We don't know exactly why James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, but it must have had a lot to do with civil rights.
There is a longer list of odder or murkier motives: - Leo Ryan, the first (and, we hope, still the only) Representative to be killed in the line of duty, was gunned down in Guyana in 1978 for an investigation of the Jim Jones/Jonestown cult, not any "normal" political issue.
- Sirhan Sirhan horribly transformed American politics by killing Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but Sirhan's political causes had little or nothing to do with what RFK stood to most Americans.
- So too with Arthur Bremer, who tried to kill George C. Wallace in 1972 and left him paralyzed.
- The only known reason for John Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan involves Jodie Foster.
- It's not often remembered now, but Manson family member Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford, again for reasons that would mean nothing to most Americans of that time.
- When Harry Truman was shot at (and a policeman was killed) on the sidewalk outside the White House, the attackers were concerned not about Cold War policies or Truman's strategy in Korea but Puerto Rican independence.
- The assassinations of William McKinley and James Garfield were also "political" but not in a way that matched the main politics of that time. The list could go on.
So the train of logic is: 1) anything that can be called an "assassination" is inherently political; 2) very often the "politics" are obscure, personal, or reflecting mental disorders rather than "normal" political disagreements. But now a further step, 3) the political tone of an era can have some bearing on violent events. The Jonestown/Ryan and Fromme/Ford shootings had no detectable source in deeper political disagreements of that era. But the anti-JFK hate-rhetoric in Dallas before his visit was so intense that for decades some people debated whether the city was somehow "responsible" for the killing. (Even given that Oswald was an outlier in all ways.)
That's the further political ramification here. We don't know why the killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never "understand." But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. 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. At a minimum, it will be harder to anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."
Here's the pima presser right now.
quote:Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik offered an emotional, angry assessment of the state of America in the wake of the shootings in Arizona, saying that two of his close friends -- Ms. Giffords and Judge John Roll - were among the victims.
Mr. Dupnik called the shooting a "very sad day for Tucson" and a "horrendous, horrendous, senseless, unbelievable crime." And then he blamed the crime on the rhetoric -- presumably political rhetoric -- in the country.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Mr. Dupnik said it is time for the country to "do a little soul searching."
He added: "The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business ... This has not become the nice United States that most of us grew up in."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think the proper thing to complain about is how even in an "open carry" state like Arizona, an obvious nutcase was allowed to own a semi-automatic handgun.
That's another proper thing to complain about. Not the only thing. Though of course the fearsome Tea Party would, insofar as they can be grouped together, have been very much against the kinds of tightened regulations that would've made it more difficult for this suspect to have obtained and carried a gun in Arizona, as I think you very well know, or do you disagree?
Not only that, we need to be very careful under what criteria we're willing to declare someone an 'obvious nutcase' ex post facto. Prior to someone outright going on a spree like that, that's a diagnosis for psychological experts, not the peanut gallery. A lesson Ron more than anyone should respect.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It was politically motivated in the sense that the guy was crazy in the kind of way that makes one suspicious, paranoid, and violent about authority figures (fictional and fact).
So, virtually irrelevantly.
Not at all irrelevant to the virulent modern environment of violent, alarmist political extremism being pushed by the right wing. This is an unavoidable lesson. This will be recalled as a political shooting, and for good reason. It's not 'irrelevantly political.' When shootings like this start happening, we've well passed the point of relevance of discussing the role of politics in actualizing the danger that these people present by feeding their paranoia.
Wait, so Samp, where is your goalpost here? You say it doesn't matter whether it turns out the shooter is actually, say... some conservative nutbag who was motivated by Palin or someone similar... or a crazy leftist who hated Giffords because she's an Arizona Democrat who didn't support Pelosi and is pro-2nd amendment... or just a complete crazy with no political motivation whatsoever... because it's irrelevant. Right?
I mean I swear you said above that it doesn't matter at all what his motivations turn out to be because the real issue is the super duper evil and totally unprecedented violent rhetoric of the right wing... even if that rhetoric had no effect on this guy.
But then you say this will be recalled as a political shooting. Which is it? I'm confused. Is this just a case where you really want to use this tragedy to prove something, but don't want to deal with the possibility that the facts of the case might end up contradicting your narrative?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure, boris is reacting petulantly to steven's prodding, but out of anyone else in this thread, steven's being completely useless and should shut up.
That's true. Steven's accusation towards Boris was way, completely over the top. If it was serious (and I don't think it was), it was just plain stupid. If it was a joke, well, it was also very stupid and simply not funny, and I'm someone who quite enjoys dark, inappropriate humor. It was just junior high.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Samp: there's something amusing about you feeling the killing is necessarily connected to the rhetoric used by parts of the Republican party (in a manner beyond theme), then pointing out that killings of politicians for almost random reasons are a sad but constant part of the national political scene.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Most of the victims from Saturday's mass shooting in Tucson have not been identified but the dead include, an aide to Giffords, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Two members of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's staff also were wounded in the attack.
The Giffords aide was identified as Gabe Zimmerman, her community outreach director; the 30-year-old was engaged to be married.
U.S. District Judge John Roll, the chief judge for the District of Arizona, was killed while apparently attending a public appearance by Giffords outside a Safeway store north of Tucson, U.S. Marshall David Gonzales confirmed to the Associated Press.
Also killed was 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green of Tucson.
Christina Taylor Green was born September 11, 2001.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I mean I swear you said above that it doesn't matter at all what his motivations turn out to be because the real issue is the super duper evil and totally unprecedented violent rhetoric of the right wing... even if that rhetoric had no effect on this guy.
But then you say this will be recalled as a political shooting. Which is it?
For starters, can you figure out how these two can co-exist without being inherently contradictory?
Really, give it a shot. Well, after you divorce it from the conceptualizations you have invented for me, like how this is 'totally unprecedented' rhetoric.
This killing has necessarily brought out the garish inadvisability of the way people like Palin and the Tea Party have been using shooter-themed rhetoric so prominently and will be forced to retire those tactics. They've just become embarrassing liabilities.
quote:Samp: there's something amusing about you feeling the killing is necessarily connected to the rhetoric used by parts of the Republican party (in a manner beyond theme), then pointing out that killings of politicians for almost random reasons are a sad but constant part of the national political scene.
I don't think you're connecting all the points here.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Right-wingers and leftists are individuals, and as individuals, they make moral choices for good or bad--no matter what rhetoric is floating around out there.
To try and pin any part of this on "vitriolic rhetoric" is absurd.
People say means things on both sides, but we still have the ability, the responsibility, to act in a moral, non-violent way.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
quote:I am utterly unsurprised that a multi-year spike in irresponsible, alarmist, right-wing rhetoric with allusions to violence and 'second amendment solutions' has coincided with a violent assassination attempt against a democrat.
It's hard to be surprised when a "multi-year spike" in ANYTHING coincides with something else. Multiple years is a lot of time to overlap with other randomly-timed events.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Point being, Geoff, the events are not "randomly" timed. They coincided for some reason, and the suggestion is that they coincided for this particular reason. I don't particularly buy it, but don't wave away the very possibility. It's not random, is my point. This stuff is never random- it just doesn't necessarily mean what one thinks it does.
Incidentally, I looked over that first video on this youtube page. Bizarre may begin to address with adjectives what's going on there. It's a disconnected mishmash of references to global currency, populist rebellion, grammar, and "conscious dreaming."
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Of course human-driven events are never entirely random (as we conventionally use the term), but my point still stands. An attack on a Democrat will always "coincide" with bad behavior on the part of extremist Republicans, because such behavior takes place constantly, and each separate instance can be considered to have an effect over a long period of time. It doesn't mean that they are causally related.
Even if they turned out to BE causally related, making the ASSUMPTION that they are is still a bad idea until there is some direct evidence supporting such a claim.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think this shooting can be pinned on the upswing in violence-tinged, angry even hateful rhetoric.
I also don't think it can be completely divorced from it, either. And since that violence-tinged rhetoric rhetoric is completely unnecessary, why not just cut it out? From a moral, ethical standpoint, that is? I'm not advocating criminalizing it or anything-that would be a much worse thing to do than whatever very slight harm is posed by the speech itself, because I don't believe the speech actually causes much violence at all, in and of itself. Crazy people gonna be crazy.
It's just...hey, maybe the time to be lighting matches in the forest isn't when it's windy and there's been a drought. I'm not saying it's as dangerous as that, I'm just likening it to it is all. Because, again, all anger-politics laced with clear-but-not-overt-notes-of-violence politics isn't necessary. I just feel like it's crapping on these rights we have as Americans to speak and be heard and participate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't think you're connecting all the points here.
You're clearly connecting far too many points, and ignoring your own evidence that you're doing so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:I don't think you're connecting all the points here.
You're clearly connecting far too many points, and ignoring your own evidence that you're doing so.
No. I'm having my point misconstrued (to a degree that surprises me for Hatrack), and I think you've just jumped on board with that. I don't know why. I guess people can continue to assume that I'm saying that we can/should pin the killing conclusively on the rhetoric, or that we get to blame this event on the rhetoric, or something (which is depressing, but whatever), as opposed to saying that I hope we at least get the death of that rhetoric out of this terrible event, because whether or not it is connected it's made it look as bad as it should have always looked.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Reading back through your posts, the part I had thought especially overreached just barely skirted around it.
quote:2. Right wingers using violent language to spur on people to vote might not be condoning actual violence, but they need to hold themselves to some degree responsible for the fact that there are a lot of unhinged people in this country right now who don't need someone egging them on to "take back" their country. That's the lesson at hand.
I apologize for mistaking your position. However, you've made it hard to even follow your position.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez (Democrat), when she spoke on Fox News just a short time after the shooting, said that it was the rhetoric of the Tea Party that had inflamed people and leads to such atrocities. She did not waste any time explicitly trying to blame the Tea Party by name.
By the way, are you against the second amendment?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This.
quote:The one thing I want to see come out of this hideous event (besides the absolutely anticipated 'he's not OUR fault' spree) is the death of the goddamned irresponsible violent rhetoric: sarah palin's 'don't retreat, just reload!' and putting literal crosshairs on democrats (including today's victim), the tea party's "take aim" and "put the sights on Giffords" style egging. There's a culture of rhetoric like this that has grown like a cancer within Republican politics over the last two years, and now that there was a political shooting like this, the least we can get out of it is a realization that it is pathetic and irresponsible and should end immediately.
I don't think that there is anything wrong or unclear about this. The odious campaigns I speak out against here exist and shouldn't be abided, and this wonderful little episode provides the impetus necessary to make them look as odious as they always should have looked. It has made them a liability. If you just read through the posts I've made so far, the idea is clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
I'm not sure which remarks you're referring to-when Sen. Lopez said something along the lines that when campaigners post noxious signs, some folks will be pushed over the edge? Well, I don't know if that will be true in this specific case, but you and I both know it very often is.
I would be very surprised to hear you didn't, for example, think things like pornography or evolution in schools when they innundate a group become more tolerable. In fact I'm all but certain you do, the difference is that your agenda is opposed to those things, and so you've no hangup to noticing.
As for the 2nd Amendment, what does opposition to it even mean? What I DO know is that your remark about what we should 'really' be complaining about was a red herring, because as I said the feared Tea Party would oppose new laws or greater enforcement.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
Nor do I think we like the idea of living in a world where we may absolve ourselves of any responsibility towards the environment that our rhetoric crafts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geoffrey: it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others. It makes you responsible for your own actions. Talking about killing your political opponents, no matter how slyly one winks about it, is reprehensible.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do not think the Tea Party as a group, or any individual speakers/politicians/commentators are responsible for the actions of this man. I believe they are, mostly, horrified.
(I'm saying "mostly" because "she was asking for it, being all liberal and stuff" comments popped up quickly on news articles by idiots hiding behind anonymous handles)
I do abhor the violent rhetoric used by many such speakers/politicians/commentators. And not because of this attack; I felt the same way yesterday, and I am disgusted with it whenever I hear it. I hate it when I hear right wing speakers talk about taking out opponents. I hated it when I heard left-wing speakers talk about the improvement to America if Bush was gone. But I submit that, far and away, the right-wing media whackos average more violent than the left-wing media whackos. I haven't heard anyone on the left advocate a "second amendment solution" if things don't go their way in the legislature, for example.
Again, I do not blame anyone for this attack other than the attacker himself. But the attack has reminded me, as if I needed to be reminded, how much political rabble-rousing disgusts me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unrelated aside: Remember when McCain was heckled by his own crowd during a campaign speech because he was asking people to be reasonable in their opposition to Obama? Oppose, but respect?
I miss those days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And I'm serious about the 'he's not OUR fault' spree — that's what's next. It's ruefully anticipatable. I guarantee you that by the time I wake up tomorrow there will have been a concerted attempt to say that he is obviously a liberal agent cause he has The Communist Manifesto in his youtube reading list, or that he is obviously a conservative agent because he shot a democrat, and/or whatever it takes to pass the crazy killer around like a game of ideological hot potato.
This in spite of the fact that you might as well assert the personal ideology of Timecube guy right now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
How clear is the metaphor?
Do I think that Republicans are literally telling people to start an armed rebellion? No, at least, not 99% of the time. It's difficult to tell when some of them really get riled up and their metaphors start to sound like literal exhortations.
But the problem lies in a culture of disdain for complexity that Republicans have created for themselves. That, and a culture that disdains compromise. You tell people that the opposition wants to destroy America, that they are unAmerican, and in Obama's case literally not an American. You tell them they want to subvert the Constitution, and that we live in a black and white world where you're with us or against us. You create a situation where nothing gets done in Congress to fix any of our problems because compromise means giving in to the enemy, and how do you agree to work with people who hate America?
Then you use rhetoric infused with violent imagery, much of which references the nation's revolutionary founding. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that some people are going to miss the metaphor and take the message literally? When you spend all day telling your side that the other side is undoing Democracy to install a liberal dictatorship, then militant language would seem to make a lot more sense to be taken literally rather than metaphorically.
Complexity is not a watchword among Conservatives these days, and it hasn't been for at least a decade.
I don't think we should lose sight of personal responsibility. But I also think we have to realize that public figures and especially political figures, our nation's leaders, have a higher responsibility. I might say that they could be absolved of any responsibility if some whacko takes what they say out of context, but given what has been said in the last decade, the context is not on their side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
I don't think people who use such rhetoric are responsible, I think they have some small, undefined portion of responsibility. Very small to be clear.
Toxic environment, toxic events. I believe there IS a link, else why do we spend so much time and resources on advertising? In my opinion, that particular argument is open and shut, just by a look at that business. What we hear has an impact. It follows, then, that what we SAY has an impact, though of course not nearly as much as free will, insanity, etc.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I slept most of yesterday away as it was the beggining my weekend, I found out by channel surfing past CNN and started going through the internet for more information than Giffords being shot and Obama press response.
It took a while of sifting through google to find that a little girl was murdered in broad daylight. I really want to go back to bed.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Though, I'm guessing that the police initially wanted to keep the identities of the other victims quiet so that they could notify family.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
Responsibility isn't that black and white. Societies are made up of and affected by the ideas and words of every individual. And while you can never know how people might twist your innocent comments before passing them on, and how those comments might accidentally affect other people, you are responsible for rhetoric that could quite easily be taken by a disturbed mind as a violent suggestion. Particularly Palin's "crosshairs" analogy, which is just about as stupid and irresponsible as rhetoric gets. (ie, Let's equate politically attacking an opponent with hunting them down and shooting them!) It's not the kind of responsibility that should put Palin in a legally vulnerable state, as far as being charged with the deaths of the victims, but it is the kind that should make every American citizen shun her way of doing politics and refuse to vote for her or listen to her ever again.
Silence her voice, and without shooting her to do it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What PSI said. The rhetoric and campaign of violent imagery has always been reprehensible, even if it wasn't a direct influence in this particular case, because it clearly leads to violent incidents like it. It should have been decried by all reasonable people from the start. It reflects very poorly on many people that they did not and that many even cheered or even subsidized it.
If this incident was inspired by this rhetoric, is that what it is going to take for you to care about the rhetoric of violence and see it as a negative thing that righteous people, no matter what their political leanings, should condemn?
And if it is not, is what you are saying that you're going to wait until there is an incident that is inspired by it before caring?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: I'm not sure I like the idea of living in a place where colorful, clearly-metaphorical rhetoric makes you responsible for the actions of others ... particularly people who weren't even listening to you.
You are responsible for your rhetoric, not necessarily the actions of others. I would like to live in a place where people knew the difference between those two things.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Wasn't there an attack like this a year or two ago? And that perp also held a mix of extremist beliefs, both right-wing and left-wing, and yet both sides tried to pin the blame on their opponents' rhetoric or ideas?
Oh how tiresome politics can be.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There is a difference between colorful metaphor and metaphor suggesting killing people. When kids make lists of which of their teachers and classmates they'd like to kill, we expel them from school. Most of them are probably about as serious as Palin was with her targeted list. Why do we tolerate in politicians what we won't in 13 year olds?
And we don't tolerate it not just because one or two of the kids might actually follow through and try or succeed in killing people. We don't tolerate it because it is not appropriate in civilized society to talk about killing your peers, even in jest, even in metaphor. It's not appropriate in the post office, the school house, or in politics. Should it be illegal? Of course not. Should we react with revulsion when someone does it? Hell yes. Humans have such a huge range of communication available to them. It should not be a hardship to expect people to be able to get their point across with colorful metaphors that do not involve rifle sights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hah, I'd never once thought of it that way, ElJay. That's an excellent point about children and political rhetoric.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Agreed. And while I don't think it's fair to place all the blame for that kind of rhetoric with conservatives, I think few would argue that it is more in the conservative milieu of this moment. It's up to us as participants in society to make it clear that that kind of talk isn't acceptable- that there is a clear difference between conflict and fighting, and that where there is conflict, its resolution need not be characterized as "victory."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Jesus.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
In that third year of the Kennedy Presidency a kind of fever lay over Dallas County. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed “Impeach Earl Warren.” Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas. Fanatical young matrons swayed in public to the chant, “Stevenson’s going to die–his heart will stop, stop, stop and he will burn, burn burn!” Radical Right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy’s name was booed in classrooms; junior executives were required to attend radical seminars. Dallas had become the mecca for medicine-show evangelists of the National Indignation Convention, the Christian Crusaders, the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry societies . . .
In Dallas a retired major general flew the American flag upside down in front of his house, and when, on Labor Day of 1963, the Stars and Stripes were hoisted right side up outside his own home by County Treasurer Warren G. Harding–named by Democratic parents for a Republican President in an era when all Texas children were taught to respect the Presidency, regardless of party–Harding was accosted by a physician’s son, who remarked bitterly, “That’s the Democrat flag. Why not just run up the hammer and sickle while you’re at it?"
-William Manchester, Death of a President
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
[ January 09, 2011, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
three conversations i have had the sparkling pleasure to partake in today.
exceptional individual A: he had the communist manifesto in his reading list, he is obviously a liberal me: shut up
exceptional individual B: he had mein kampf in his reading list, he is obviously a conservative me: shut up
exceptional individual C: he had an ayn rand book in his reading list, he is obviously a libertarian me: shut up Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: three conversations i have had the sparkling pleasure to partake in today.
exceptional individual A: he had the communist manifesto in his reading list, he is obviously a liberal me: shut up
exceptional individual B: he had mein kampf in his reading list, he is obviously a conservative me: shut up
exceptional individual C: he had an ayn rand book in his reading list, he is obviously a libertarian me: shut up
But isn't that exactly what you are arguing against? You want civility in politics and debate so why not argue against what they say or dismiss it out of hand instead of telling them to shut up?
Earlier in the thread Misha posted the excerpt about JFK and Dallas in the 1960's, and for me, I think it speaks to who we are and what we can or what we should do. Progress means finding our flaws and doing the best we can to fix those problems. It is the mantra of most of the parents I know or have known that they work as hard as they do so that they may give their children better than they had, but that isn't just a mantra about economics, it's a mantra about society in general. There is no question that we don't do that by placing targets over home districts or calling for "second amendment remedies" or by quoting Jefferson about revolution in a veiled threat if your party doesn't win in November, but we don't get anywhere either if they other side just tells people to shut up.
They aren't the same, but they are...you know?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Putting crosshairs on a candidate is normal politicking, until some assassination attempt occurs. Of course no one thinks the crosshairs were meant literally. But Kelly, et. al. showed considerate, decent sensitivity by taking down those images from their websites. I'm sure there are lots of leftist websites with Sarah Palin in the crosshairs. There is no question that lots of leftists (so-called "Progressives") have been "targeting" her. That's why as soon as McCain picked her, hundreds of left-leaning journalists poured into Alaska hoping to dig up dirt on her. And look at all the nuisance complaints and "Freedom of Information" requests with which malicious people sought to harm her administration, leading her to resign to take the heat off her staff and associates. That is real "targeting." Some bozo writer even rented the house next door to the Palins hoping to find something to include in an exposé book. (The Palins responded by building a high, opaque fence between their houses.)
The ironic thing about the attack on Rep. Giffords is that no one seems to think badly of her, in any political party. She is a "Blue-dog" Democrat, meaning she is moderate to conservative (among the few such left in the Democratic Party). In fact, she used to be a Republican.
We will just have to wait and see how many of her faculties she regains. As someone noted, the course the bullet traveled may have affected her sight. Could have severed one or both optic nerves, or damaged the vision centers in the brain. But I hope that's not the case. The brain does have some redundancy built in, and is able to adapt, with different parts taking over for damaged parts. It may be a long time before she can return to Congress, if she ever does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm sure there are lots of leftist websites with Sarah Palin in the crosshairs.
If you are certain of such, you should be able to find them and provide links. Until you provide some evidence to back this up, you should apologize for making unfounded, outrageous insults as a means to defend the indefensible behavior going on on your side of the defense.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
There is also a cultural issue here that may be causing confusion.
So far, all the Palin quotes that I've seen people throw around as evidence that her rhetoric inspires violence aren't actually, themselves, violent. She frequently uses gun-related metaphors, but not in a context that suggests she's talking about assassination. She doesn't present herself as a murderer, but as a frontiersy hunter.
Among Palin's supporters, guns aren't seen as a symbol of murder and assassination, but rather as a symbol of liberty, frontier spirit, and self-sufficiency. They represent a belief in individual freedom and laissez-faire government. The right to own a gun is linked, in their philosophy, to the right to be a self-determining individual.
Palin flogs the gun symbolism to appeal to people who feel this way, not to try and stir people up to violent action. Interpreting any mention of a gun as a reference to murder and savagery is something that happens on the left, but not on the right.
I can see how someone who already has a visceral negative reaction to the idea of guns might view Palin's use of gun symbolism as repulsive and violent. But from what I've seen, the audience that listens to her and agrees with her has a completely different interpretation.
I don't actually like her very much as a leader, or agree with her about a whole lot, but I hope that agreement isn't necessary to see where someone is coming from ...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
With a cross-hairs over someone's face?
Get serious, Geoff.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Have demands for apologies become more frequent on Hatrack since I left? I seem to be tripping over them lately, and from what I can tell, they're obstacles to a productive discussion, as they shift the subject of the conversation from the original disagreement onto a new disagreement about who ought to be offended, and how much.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Paul, I am serious, and you surprise me. I use a crosshair in the game I'm developing as a cursor for children to aim and interact with a cartoon character from an endangered species.
Am I advocating poaching? Or is a crosshair a versatile symbol that normal humans can interpret in non-violent ways?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The ironic thing about the attack on Rep. Giffords is that no one seems to think badly of her, in any political party.
She was one of the people SarahPac targeted for defeat. Her offices were attacked by vandals when she voted for health care reform. She had received death threats. She was shot through the head.
With all that, its pretty hard to seriously argue that nobody seemed to think badly of her.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
A crosshair is a versatile symbol that, used the way Palin and Kelly used it, is a symbol that the user HAS to recognize is going to be taken by a large percentage of the population (including a large segment of the Palin/Kelly supporting population) as a symbol of violence.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For the record, here's my completely anecdotal experience:
I'm pro-gun, enough that I think most Americans should own one and take courses on personal responsibility, safety, and shooting accuracy. I despise the swell of government in my life. I'd probably be on board with the tea party if they weren't so vacuous, as vacuous and nebulous as the "pro-change" movement from Obama's campaign.
And I still think Palin's "colorful rhetoric" was begging for a violent response. And the fact that most of these politicians have backgrounds in law leads me to believe that they were perfectly aware of the horrific way that their words could have been taken. They're not stupid. They're masters of semantics, and they know what words can do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: Paul, I am serious, and you surprise me. I use a crosshair in the game I'm developing as a cursor for children to aim and interact with a cartoon character from an endangered species.
Am I advocating poaching? Or is a crosshair a versatile symbol that normal humans can interpret in non-violent ways?
While I'm confident you aren't advocating poaching, I'd seriously reconsider using a crosshair as a cursor in this context. I think most hunters (at least most that I've known) would interpret pointing a crosshair at the picture of any living thing as shooting at it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: Have demands for apologies become more frequent on Hatrack since I left? I seem to be tripping over them lately, and from what I can tell, they're obstacles to a productive discussion, as they shift the subject of the conversation from the original disagreement onto a new disagreement about who ought to be offended, and how much.
Seconded.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
it seems anyone attempting to pin this on a specific political party is simply manipulating the gravity and implications of the event for personal reasons. such manipulation reeks of political posturing. thats some twisted logic to believe that the mention of 'crosshairs' within political rhetoric could incite violence of this sort.
this thread sounds like a conspiracy theorist forum. some here would have us believe, though not by saying it outright, that there was some sort of dialogue or implied call to action using token words or subtle double-meanings. a mentally and emotionally deranged person's delusions and imaginations drove them to commit a reprehensible act. clearly the shooter was influenced as well by writings and ideas much older than the current political environment. are we to track down everything that influenced this man, analyze their meanings, both direct and implied, and hold all parties, some of which are dead, accountable for their alleged contrubution in forcing this man to open fire on a crowd of people? no. that man acted of his own accord. he had developed an ideology of his own and cant be lumped with any current mainstream party even if some of the ideologies overlap.
in reality, the shooter can hold any belief he wants but the only thing truly worthy of condemnation is his belief system is that shooting a politician and a bunch of random, innocent people is an acceptable way to advance his cause. there are certain circumstances where such actions might be deemed acceptable but if were are to live in a civil society, the citizenry must acknowledge that such instances are rare, and this wasnt one of them. but if we are to live in a civilized society we must also call this for what it truly is and leave out any conjecture.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: Have demands for apologies become more frequent on Hatrack since I left? I seem to be tripping over them lately, and from what I can tell, they're obstacles to a productive discussion, as they shift the subject of the conversation from the original disagreement onto a new disagreement about who ought to be offended, and how much.
personal attacks have become much more frequent in the last few years that ive been lurking/participating on this forum. perhaps thats why the call for apologies seems frequent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Putting crosshairs on a candidate is normal politicking, until some assassination attempt occurs.
...
quote:The ironic thing about the attack on Rep. Giffords is that no one seems to think badly of her, in any political party.
How, how can you skip by all of the things that have happened to her recently and all the vitriol she suffered in her bitterly close race, and blindly conclude this?
"No one seems to think badly of her!" you conclude of a woman who had multiple threats, got her political office vandalized, was put in the crosshairs by a vitriolic Palin campaign, and also seems to have been shot in the head recenty.
And then, like the ever-wounded palin acolyte, you dismiss that and say 'now what happened to Palin, that was REAL targeting' .. and not this. Oh, lord. Seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: But isn't that exactly what you are arguing against? You want civility in politics and debate so why not argue against what they say or dismiss it out of hand instead of telling them to shut up?
Sort of. I want a higher degree of civility in politics. I also want nonsense to be confronted directly, and I have no qualms with telling people that they need to shut up, when they really need to shut up.
For the record though, what I did more literally was say that what they were saying was ridiculous because of <insert any one of a number of already present well-worded ways to say that we shouldn't jump to concluding that he can be used to represent X group>.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geof, How much do you know about what Sarah Palin had said about Rep Griffords? I can't imagine someone knowing about Palin talking Griffords betraying the people and needing be dealt with outside of elections while having her on a "target list" delineated by gun cross hairs or "bullseyes" without seeing it as a potential incitement to violence. Especially given the violence already committed against her.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that there are a lot of similarities between high school bullying and political rhetoric. There was that girl )prince I think) who was bullied and killed herself. I think she still holds ultimate responsibility for killing herself and there were obviously other issues. I disagreed with charging the bullies with her death, but I don't see how anyone can deny the bullies were behaving in a reprehensible manner and that at some level, their behavior increased the odds of Prince would kill herself. The bullies were not fully to blame and I don't think criminally responsible, but they certainly created an atmosphere were this was more likely to occur. That is how I view the political rhetoric going on now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:Putting crosshairs on a candidate is normal politicking, until some assassination attempt occurs.
No. Normal politicking for which politicians? Your statement doesn't stand, I'm afraid.
quote:But Kelly, et. al. showed considerate, decent sensitivity by taking down those images from their websites.
And...no. Absolutely, 100% not. Some of them, certainly, were being decent by doing so. But others, such as the aide who simply lied when she said Gov. Palin meant them to be 'surveyor's symbol's' and not gun sights, weren't showing 'decent sensitivity', and I'm afraid you know it. I don't believe for one minute that you think that sort of thing is just 'being considerate'. That's not the good kind of politics.
quote:That's why as soon as McCain picked her, hundreds of left-leaning journalists poured into Alaska hoping to dig up dirt on her.
They weren't just left-leaning. For example, I voted for Dubya twice yet I ran like a startled cat from the prospect of an administration in which Gov. Palin would be VP, once I'd gotten to know her.
quote: The ironic thing about the attack on Rep. Giffords is that no one seems to think badly of her, in any political party. She is a "Blue-dog" Democrat, meaning she is moderate to conservative (among the few such left in the Democratic Party). In fact, she used to be a Republican.
This is another lie, Ron, and I'm going to ask you to think very, very carefully about it before I go back to the campaign to oust her run by a 'considerate' Tea Party candidate. I don't say it's an intentional lie that you've willfully spoken, but it's simply an incorrect statement, and that's all there is to it. Now she's well thought of by everyone. That's what happens when a lunatic shoots you in the head in public. But she was not always well thought of, particularly by some among the 'fearsome' Tea Party. She made note of it herself, no less.
The political far left has its faults. There can be no doubt of that, Ron. But one of them isn't, right now, the widespread use of violence-laden political rhetoric as it is with the political far right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"The alleged shooter in Arizona was attempting to reload his weapon when a woman grabbed the gun's magazine and ripped it away from him, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told reporters Sunday. Mr. Dupnik said the woman was injured as she attempted to stop the suspect, who then tried to put another magazine in the gun, but the spring in the magazine failed. "
And to think with proper gun training...
[ January 10, 2011, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
It appears that the guy who actually pulled the trigger wasn't doing it because of health care reform, Sarah Palin, or any other coherent reason.
It seems he was disturbed, possibly not altogether sane, and wanted attention. Griffords was close by and a public figure. Hence, the horrific outcome.
I think a better use of our time would be to discuss the real motive behind this shooting and what could have prevented it. I'm 98% positive his motive was to get his name in print.
Softer political rhetoric would not have changed the outcome.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, That is an inappropriate social response. I know you are only doing it for attention, but you shouldn't be doing that either.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, I think you're absolutely right so long as you are specifically referring to the rhetoric of the politicians themselves.
When it comes to pundits, individuals, certain groups etc. it gets a little murkier (for example, Kos recently took down a post that was entitled "Rep. Giffords is DEAD to me!" ... and I have seen plenty of violent rhetoric against Palin... to say nothing of the violent rhetoric against Bush that was prevalent just 3 years ago... but that's generally coming from an individual level, not from, say, Joe Biden.)
Regardless, I agree that this sort of rhetoric is really unhelpful and stupid. As is trying to pin a psychopath on a legitimate ideology one happens to disagree with.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: It appears that the guy who actually pulled the trigger wasn't doing it because of health care reform, Sarah Palin, or any other coherent reason.
It seems he was disturbed, possibly not altogether sane, and wanted attention. Griffords was close by and a public figure. Hence, the horrific outcome.
I think a better use of our time would be to discuss the real motive behind this shooting and what could have prevented it. I'm 98% positive his motive was to get his name in print.
Softer political rhetoric would not have changed the outcome.
You seem very certain of yourself here. Where are you getting this certainty from? It sounds like you have a lot of information that is not available to the public.
---
edit: It's important to remember that, while it doesn't look like there is any connection, there has been a fair bit of violence directed at Rep. Griffords besides this shooting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I think a better use of our time would be to discuss...this shooting and what could have prevented it.
Better gun control laws would, for one. Americans don't need handguns and automatic assault weapons, particularly mentally unbalanced ones. Cho Seung Hui used handguns, this guy used an assault weapon. I guarantee you fewer people would die each year in this country if we strictly outlawed both of those categories.
Of course, there are too many Americans who foolishly think we'd go straight to a totalitarian regime in a matter of months if we did this.
Plenty of European countries have MUCH stricter laws against these weapons. They aren't police states. Chicago had a handgun ban for years, until the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Chicago avoided becoming a totalitarian regime too. Whatever.
Yes, I know that people will always find ways to kill each other no matter what, but I think it would reduce the deaths of innocents to ban those weapons.
Also, mentally disturbed people need better care and supervision. Cho Seung Hui should never have been allowed near a handgun.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Squick, all I know of Palin's rhetoric is what I've been linked to by friends who detest her and want her brought up on charges. So far, I haven't seen anything criminal, and I assumed that I'd seen the worst because I was being linked by her most rabid opponents. But I don't actually follow what she says most of the time, so I'm sure I'm missing some stuff.
I'd like to see the "dealt with outside of elections" stuff you referred to. I haven't yet, and if it's as bad as it sounds when you paraphrase it, then that WOULD be a problem for me. A much bigger problem than the gun references.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:You seem very certain of yourself here. Where are you getting this certainty from? It sounds like you have a lot of information that is not available to the public.
It is all speculation at this point. I'm not alone in this, because this entire discussion is merely speculation. But taking into account the shooter's age (not many 22-year-olds are passionate right-wingers) and what his friends have said about him, I'm pretty sure this has more to do with attention-seeking combined with mental instability than anything Sarah Palin has ever said or done.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Geoffrey- I believe the second amendment solution comment was actually Angle. And it was her opponent who did the gun shooting as part of their campaign.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm sure there are lots of leftist websites with Sarah Palin in the crosshairs.
I would actually be surprised. As Geoff notes, there's a large population of people out there who don't think of guns with visceral distaste; the vast majority of these people are conservatives. A liberal would pick out an unflattering picture of Palin holding a gun to achieve the same end; to a conservative, making someone into a target is empowering in exactly the same way that, to a liberal, it is offensive.
(Note: I'm using the words "conservative" and "liberal" here in a way I usually wouldn't. Sorry.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey Card: Paul, I am serious, and you surprise me. I use a crosshair in the game I'm developing as a cursor for children to aim and interact with a cartoon character from an endangered species.
Am I advocating poaching? Or is a crosshair a versatile symbol that normal humans can interpret in non-violent ways?
You surprise *me,* Geoff. Because I can't get through three of your posts without you applying some of the most god-awfully fallacious arguments I've seen that day. You're a smart person. Maybe the problem is that you think we're all incredibly stupid- because lazy arguments like this one are what really seem to lead you astray.
To address this: a crosshair *is* a versatile symbol. In the context you provided, it is probably acceptable. In the context of the speech of a pro-gun ownership politician who constantly employs reference to violent opposition against the government (hint: this is what the name "tea-party" *IS*), and who herself has appeared *firing a gun* on national television in order to up her hunter-woman-of-the-people cred very recently, the use of a crosshairs is * unmistakably* linked to the image of a gun. The image is undeniably violent in that context. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise, and if the use of crosshairs was actually intended as a reference to surveroy's marks? Then we're dealing with some of the most disorganized and confused people I've ever seen in the public eye. I seek not to make the claim that the use of this symbol was an incitement to violence- much less an intentional one. But to claim that it was actually not a reference to weapons, and to the act of shooting something? Please do get serious.
In short, Geoff, this claim is utterly, confoundingly, ridiculous. You don't have to apologize for it, but I hope you are ashamed of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe the problem is that you think we're all incredibly stupid- because lazy arguments like this one are what really seem to lead you astray.
Orincoro, do you really think Geoff thinks we're all incredibly stupid? Frankly, I doubt it. You're engaging in histrionics to make it seem like his position is somehow ridiculous or unacceptable, and he doesn't deserve that.
For the record: I think a "crosshairs" symbol can indeed be an obvious and harmless symbol, useful for indicating position. (The shape of the crosshairs can matter, certainly; a 'crosshair' that looks like a pointing finger is probably less semiotically fraught than one that looks like a telescopic sight.) I also think that, in these specific cases, various conservative campaigns deliberately chose crosshairs not to innocently indicate location but also to associate gun violence with their targets -- not to incite gun violence, necessarily, but to associate the possibility of gun violence against elected officials (and the 2nd Amendment callbacks thus produced) with the idea of immediate and visceral vengeance.
I consider this irresponsible, but neither do I think it's entirely to blame for this specific incident. I'm not even sure that we're dealing with a truly unusual level of anger among the uneducated electorate, historically-speaking.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Blayne, That is an inappropriate social response. I know you are only doing it for attention, but you shouldn't be doing that either.
Dead Baby Comedy isn't attention seeking, accusing me of attention seeking for something that I rarely do except when most appropriate (or innappropriate as the case may be to qualify for DBC) is just, lol/www~ no.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Blayne... a troubled young man just killed a little kid. Your response to this turns my stomach worse than the news coverage and empty propaganda banner waiving.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I'll be out thataway while this thread goes through the motions.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Orincoro, I think you're completely misunderstanding me, and I can't tell whether or not it's deliberate. Of course the "surveyor's symbol" story is stupid. Of course the crosshairs are meant to represent gun sights. My point wasn't that the crosshairs were un-gun-related. Only that there are ways to use a crosshair that don't mean "please kill this person".
I chose the example I did because it was right in front of my face at the time, and I thought my audience would understand the point I was making without my example having to be completely dead on the money.
But let me state my position more precisely. It is perfectly common to use violent language and imagery to describe non-violent acts. Think of terms like "character assassination" or "I've got you in my sights" — both references to people being murdered, but also both clearly recognizable as non-violent statements in nearly every reasonable context.
Those crosshairs are clearly gun sights, and they're being pointed at political opponents. But the implication is also clearly the equivalent of the two statements above. "We have these people targeted; they're in our sights; they're going down — POLITICALLY." An aggressive stance, to be sure. But clearly, clearly only metaphorical, with a long list of precedents establishing it as such. The fact that the gun sight image was used doesn't magically turn this into a serious, legitimate, criminal threat.
Sarah Palin presents herself as a hunter and a gun enthusiast because that image makes her constituents think proudly of liberty and self-determination, and makes her look like "one of us" to the rural conservatives she appeals to. Using gun-related imagery everywhere in her campaign materials is clearly about that, and not about trying to present a threat of physical harm to her opponents.
If she says/said something that actually advocates violent action, right now, against her opponents, then of course, that's horrifying. But the use of a crosshair, especially in the context of her entire image-building effort, doesn't rise anywhere near that level.
I'm perfectly willing to criticize Sarah Palin for a lot of things, including the very charges you are leveling, if something can be shown to me that warrants them. But right now, I'm unimpressed, and I'm really unimpressed by the attempt to redirect this into a personal argument against me, rather than a discussion of the issue.
[ January 10, 2011, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Whether Giffords' shooting was motivated by inflammatory conservative rhetoric or not, the shooting at a Unitarian Church in 2008 unquestionably was.
And I wish it would stop.
We're not supposed to say that it's sickening to call other Americans "enemies" and "traitors" for fear of being accused of playing politics? We're supposed to feel guilty for daring to say things have gone too far?
No. Sometimes, the "winning at any cost" mentality costs too damn much. And it has to stop.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
I agree that the rhetoric we've been discussing is stupid and shameful, and I'm as insulted and offended by it as anyone. I'm only taking this stance because I've spent all day arguing with people in various places about whether Palin, et al, should be brought up on charges, and I get upset when people start playing fast and loose with the Constitution and seizing on tragedies when it benefits their side. That kind of behavior doesn't solve the problem. It IS the problem.
We need to fix what is wrong with our political discourse, but breaking what is right about our basic liberties while exascerbating our cultural divisions isn't the way to do so. Capitalizing on a tragedy to score political points, even against obnoxious and harmful individuals, is not the way to do so.
(And I realize that most people here aren't actually making the arguments that incensed me the most when this topic first came up, so sorry if you caught some of my backlash.)
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Blayne, That is an inappropriate social response. I know you are only doing it for attention, but you shouldn't be doing that either.
Dead Baby Comedy isn't attention seeking, accusing me of attention seeking for something that I rarely do except when most appropriate (or innappropriate as the case may be to qualify for DBC) is just, lol/www~ no.
If this thread were a poster lamenting the loss of a baby, dead baby humor would not be the order of the day to put it very lightly. There are certainly places where that sort of dark humor would be welcome, but this place at this time is not one of them. Show some restraint in this instance Blayne.
I didn't edit your post, because strictly speaking, while it was tasteless, it wasn't against the TOS. But I would appreciate it if you removed it. Thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geoff, I am trying to understand the mindset you are describing. What, besides shooting it, does one do with a target in the crosshairs? Is there something that results from getting a living thing in gun sights that isn't violent? What do people who have a different understanding of guns than I do imagine a non-violent end to targeting someone with a gun would be?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a rhetorical gun. There are many people who aren't as horrified by that sort of metaphor, and who don't see it as a literal threat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I am curious as to what they think it means instead.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
They get shot with a tranquillizer dart that injects patriotism and freedom.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Am I arguing with Amelia Bedelia here?
A gun is used to shoot an enemy, which defeats them, and removes them as a threat. A scope with a crosshair is used to add precision, and to single out a specific enemy, rather than firing indiscriminately into a crowd of them.
Putting a crosshair over someone in an image most likely means that you have singled them out for special treatment, and that you intend to defeat them, and remove them as a threat, by whatever means one normally uses against such a person (in this case, probably public vilification, followed by votes).
I assumed that everyone would find this meaning to be obvious, and an explanation this granular and specific to be insulting to their intelligence, or I would have provided one before.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geoff, bear with me. I am trying to understand how people who think this way get from "targeting with a gun" to "defeating" without the violent shooting part in the middle. Do they just sort of skip over that part of the metaphor in their heads? Is it a question of just not thinking the metaphor through to the logical conclusion?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Among Palin's supporters, guns aren't seen as a symbol of murder and assassination, but rather as a symbol of liberty, frontier spirit, and self-sufficiency. They represent a belief in individual freedom and laissez-faire government. The right to own a gun is linked, in their philosophy, to the right to be a self-determining individual.
Palin flogs the gun symbolism to appeal to people who feel this way, not to try and stir people up to violent action. Interpreting any mention of a gun as a reference to murder and savagery is something that happens on the left, but not on the right.
The problem I have with this argument is that it ignores the central argument I've been hearing from NRA for decades. The NRA doesn't simply argue "we won't be able to hunt or target shoot", it argues that citizens need guns to protect themselves from an oppressive government. While I'm confident that few gun rights advocates are planning an armed insurrection, I'm also certain that many of them do believe that gun ownership is their last bulwark against government tyranny. I've known more than a few gun owners who think its very likely that they may some day need to use their guns against the government. For many many gun rights advocates, this isn't metaphor or empty rhetoric, they think a future in which they will need their guns to defend themselves against the government is a real and likely possibility.
So when I hear people like Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle using gun metaphors and referencing "2nd amendment remedies", I know they are tapping into this meme. They are appealing to those who fear the government and see violence as their last bulwark against eminent oppression. While I don't think they are actually encouraging people start an armed insurrection, they are unquestionably playing to an audience that sees armed insurrection against the an oppressive government as heroic and noble rather than something to be feared.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
I feel like we might need to call in Steven Pinker to start explaining brain function as it relates to the use of language. We're getting into an area where, as a person with a working brain, there are certain processes that I find to be automatic, which I assume to be automatic for everyone else, and that I don't usually explore all that deeply.
If the context indicates that literal assassination is not the intended meaning, then yes, that interpretation is dismissed by the brain, out of hand, and only legitimate interpretations are considered. That's how it always works.
That's what makes Amelia Bedelia entertaining to children — her interpretations of language are surprising, despite the fact that the words leading to them are all there, because a normal human being dismisses literal interpretations so quickly when they are found to be inappropriate that we usually don't perceive that they were considered at all.
There is nothing scandalous about a comedian saying to another, "Go up there and kill 'em!" Even if you've never heard that saying before, you don't for a moment consider that he might be advocating a massacre of the audience, and there is no reason for him to fear that someone will take him literally and murder everyone. Figurative language is how we communicate; it's how everyone communicates. Children who don't know half the words in a sentence, and who misunderstand the other half, fill in the blanks with context.
If we can't expect at least that much from each other, then we have a deeper problem than overblown political rhetoric.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Crosshairs have long been used to denote a precise level of focus.
They are not singularly used to imply violence any longer.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I've skipped around in this thread, but I have to agree with Geoff's last few posts. We use this sort of metaphorical/figurative language all the time, from sports to politics to our daily conversations, and they are universally understood to not be meant literally.
That said, anyone who thinks the overblown and extreme political rhetoric coming from the right over the last few years (yes, including Palin's cross hairs and Angle's second amendment remedies) isn't contributing to the dangerous mental and psychological states of people who believe it is fooling themselves, even Pinker would be able to tell you that. I'm not arguing that perfectly peace loving people are going to suddenly take up arms. But those individuals who may already be predisposed towards violence and anger are being fueled by politicians and the media everywhere they turn.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Rabbit, the "second amendment remedies" thing is much more of an issue than the crosshair images. The crosshair images seem like such a red herring to me that I'm surprised to still find myself discussing them.
I haven't been engaged enough recently (too much work!!) to know how widespread the "second amendment remedies" idea has become, but a statement like that does strike me as an indicator of someone who should not be voted into political office or given any kind of power.
Yes, the second amendment is founded, at least in large part, on the idea that an armed populace is harder to subdue by force, and that Americans should have at least that degree of confidence in their continued liberty. Hence guns being a symbol of freedom and independence. "In America, I can have a gun, and that means I'll always be free from oppression."
But we are nowhere NEAR any of the scenarios that would warrant the use of those guns, and to suggest that we are represents an obnoxious and irresponsible ratcheting up of the heat of our political rhetoric. So in many ways, we're on the same page.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geoff, guns are pretty specific. They just do the one thing.
Telling a comedian to "kill" or even "knock 'em dead" is different than telling one to "stab 'em to death" or "shoot 'em in the head". ANd a huge difference between saying that to one person and saying it to huge groups of people, some of whom are unbalanced enough that they might fail to perceive the nuance.
As Rabbit noted, the images and language used, while metaphorical, plays to a sense of violence.
What do you think is meant by "second amendment remedy"?
Edit to add: Sorry. I crossposted and missed that you had answered the second amendment question. It was not my intention to pile that on.
Scott, they are gun crosshairs. I believe you but find it baffling that people who actually do use guns to kill things would be less likely to have those echoes of violence contained in their gun metaphors than people who don't. If guns are so benign, why are they pretending now that it was supposed to be surveyor crosshairs?
[ January 10, 2011, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I like guns. I own a gun. I've been around guns since I was a little kid. I've found shooting guns to be a fun pastime. In fact, I intend to go to a shooting range again sometime soon.
I do get what Geoffrey is getting at. After all, he pointed out how he is using cross-hairs himself.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone here thinks Sarah Palin actually intended her metaphors and that simply awful gun-sight ad to be an incitement to actual violence.
But you know what? Even so, there comes a point, and I think this might be it, where language becomes scary, even when unintentional.
You know why people are reacting with horror now to the words? Because they're scary, and people are scared of it. There are better ways to get your words across.
Just like how Blayne's joke was utterly reprehensible, even if at another time, another place, it might, maybe, have been funny, this language may have a time and place. But it certainly isn't now, not anymore.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The gist is that evidence that vitriolic language increases violent behavior on average is lacking, but there is some evidence it might affect behavior among those already pre-disposed to violence.
He also points out how difficult it would be to draw a substantive line from birtherism or trutherism or your-own-favorite brand of vitriol-enhanced political dialogue to any specific event, which I think is a point well taken (and one I recognize that most people in the thread have repeatedly conceded, but I think is well-put by Sides in his post).
<edit>I also think looking at run-of-the-mill political vitriol, like the 'cross-hairs' question, is a red herring. While Michael Savage is (IMO) offensive, and talk of 'second-amendment remedies' is absurd, there's a whole 'nother level of crazy, violent rhetoric that just doesn't enter into polite political discourse, because it's too muddled and discomfiting. But if there is any link between rhetoric and Laughner's actions, I think this is where you'll find it, not in what are, I believe, the relatively benign forms of political anger that we're talking about in this thread. See, for example, this post by Dave Weigel on some similarities between Laughner's statements and those of :David-Wynn: Miller about grammer and politics.</edit>
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think I mostly agree with Megabyte.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the context indicates that literal assassination is not the intended meaning, then yes, that interpretation is dismissed by the brain, out of hand, and only legitimate interpretations are considered.
Geoff, not to nitpick -- but what I know about brain function actually suggests the opposite: namely, that even if you intellectually know that the speaker is not intending literal assassination, that your brain reacts emotionally as if violence were threatened. Violent rhetoric is used precisely because it provokes a fight-or-flight response in people, even when they know they are in no danger.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Furthermore, I don't think anyone here thinks Sarah Palin actually intended her metaphors and that simply awful gun-sight ad to be an incitement to actual violence.
But you know what? Even so, there comes a point, and I think this might be it, where language becomes scary, even when unintentional.
Even though I'm confident Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" weren't intentionally encouraging armed insurrection, I'm also confident that they were intended as gun sights. This wasn't the only time or place that Sarah Palin used gun imagery. She was playing to an audience that romanticizes armed insurrection. Gun imagery communicated a message to this audience that campaigning against these people made you a freedom fighter and that was 100% intentional. If it hadn't been, she would have replaced the crosshairs with red dots the minute someone pointed out they might be misconstrued as encouraging violence (which was the roughly 1 minute after she put out the ad).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But we are nowhere NEAR any of the scenarios that would warrant the use of those guns, and to suggest that we are represents an obnoxious and irresponsible ratcheting up of the heat of our political rhetoric.
While you and I and almost everyone agree that we aren't anywhere near a scenario that would warrant the use of guns, I at least am aware that the number of Americans who think we may be close to that point is not negligible. The number of Americans who believe at least one radical conspiracy theory is shockingly high and the number of people who are actively preparing (at one level or another) for violence is not negligible. I have friends in Montana who signed up on lists of people to be notified in the event that they and there guns might be needed. The problem is that people like McVeigh and Loughner aren't isolated nut cases. They are part of a continuum. A very volatile continuum.
I can't imagine that Sarah Palin doesn't know that. Her husband was part of the Alaskan Secession Party for gosh sakes. She has to know that there are lots of people who will take her gun metaphors literally. If she doesn't know how dangerous it is to fan that flame, she's a fool. If she does know and is doing it any way, then she deserves part of the blame when violent rhetoric inspires violent acts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rabbit, the "second amendment remedies" thing is much more of an issue than the crosshair images. The crosshair images seem like such a red herring to me that I'm surprised to still find myself discussing them.
I certainly agree, Geoff. For one thing, I don't know, 'second amendment remedies' just falls on my ear, personally, as a lot less like metaphor than does the crosshairs and the 'don't retreat, reload' business. I can't really put my finger on why, that's just how it sounds. I've thought about it for awhile. Possibly because it specifically references an armed populace and its roots in rising up in arms against the government.
As for the gunsights still being discussed, well, possibly it's still being discussed because rather than manning up and saying, "Yeah, that was stupid, unnecessary political pandering," some of the people involved in it are, as that aide did, flat-out lying about it. That's just the sort of thing that ensures the topic will stay by the water cooler, so to speak.
That particular style of reaction, instinctive denial instead of a measured, mature admission of error, certainly isn't limited to far-right conservatives. For the time being, though, it's major egg on their face.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The conversation may have moved past this, but I wanted us to remind ourselves that we, as people, are explanation seekers. Sometimes, this inclination leads us to see causal links that aren't there. Sometimes, it makes us reject explanations that just don't seem big enough to account for a tragic event. I think that's what happened after 9/11. Three thousand people were murdered, and the explanation - nineteen men with box cutters - just didn't seem big enough. So we get the Truthers.
I see echoes of that in this debate, and speaking as a liberal, I think it's unfair to conservatives.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Well then. Since we are still on the subject of the whole "crosshairs" and "target" thing, guess I should just link these....Mind you these are Democratic websites.
Both sites show a map of the USA with targets over the people they want to vote out of office. The first one uses the phrase "Behind enemy lines." That is just a tad more incendiary than Palin's map, which said "It's time to take a stand."
But damn it, it was all Palin's fault! It was HER map that caused this, not anyone elses!
Edit: Looks like the DCCC took down the map they had on their website. They even removed the blog post that contained it. No matter, I found it on another site:
ETA: I think it is really sad that the media is focusing more on the political aspects of this than on the victims. I saw the same thing with the Columbine shooting, when everyone tried to blame video games. Innocent people were injured and some were killed. For the media and even politicians to bring in politics so soon after this happened is dispicable. It is almost as if they don't care that people died or were injured, they just see it as a way to score political points.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, no one is saying that it is all Mrs. Palin's fault. What people are saying is that incendiary rhetoric contribute to an atmosphere of violence in which this kind of tragedy is more likely to happen. Nor has anyone claimed that the Democrats are entirely innocent of using this kind of rhetoric.
Edit to add: I checked out the targets on your links. If a conservative is attacked by bow and arrow, you should complain.
[ January 10, 2011, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Geraine, Do you think a target has exactly the same connotation as a crosshair?
The reason I asked, is because just a few posts up, when I put "red dots", I'd originally said "target". At least in my mind, a crosshair seems much more like a threat than a target. Target is much more widely used as a metaphor for "goal" without any violent connotation. People say things like "We are on target to balance the budget" and "What's our target audience?" But I'm hard pressed to find the use of "crosshair" in a metaphor that do not imply riffle shot.
Despite the claims made by SarahPAC, I've yet see surveying metaphors used when talking about focusing on a goal.
Furthermore, context is important. Sarah Palin's and the Tea Party movement used gun imagery all over the place. It wasn't just one map. It's something they were criticized for long before this event.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
All joking aside, I'm perfectly OK with Democrats being chided when they use inappropriate metaphors when describing their opposition.
In this particular instance I don't blame Sarah Palin, though I do disapprove of her using guns quite frequently in describing how Americans need to act. In the wake of this terrible crime, it would be good for her to very publicly state that this act sickens her and decry it in the strongest possible terms, while reconsidering the use of guns for anything other than hunting.
I'm fine with not blaming Republicans for this heinous act, just as I didn't blame them for The Oklahoma City bomber and his crazy anti- big government crusade. But I do hold them respondible for making sure in no uncertain terms that violence is abhorent, and must not be employed when dealing with those you disagree with.
If the liberal media won't accept that, that's their problem, and is a separate issue. It should not dictate whether conservatives do the right thing and get their base to calm down.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, no one is saying that it is all Mrs. Palin's fault. What people are saying is that incendiary rhetoric contribute to an atmosphere of violence in which this kind of tragedy is more likely to happen. Nor has anyone claimed that the Democrats are entirely innocent of using this kind of rhetoric.
Edit to add: I checked out the targets on your link. If a conservative is attacked by bow and arrow, you should complain.
You are funny. Bow and arrow, eh? Really?
Crosshairs are something you look into to aquire your target. A target (like which is shown) is something you actually shoot at, with a gun, a knife, an arrow, a dart, BB, nerf gun, etc. Or to just go after. Your call.
I'd love to know how you interpret what the target is for from the first link. Do you really think bow and arrow? I thought rifle, as those are the same targets we used when I was a Boy Scout.
The tool is unimportant. You thought of a violent act with a bow and arrow, did you not?
I ask you this. Are GUNS what you are against, or violence in general? If it is violence in general, then Democrats are just as guilty. If it is guns that you are against, then I would say you are just trying to push a political agenda.
ETA: Rabbit, the word "target" can be represented in different ways. In the first map I linked to, it was an obvious sporting target, used for weapons. The second one was a generic symbol and I would be with you on that one.
I do think that Palin has gone overboard on the whole gun rights thing. That doesn't mean she is to blame. I don't blame Al Gore for the hostage situation at the Discovery Channel building. Or Hugh Hefner for the streaker at the high school football game I went to on Friday :shudder:
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You are funny. Bow and arrow, eh? Really?
Really. Right out of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood. Bow and arrow used in a sporting contest.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Rabbit, the word "target" can be represented in different ways. In the first map I linked to, it was an obvious sporting target, used for weapons. The second one was a generic symbol and I would be with you on that one.
I looked at both of them they both looked like pretty generic targets to me. One looks almost like the logo for Target stores, the other is multi-colored. I just browsed through a catalog of riffle and handgun targets and couldn't find on that looked like either one.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What people are saying is that incendiary rhetoric contribute to an atmosphere of violence in which this kind of tragedy is more likely to happen.
but which rhetoric would be contributing and why? also, how much less likely would this tragedy have been if, for example, palin hadnt said 'crosshairs'? one percent less likely? a lot more? can you even put a number on that or accurately guess as to such influences? much of the rhetoric labeled incendiary is, at worst, partisan, metaphoric, or exaggeratory. and again, as many have argued, myself included, its stretching logic to claim words such incite violence of the sort we saw in arizona.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I ask you this. Are GUNS what you are against, or violence in general? If it is violence in general, then Democrats are just as guilty. If it is guns that you are against, then I would say you are just trying to push a political agenda.
It's violence I'm against, not guns. The democrats and other liberals are not innocent on this grounds, but if you think they are just as guilty as conservatives (particularly the Tea Party), then you've got your head stuck in the sand. Long before this incident, people have been complaining about the violent rhetoric coming from the right wing. It's way past time to tone it down.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I ask you this. Are GUNS what you are against, or violence in general? If it is violence in general, then Democrats are just as guilty. If it is guns that you are against, then I would say you are just trying to push a political agenda.
It's violence I'm against, not guns. The democrats and other liberals are not innocent on this grounds, but if you think they are just as guilty as conservatives (particularly the Tea Party), then you've got your head stuck in the sand. Long before this incident, people have been complaining about the violent rhetoric coming from the right wing. It's way past time to tone it down.
Hold on now. You mean rhetoric like this?
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
I'm just wondering if this is the type of thing you are referring to. A yes/no would suffice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that (while not as bad) it is also rhetoric that should be abandoned regardless of whether President Obama said it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: The conversation may have moved past this, but I wanted us to remind ourselves that we, as people, are explanation seekers. Sometimes, this inclination leads us to see causal links that aren't there. Sometimes, it makes us reject explanations that just don't seem big enough to account for a tragic event. I think that's what happened after 9/11. Three thousand people were murdered, and the explanation - nineteen men with box cutters - just didn't seem big enough. So we get the Truthers.
I see echoes of that in this debate, and speaking as a liberal, I think it's unfair to conservatives.
I think this analogy is flawed for two important reasons. First, the argument that the violent imagery being used by people like Palin was dangerous, was made long before this latest event. The real irony is that Giffords herself made the argument last March when she said
quote:"The thing is, the way that she has it depicted -- the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district -- when people do that, they've got to realize that there's consequences for that action,"
This isn't an after the fact conspiracy theory like the truthers, it much more like "I told you so."
Second, No one is pointing to a conspiracy. (OK, I'm sure you can find some fringe site making that claim so probably not no one, but certainly no one in the mainstream or on this forum). No one is saying that Sarah Palin was trying to incite violence or that members of the Tea Party conspired to kill Giffords. We are just saying that it's past time for people to recognize that violent rhetoric can inspire violent action. Its time for an apology for fanning the flames. Its time to tone down the kind of rhetoric that inspires this kind of action.
If you want a better analogy, I think its completely reasonable to compare what's being said about conservative rhetoric in the wake of this shooting to what has been said about Islam in the wake of 911. Islam is a religion followed by over a billion people, most of whom aren't violent, don't condone violence and were as outraged by the 911 attacks as we were. Its certainly unfair to condemn all muslims for the acts of a few of on the violent lunatic fringe just likes its wrong to condemn all conservatives for this tragedy. But I do think its reasonable to criticize the more extreme muslim leaders who use violent rhetoric and even those who remain silent when others promote violence. If it is at all fair to criticize Muslim leaders for failing to take a stronger stand against acts of terror, isn't it also fair to criticize our own politicians who fan the flames of hatred with violent rhetoric?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hold on now. You mean rhetoric like this?
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
I'm just wondering if this is the type of thing you are referring to. A yes/no would suffice.
Yes. Its the kind of thing I'd like to see eliminated from the political arena. But I'm really unclear about your point here. I've already said I didn't think the Democrats were innocent.
But if you think Conservatives are justified for spewing hatred, because Democrats sometimes do it too, you're just plain wrong. If you think Democrats do it as much as Republicans, you have your head in the sand.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The whole discussion of politics is irrelevant, and frankly, reprehensible--because of being clearly exploitative of a tragic event. Rep. Giffords is a nice lady and NO ONE WHO COUNTS disliked her. Both Republicans and Democrats liked her. The Tea Party may have "targeted" her seat (and they came within 4,000 votes of unseating her), but I am sure they are still glad to have her in that office rather than some extreme liberal deaf-to-the-public superpartisan like Nancy Pilosi. Giffords used to be a Republican, and still holds some conservative positions.
Fox News had a psychiatrist on yesterday (Sunday) who stated unequivocally that Jered Loughner exhibits the classics symptoms of a schizophrenic, who has made a complete break with reality. That does not mean he will get off with an insanity defense, the shrink said (he is also a lawyer). These days you cannot get a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. You can only get a "guilty but insane" verdict, which means you will be committed to a ward for the criminally insane, and then if you are judged cured, you will go to prison--not be released onto the street. At least, that's what he said. I hope it's true, because it sounds reasonable.
News reports today are quoting one neighbor of Loughner's parents as saying that Loughner's dad is known in the neighborhood for his temper, coming out and shouting something about his trash, for instance. I suspect we are going to hear more about Loughner Sr. in the future. You have to wonder what may have led to Jared's schizoid break, or at least set him up for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I ask you this. Are GUNS what you are against, or violence in general? If it is violence in general, then Democrats are just as guilty. If it is guns that you are against, then I would say you are just trying to push a political agenda.
Lately, Geraine? There's a party whose got a core constituency that is more well-known and has gained more support using violent, aggressive-sounding rhetoric right now, and it ain't the Democrats. Please note I'm not saying, I'm not saying, that Democrats don't use angry-sounding, violence-overtoned rhetoric. I'm just talking about the present right now is all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rep. Giffords is a nice lady and NO ONE WHO COUNTS disliked her. Both Republicans and Democrats liked her.
How about you get that in writing from her opponent, and I'll concede the possibility.
quote:You have to wonder what may have led to Jared's schizoid break, or at least set him up for it.
Yeah, we have to wonder. Because it certainly couldn't be the fraught rhetoric of a certain political faction. *grin*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't agree with his conclusions, but I do appreciate the context/comparisons.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I've been waffling on whether or not I wanted to get into this subject, but I think I will. (Later this will be seen as my first mistake.) In my experience working on political campaigns, I've had calls for violence made against my candidates at the doors, on the phones, and at rallies. I've even had them directed at me, which is not something you take easily. I've been told that I'm ruining America and that I--and the whole lot of democrats-- need to be taken out back and shot. Considering I'm just a college student struggling to make ends meet and have never made a policy decision in my life, I decided to view the issue as one wherein the guy just didn't know me. I chalked up the voter's violent statements to emotional distress and not an actual intent to harm me or anyone else. Why? Because I heard stuff like this fairly often and was never physically attacked.
But that doesn't mean the words don't scare me.
We have a society that glorifies violence. Movies, television, comics, games, jokes, political discourse, etc. People produce products that promote violence as a pragmatic solution to their problems, and we consume it. I include myself in this. I watch violent movies and television, I grew up playing Doom and Wolfenstein, I enjoy super hero comics, and I'll crack the occasional violent joke. ("Michael Bay is making another Transformers movie? Just shoot me now.") But in real life, I abhor violence. I'm non-confrontational. I don't think violence solves any conflict--it can only end them. So long as I keep what is acceptable in real-life in check, I don't mind consuming products that glorify violence.
The problem isn't that we have violent imagery in our discourse. The problem is that we don't qualify our discourse by saying that true violence is unacceptable. We have no control on who consumes the violence we produce. The grand majority of people are rational and will recognize that you're not really saying that you should "knock 'em dead" at a comedy show. Just as I believe a grand majority of people won't read into Sarah Palin's target-map that she was advocating killing people.
But the longer we allow violent rhetoric to go without being contested, the more acceptable violence becomes in the mainstream. Remember the good ol' days when the Simpsons was considered edgy due to the violent relationship between Bart and Homer? Now days, it's perfectly acceptable media, if not utterly tame. As violence becomes more acceptable, the rationality against it becomes less stringent. You'll always have irrational nutcases who commit crimes. But I solemnly believe that a society that consumes violence to a degree that makes it mainstream will have more violent crimes than others. Violence brutalizes a society, and we pay the price for not keeping it in check.
I believe in personal accountability. I don't think that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or any individual other than the kid (or possible accomplices) should be blamed for this tragedy. I also don't much care from whom the violent rhetoric is coming. Regardless of the sources of the language, we have folks and organizations who are actively contributing to a violent atmosphere, and that's something I think folks should take responsibility for. Calling the crosshairs "Surveyor's Marks" was stupid and petty.
We should fess up to our language and take responsibility for it. Let's stop with the "Well, Republicans use it more, so this is their fault!" talk. Can't we all accept that this is a tragedy by a deeply disturbed individual and we all strive to make our society less violent?
Rahm Emanuel gets quite a bit of flack for saying "never let a good crisis go to waste." And within the context, it was pretty tacky to say. But I think there is an underlying truth to the statement. We shouldn't be using the blood of the Arizonan victims to gain political points, it's an insult to their memory and we should be ashamed. But we shouldn't let this tragedy go without taking pause to consider the environment in which this tragedy occurred. We're a violent people, folks. Shouldn't we admit it and try to fix it?
ETA: Yup, and after reading the article from BB, I do feel embarrassed for going all sociological in my post. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One of the identifying characteristics of conservatives is their confidence in themselves, which means they favor individualism, freedom of choice, religious liberty, freedom from excessive taxation that punishes the productive and rewards the non-productive. Naturally they will gravitate to images involving personal strength, such as gun ownership, and use of gun-related metaphors. Liberals, by contrast, seem to be seduced by the siren song of socialism and the delusive appeal of the "nanny state." They would be glad to let someone else take care of them, let government take sole responsibility for the use of force, while the populace is all disarmed and padded with styrofoam and bubblewrap--provided at government expense (meaning at the expense of the productive).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Rabbit, I don't think I explained well. If you want to say "I told you so," then you need to provide some kind evidence showing the link between the rhetoric and the action. At this point, I do not believe there is anything approaching conclusive evidence to that would justify making that claim. The analogy I drew with 9/11 was that then, as now, many people found the explanation that best fit the facts to be unsatisfying (I suspect for emotional and instinctual reasons), so there's a search for who else to blame.
There are many differences between the two cases, but both speak to, in this respect, to a cognitive bias commonly exhibited after tragedies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The whole discussion of politics is irrelevant, and frankly, reprehensible--because of being clearly exploitative of a tragic event. Rep. Giffords is a nice lady and NO ONE WHO COUNTS disliked her.
Her campaign was very bitter and there was plenty of vitriol hurled at her by tea party candidates backing up the republican candidates. You aren't trying to say that tea party members don't count.
quote:You have to wonder what may have led to Jared's schizoid break, or at least set him up for it.
... schizoid?
Please stop using psychological terms you don't understand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
He was certainly dillusional, if his youtube videos are to be believed. Specifically his accusation that the government is trying to control our minds through grammar.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Is that what was going on? I couldn't parse what he was talking abut.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Hold on now. You mean rhetoric like this?
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
I'm just wondering if this is the type of thing you are referring to. A yes/no would suffice.
Yes. Its the kind of thing I'd like to see eliminated from the political arena. But I'm really unclear about your point here. I've already said I didn't think the Democrats were innocent.
But if you think Conservatives are justified for spewing hatred, because Democrats sometimes do it too, you're just plain wrong. If you think Democrats do it as much as Republicans, you have your head in the sand.
I never said Conservatives are justified. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy among Democrats who play a game of finger pointing and "gotcha" politics. Something like this happens to a Democrat Rep, and all of the sudden it is the vast right wing conspiracy that caused it. It's just like Bill Clinton blaming Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for Timothy McVeigh. It is utterly ridiculous.
And suprise suprise, looks like this kid is being described by people that were his friends as a "left wing pothead."
Looks like he listened to the Doors and Jimmy Hendrix. Maybe we should come out with regulation against those two groups.
Of course, maybe this kid was onto something! Maybe Conservatives ARE controlling young liberal pothead minds through grammar, and they compelled him to shoot Rep. Giffords.
You do realize this kid was off his rocker and had already made threats against Rep. Giffords a year before Palin even hit the national scene, right?
edit: The person controlling my mind made me fix a few grammar mistakes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Of course, maybe this kid was onto something! Maybe Conservatives ARE controlling young liberal pothead minds through grammar, and they compelled him to shoot Rep. Giffords.
What, or who, are you railing against here? Is this relevant to the positions that any of us here have taken? How prevalent is the whole 'this is a right wing conspiracy' thing? How many democrats are actually blaming palin? What is this all about? Is it a reactionary defense?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Aw. I wasn't hoping to make a point beyond an ironic chuckle, but I'm still disappointed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What astonishes me about this is that all those people who were earlier claiming that the Tea Party crossed traditional party lines and helped forge a different ideological union are now completely overlooking those earlier claims in their haste to insist that Loughner, despite his obvious sympathy for anti-government movements, had absolutely nothing in common with Tea Party "conservatives."
Are Tea Partiers "conservatives" now? Officially?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, for your much-needed information, Fox News interviewed a qualified, experienced psychologist who is also a lawyer, and HE said that Jared Loughner exhibited all the classic signs of a schizophrenic who has made a complete break with reality. He even went down the list of symptoms he exhibited.
You can be sure, Sam, that I always know what I am talking about.
As for whether Loughner was influenced by political rhetoric, it has been noted in the national news that Loughner was a registered Independent, and did not even vote in the last election.
Tom, Tea Partiers are most likely to be conservative rather than liberal. They are most likely to be consistently conservative. The simple truth is that Tea-Partiers are conservative Republicans. They are not a separate party--at least, not yet. Virtually all their condidates in the last election ran (and most won) as Republican candidates.
Rabbit, Democrat liberals are much more likely to do harm to people routinely and systematically and deliberately and repeatedly than anyone else, because they think they are "righteous" and that any means justifies their "progressive" ends. For example, after Newt Gingrich orchestrated the Republican takeover during the Reagan years, Democrats followed the Saul Alinsky game book and began filing false charge after false charge against Gingrich, all of which were laughably spurious, but eventually they built up a critical mass until another bogus charge of some income tax irregularity forced him to bow out of the fight, and not run for re-election. A year or so later, the IRS completely cleared him. But the campaign of deliberately false assaults against his reputation had succeeded, to the point that even now many people regard him as "damaged goods."
Democrats again used the same deliberate, knowingly false attacks against Sarah Palin. Not one single accusation against her has ever been upheld. But so many were made, that some people think she must have done something wrong. The liberal Alinsky thugs also took advantage of Alaska's requirement that any request for information had to be processed, taking staff time and expense. This amounted to millions of dollars that Sarah and her friends and staff members could not afford. That is why she resigned as governor. This was a vile crime of subverting democracy committed by liberal thugs, who still probably think they are "righteous," and have the nerve to criticize her for "quitting" in the middle of her term.
Talking tough, using the forceful terminology of people who believe it is good to be strong, is not nearly as evil as people who systematically, regularly, knowingly use falsehoods to try to harm someone's reputation, and gain by rumor and inuendo and filing false charge after false charge what they failed to do in the ballot box.
People who follow Saul Alinsky's directions for subverting the democratic process are traitors and true criminals. They are NOT righteous. Liberals are NOT righteous.
By the way, as for Sarah Palin's map that displayed crosshair symbols where there were Democrat candidates who were being especially targeted in the election--the Democrats published exactly the same kind of map in 2004--only they used bullseyes instead of crosshairs. Fox News showed it this afternoon.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Was trippy to see that, as the VoterView product is one I've worked on a little bit at my current job. Mostly just minor enhancements, but still is a reminder that people actually use the software I help develop.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News reported that local officials in Tucson have stated that Jared Loughner was a registered INDEPENDENT, and DID NOT VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I imagine Geraine is responding more to statements made outside of this forum.
Some leftist talk, like those starting a petition to indict Palin (Huffington Post comments section) or accusing Palin of having the blood of a nine-year-old girl on her hands, are also part of the problem.
They will only deepen feelings of anger and alienation between the two sides.
Those who sincerely want the political rhetoric to cool down should lead by example.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You can be sure, Sam, that I always know what I am talking about.
I'm sorry. This isn't a Ron thing. I have the same response to *anyone* that makes such a claim, though most people who would do so would be doing it ironically.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:By the way, as for Sarah Palin's map that displayed crosshair symbols where there were Democrat candidates who were being especially targeted in the election--the Democrats published exactly the same kind of map in 2004--only they used bullseyes instead of crosshairs. Fox News showed it this afternoon.
The bullseyes were on states. The Palin targets graphic referenced individual legislators
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The simple truth is that Tea-Partiers are conservative Republicans.
So when certain individuals were insisting, a year or so ago, that the Tea Party crossed all partisan lines and was a genuinely new ideological movement, those individuals were wrong?
Would it be wrong to say that they didn't know what they were talking about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You can be sure, Sam, that I always know what I am talking about.
No. Not only do you have a history of saying things you don't understand, you don't know what schizoid means, so you used it incorrectly assuming it was a definition of the kid's mental state. Probably under the assumption that a 'schizoid break' is something that means something similar to a schizophrenic or psychotic break.
That's why I told you to stop using psychological terms you don't understand. It's one aspect of your amateur pseudopsychology you could learn to live without.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It doesn't appear that this shooting was triggered by conservative rhetoric.
However, it definitely does give us a dose of reality that illustrates just how ridiculous some of that rhetoric is. I suspect that after an event like this it becomes far more obvious that one's value as a human being doesn't depend on one holding the correct political views.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
there has been little said here about the communist rhetoric the shooter consumed and clearly believed. he listed the communist manifesto as one of his favorite books.
i think marx and engels should tone down their proletariat revolution rhetoric. its inciting mentally unbalanced people to violence.
next point. glen beck, et al, have listener/viewership that reaches into the tens of millions. if their alleged hate-filled speech is so negative and is such a force in shaping the actions of the viewer/listener, why are there not more instances of violence such as this? its about as common as a muslim shooting/bomb plot, if that. its not a trend; its an isolated incident. there isnt widespread violence and there has been no call to violence.
a lot of liberals vastly over-estimate the influences of people such as beck and palin. there are many sources of powerful and influential conservative ideals and ideas and many of them predate palin's rise to influence by decades.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:The whole discussion of politics is irrelevant, and frankly, reprehensible--because of being clearly exploitative of a tragic event. Rep. Giffords is a nice lady and NO ONE WHO COUNTS disliked her. Both Republicans and Democrats liked her. The Tea Party may have "targeted" her seat (and they came within 4,000 votes of unseating her), but I am sure they are still glad to have her in that office rather than some extreme liberal deaf-to-the-public superpartisan like Nancy Pilosi. Giffords used to be a Republican, and still holds some conservative positions.
Your talk of discussing politics being reprehensible would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't, well, use the discussion of the event as an excuse to discuss politics (your remarks about Pelosi). Very meta and quite hypocritical of you.
Your remarks about no one who counts disliking her made no sense at all within your own post. As you said, they came within 4K votes of unseating her. Obviously quite a few people disliked her, and they counted. Literally. The facts, as you're using them in your own arguments Ron, don't support your arguments. That you don't like the conclusion they point to doesn't mean you get to handwave them away.
quote:Naturally they will gravitate to images involving personal strength, such as gun ownership...
Because it requires personal strength to own a firearm? I don't 'oppose' the Second Amendment, as I imagine you to mean that statement, Ron, but this is simply a ridiculous statement, equating strength with gun ownership. It takes zero strength at all to own a gun. All it takes is a few bucks and a very little government-deemed competence and a waiting period.
quote:They would be glad to let someone else take care of them, let government take sole responsibility for the use of force, while the populace is all disarmed and padded with styrofoam and bubblewrap--provided at government expense (meaning at the expense of the productive).
This is a very dishonest portrayal of the beliefs of people you disagree with. You've conversed with more than enough liberals over the years to know it by now, too. There's just no excuse for it, Ron. It's a transparent straw man that neither convinces nor deceives anyone.
quote:You can be sure, Sam, that I always know what I am talking about.
You provably don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what liberals think about their own beliefs, what virtues are necessary for gun ownership, and whether anyone disliked Gifford prior to the shooting.
It's acceptable to be in error from time to time, Ron. I'm not speaking of you specifically, though truthfully on the points mentioned above you are quite badly in error, but of the political party and the political positions it holds above. What's not acceptable, though what goes on as a matter of course, is this notion that the appropriate response when the mistake is caught is what you're doing now: point the finger.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Going back to something I read on the last page about the human brain. Everything I've read about how the brain processes information suggests that information received via television or radio is filtered through the areas of the brain that deal with emotion. Information that is read is generally filtered through the areas of the brain that deal with reason.
The result? We're more likely to react emotionally and viscerally to information when we see it on television, and the reason centers of the brain less active.
Lately I've come to the decision that whether or not he was some right-wing loony-bin escapee is really irrelevant. Does anyone seriously believe that the current political landscape is healthy and productive? This event has, reasonably or not, put political rhetoric in the spotlight. Why not use this opportunity to do some serious introspection instead of reverting to form by pointing fingers and professing innocence?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: there has been little said here about the communist rhetoric the shooter consumed and clearly believed. he listed the communist manifesto as one of his favorite books.
i think marx and engels should tone down their proletariat revolution rhetoric. its inciting mentally unbalanced people to violence.
What do you mean, 'clearly believed?' Is there some information somewhere showing demonstratively and clearly that he aligned himself with communists, or are you inferring it baldly based on the yt book list?
Here's a big clue-in for the cheap seats, by the way: The odds that the shooter has actually read through the books on his favorite books list is exceedingly low. That, and as has already been put through the wringer a couple of times in this thread alone, he could have read all of them multiple times, and still using X book to 'clearly' conclude Y ideology is wrong, and a great big waste of time. Yes, I'll even defend the commies from made-up associations with Loughner.
Miller:
quote:The sole ideological thread running through Loughner's list is an inchoate anti-authoritarianism. It's likely that what attracted him to "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto" was less the political thinking in either book than their aura of the forbidden, the sensation that he was defying the adults around him by daring to read either one. The rest of his favorites -- "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Brave New World," "Animal Farm" and "Fahrenheit 451" -- depict deceitful and oppressive regimes committed to squelching individual initiative and thought.
It's not hard to understand why Loughner might be drawn to such narratives. A young man whose slide into paranoid schizophrenia has been noticed and addressed (Loughner was suspended from Pima Community College and administrators insisted that he get a mental health evaluation before he would be allowed to return) probably would favor literature in which maverick truth-tellers are labeled as insane or criminal by self-serving authority figures.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Fred Phelps and company are planning to attend the little girl's fumeral Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course they are.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:i think marx and engels should tone down their proletariat revolution rhetoric.
Yes, if this were the era of communism, it would be absolutely correct to call for toning down the rhetoric. One could argue that communist rhetoric has been possibly the most damaging in history globally.
However, this is no longer the era of communism, and we are talking about the U.S. specifically. There have been times in our nation's history when liberals have been overwhelmingly unreasonable and ridiculous in their rhetoric. However, in our present time and place, I think it'd be fairly clear to any impartial observer that conservatives have taken the lead in outlandish, hurtful rhetoric, and thus it needs to be first and foremost conservatives who stop supporting the vocal advocates of hurtful rhetoric among them.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Yes, if this were the era of communism, it would be absolutely correct to call for toning down the rhetoric. One could argue that communist rhetoric has been possibly the most damaging in history globally.
One could certainly put forth that arguement, but it would be pretty difficult to convince me that Marx's rhetoric was more damaging than Hitlers.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Yes, if this were the era of communism, it would be absolutely correct to call for toning down the rhetoric. One could argue that communist rhetoric has been possibly the most damaging in history globally.
One could certainly put forth that arguement, but it would be pretty difficult to convince me that Marx's rhetoric was more damaging than Hitlers.
It's a pretty macabre topic. I'd say they are pretty close, and if the US had ever gone to war with China (including the dropping of atomic bombs) during the Korean conflict, I think Marxism would win hands down. The one thing Marxism does have going for it is that it still strongly affects the world today, whereas Hitler's influence is largely a thing of the past.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If the US dropped atomic bombs on China, I don't think you could lay that at the feet of Marxism. "You made me do it" isn't a defence that works in schoolyards, let alone affairs between adults.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The one thing Marxism does have going for it is that it still strongly affects the world today, whereas Hitler's influence is largely a thing of the past.
Comparing Marxism to Hitler is like comparing apples and grocery stores chains. You can compare Marx and Hitler (in which case Hitler wins for total evil hands down), or you can compare Marxism with Fascism, which is going to be a lot more ambiguous. Both Marxism and fascism strongly affect the world today.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This tragedy was expoited within minutes by people thrilled with the chance to grind their political axes. The accusations are unfounded (no evidence), lazy (no attempt to find evidence), dishonest (making them anyway), and trashy (exploiting a tragedy).
On top of everything else foul about it, it is irresponsible, because it is focusing attention on the wrong thing. This guy was sick; other people noticed; he got a gun anyway; how could we prevent this from happening again.
I agree 100% with this editorial in the Washington Post.
Where am I? I believe in free speech, and anyone's calls for their political opponents to stop talking should make any American sick.
A tragedy happens and some of you have rushed to use it for your own political ends, joining many others who did the same. You all should be ashamed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If the US dropped atomic bombs on China, I don't think you could lay that at the feet of Marxism. "You made me do it" isn't a defence that works in schoolyards, let alone affairs between adults.
QFT. Since its an event that didn't happen, its impossible to say what type of rhetoric might have inspired Americans to commit such atrocities, but I think we can be pretty confident that it would not have been Marxist ideology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Where am I? I believe in free speech, and anyone's calls for their political opponents to stop talking should make any American sick.
Where are you indeed, katharina? Who has asked anyone to stop talking, as opposed to stop talking in certain ways? The latter being entirely within both the law of freedom of speech and its spirit, the satisfaction you felt giving vent to your sense of outrage notwithstanding.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If the US dropped atomic bombs on China, I don't think you could lay that at the feet of Marxism. "You made me do it" isn't a defence that works in schoolyards, let alone affairs between adults.
That's not what I'm saying. I don't place America's war with Vietnam on Communism's door.
The Korean conflict most certainly started with Communists invading South Korea, and the US getting in the way. The US pushed a little bit too far too quickly, and China decided to go assist a Communist neighbor, for fear the US would try to divide China. Fortunately MacArthur who wanted to bomb China into submission was overruled, but had it come to a protracted war including the use of atomic bombs, I am confident the Chinese and American dead would then outpace the total casualties from WWII.
I'm not saying that it's all Communism's fault. The fact the US was in South Korea in the first place is due to anti-communist rhetoric.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: Fred Phelps and company are planning to attend the little girl's fumeral
So its finnally possible for my to protest Phelps with signs saying "God Hates Bigots" ofcourse I wont for the oppisite reason of his appearance. I dont want to slander this little girls life and death.
Edit. I just read Happyman's link, that is beuatiful of them to do, and much more mature than any response I would make to those hate-mongers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do conservatives think that anyone has suggested banning any type of political speech - making laws against it?
For the record, is anyone here suggesting that? Or would anyone here support such a law?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think Phelps and his group are horrible human beings. I guess they have a right to do what they want, but I just can't believe there are people sick enough to protest at a nine year old girls funeral.
I guess there is a Tea Party group that wants to form a wall of bodies to keep the protesters away from the funeral. While I appreciate the intent, I think it is a bad idea. It has the potential to cause even more issues.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Also, this and this from David Weigel, as well as the numerous mentions to the (alleged) perpetrator's youtube postings could have led to an interesting dialogue about responsibility and accountability in digital communities. The stories out of Pima Comm. College should have created lots of discussion of whether the way educational institutes approach students who exhibit aberrant behavior is appropriate.
Instead, we have unending discussions of Sarah Palin's map, despite the lack of evidence Laughner was aware of it, or any other of the vitriolic dialogue we've all be discussing. Linking the issue of political vitriol to this specific event (as Krugman blithely does in his column) is entirely untenable. Wresting this event to have a teachable moment about politeness and civility in political rhetoric strikes me dishonest.
By all means, let's talk about the issue of vitriolic political speech (it's both timely and important); but don't let's pretend that it has anything to do with what just happened in AZ (just as angry rhetoric was not responsible for the actions of John Hinckley or Sirhan Sirhan or Arthur Bremer or Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme or ... the large majority of politically motivated assassination attempts in US history).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is it not clear that Sarah Palin's map is an example of the kind of rhetoric we are talking about rather than a specific cause? If not, let me make it clear.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is it not clear that Sarah Palin's map is an example of the kind of rhetoric we are talking about rather than a specific cause? If not, let me make it clear.
What is clear is there's no evidence any of the rhetoric you're talking about was heard, believed, or otherwise affected Laughner. He wasn't a right-wing zealot, he was a random, disturbed kid who thought the government was trying to control his mind. His anger at Giffords appears, from all evidence, to be deeply personal. It does not appear it was stoked, increased, or otherwise effected by the rhetorical climate of hate and intolerance. Drawing a causal link from one thing to the other is irresponsible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
More irresponsible than hate-filled rhetoric? Really?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: More irresponsible than hate-filled rhetoric? Really?
No. I didn't say that. But irresponsible nonetheless.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Let's say it is irresponsible to call for a decrease in violent images and speech. What is the downside to toning it down? Not banning it, mind you, just people making the decision to use or listen to them less.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I believe in free speech, and anyone's calls for their political opponents to stop talking should make any American sick.
Referring to criticism of the tone and content of someone else's speech as a free speech issue is sort of missing the point of free speech.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The testimony of everyone who has worked with Gabrielle Giffords in Congress, on either side of the aisle, is that they like her as a person. Some people may disagree with her politics, and campaign as resolutely as they can against her in elections. But that does not mean that hating some aspects of her politics is equivalent to hating her as a person.
Equating political opposition to criminal agitation is another example of liberal distortion of reality in a desperate attempt to overcome the clear advantage conservatives have in the polls. This is why everyone here needs to shut up about political causes for the attempted assassination in Tucson. The shooter has been judged by many qualified people to exhibit classic signs of a schizophrenic break with reality. He was not politically active. He did not even vote in the last election. Those who would claim Sarah Palin or right wing talk radio, or such have any blame in the attack on Rep. Giffords, are forgetting the 13 other people who were shot, six of them killed. What conservative leader influenced the shooter to kill that nine-year-old girl? Her only political involvement was that she recently won election to the student council in her elementary school. What connection can liberals draw there?
It is liberals who are stirring up and seeking to incite people with their vitriolic speech right now. For trying to exploit this tragedy for their political ends, they deserve universal condemnation. Which they will certainly get in the next election, if they remain too stubborn to recognize that the last election was a stunning and direct rebuke to them, and that it is precisely because of the tactics they are using now that they are alienating the vast majority of Americans.
[ January 11, 2011, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I believe in free speech, and anyone's calls for their political opponents to stop talking should make any American sick.
Referring to criticism of the tone and content of someone else's speech as a free speech issue is sort of missing the point of free speech.
By disapproving of what liberals are saying here, are you making Americans sick?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It is liberals who are stirring up and seeking to incite people with their vitriolic speech right now.
What are they trying to incite, exactly? Guilt? Civility?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Let's say it is irresponsible to call for a decrease in violent images and speech. What is the downside to toning it down? Not banning it, mind you, just people making the decision to use or listen to them less.
That's again not what I've said. I said it's irresponsible to draw a causal connection between violent rhetoric and Laughner's actions.
I've additionally said having a discussion about the current state of political rhetoric could be fruitful. My complaint is the thoughtless way in which people are linking such a discussion to the situation in AZ. <edit>And I think the discussion is more likely to be fruitful if the two topics are divorced; otherwise, many of the participants will begin from a posture of defensiveness which generally leads to bickering rather than understanding.</edit>
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: I guess there is a Tea Party group that wants to form a wall of bodies to keep the protesters away from the funeral. While I appreciate the intent, I think it is a bad idea. It has the potential to cause even more issues.
I understand the concern but Im not worried, we have a long history of controlling situations like this. Every year there are more protesters at the nazi rally in Phoenix than nazis and nothing ever happens.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
A college level course on psychology (yes, I've taken a couple) offers less education on any specific pathology than can be gleaned from an afternoon of web surfing.
EDIT: I'm referring, of course, to a general focus class like Psych 101.
[ January 11, 2011, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What do you mean, 'clearly believed?' Is there some information somewhere showing demonstratively and clearly that he aligned himself with communists, or are you inferring it baldly based on the yt book list?
Here's a big clue-in for the cheap seats, by the way: The odds that the shooter has actually read through the books on his favorite books list is exceedingly low. That, and as has already been put through the wringer a couple of times in this thread alone, he could have read all of them multiple times, and still using X book to 'clearly' conclude Y ideology is wrong, and a great big waste of time. Yes, I'll even defend the commies from made-up associations with Loughner.
i think you only partially grasped my point. i was illustrating a point that senojretep made a few posts before this one: its irresponsible to draw casual connections between this mans actions and some specific political rhetoric, old or new.
its irresponsible because we dont know to what degree he was influence by the things he heard and read. i didnt say he aligned solely with communists anyway but that he 'clearly believed' the rhetoric in the communist manifesto (i never claimed thats all he believes) or else why would he list that as a favorite book? the cool plot line? the character development? if i listed the federalist papers as one of my favorite pieces of political literature how could you assume i didnt believe some of the ideas contained therein?
whoever miller is hes entitled to his own opinion and you can agree with it if you want. an honest follower of this tragic event would defend anyone from made-up associations with loughner.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes, if this were the era of communism, it would be absolutely correct to call for toning down the rhetoric. One could argue that communist rhetoric has been possibly the most damaging in history globally.
However, this is no longer the era of communism, and we are talking about the U.S. specifically. There have been times in our nation's history when liberals have been overwhelmingly unreasonable and ridiculous in their rhetoric. However, in our present time and place, I think it'd be fairly clear to any impartial observer that conservatives have taken the lead in outlandish, hurtful rhetoric, and thus it needs to be first and foremost conservatives who stop supporting the vocal advocates of hurtful rhetoric among them.
i agree that this isnt the era of nations embracing communism but the ideas are still influential. the influence on an idea can be equally potent now as was 100 yeas ago. a persons ideology must be taken in the aggregate and its likely this man drew from many sources.
my point is that its not possible to draw a straight line from these people being shot to conservative rhetoric, however outlandish it might be. all the liberals trying to capitalize on this tragedy and silence opposing ideas are failing to demonstrably connect conservative rhetoric and loughner. its silly to assume becks childish rants and palins 'crosshairs' = a deranged man killing people. i support the call for more civil dialogue but not baseless speculation such as this.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Although I'm sure Samp is absolutely giddy to respond to this himself, I will say in no uncertain terms that attempting to disparage another poster on account of age, education, and ending the whole thing with a taunt is pretty solidly in TOS violation territory.
It does not matter that you couched the whole thing in polite sounding language, the intent is uncalled for. You have a habit of doing it Ron, and I'm not going to allow it. Please refrain from doing it in the future.
As an aside, I took psychology courses in college, courses I got good grades in. It most certainly did not put me on an unassailable plateau as you seem to think it does for you.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm going to take a moderate step here, if you don't mind.
I am one of the liberal voices that you may find on this website.
I am not happy with the easy answer the press has found to this tragedy--that political partisanship has gotten to extreme.
I am very upset that this easy answer was provided by, and promoted by the liberal outlets, liberal politicians, and liberal talking heads.
The facts are the facts. The idiot who did the shooting is mentally disturbed and not under the influence of any fascist conservative talking pundit. The more they see this as an excuse to force the tone to be more civil, the worse they sound.
I do laugh, however, at the knee-jerk reactions of the professional politicians on the right who immediately went into "Lie and Cover" mode as soon as this tragedy happened. If the Left is guilty of blaming this tragedy on the violent talk that has found its way into politics, the Right is guilty of covering up as much of their previous violent imagery.
Sure its nauseating when NPR spends most of the day stating that violent talk from the right has gone to far. On the other hand its quite amusing to watch Sara Palin explain away her graphics as mere "Surveyor Symbols".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Two things. First, most people are not drawing a straight line between violent images and speech and the shooting; they are expressing concern about a atmosphere of anger and violence contributing to acts of violence. That is not so far fetched.
Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Two things. First, most people are not drawing a straight line between violent images and speech and the shooting; they are expressing concern about a atmosphere of anger and violence contributing to acts of violence. That is not so far fetched.
Lines, direct or not, are not justified. There's no evidence that Laughner's choices had anything to do with any of the incendiary rhetoric you are decrying.
quote:Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
I never suggested otherwise. I suggested some commentators were opportunistically using this event, inappropriately, to further the agenda of toning down vitriolic rhetoric. An agenda I'm not opposed to, but which I feel is poorly served by the current thread of conversation, specifically because it is so poorly justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:The testimony of everyone who has worked with Gabrielle Giffords in Congress, on either side of the aisle, is that they like her as a person. Some people may disagree with her politics, and campaign as resolutely as they can against her in elections. But that does not mean that hating some aspects of her politics is equivalent to hating her as a person.
You're changing the discussion again. Before you said 'no one who counted hated her'. That plainly, provably wasn't true. Now you're changing it to 'none of her political peers will testify as to having hated her', which is you must admit a very different thing.
quote:Equating political opposition to criminal agitation is another example of liberal distortion of reality in a desperate attempt to overcome the clear advantage conservatives have in the polls.
Who here is doing that? Who that you are discussing this issue with right now is doing that, Ron? You're straw-manning again, and quite deliberately refusing at this point to address specifically worded questions and posts that are politely asked.
quote:This is why everyone here needs to shut up about political causes for the attempted assassination in Tucson.
If this is true, you need to include yourself in that number, Ron, because you did it too. Do I need to quote you again?
quote:How old are you, Samprimary? 13? Have you ever had a college level course in psychology, as I have? What is your problem, child! Is this the best you can do in debate?
Ron...name-calling like this is not really the best way to illustrate to someone that they're behaving childishly in a discussion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Second, don't pretend that we are just now expressing those concerns in order to exploit a tragedy. People have been expressing concern about the angry, violent rhetoric and images in politics generally for years and more specifically in recent months. Including Rep. Gifford herself.
I'd like to echo this. When I was listening more to conservative radio, about a year ago, I was much more in touch with what was being said, and it wasn't pretty. Many progressives were right to express concerns that many conservatives were using militant imagery to describe them as well as the measures that needed to be taken to stop them.
Lets say this guy is completely off his rocker, and has *zero* ties to conservative thought. Is the state of popular conservative rhetoric such that there isn't a reasonable chance somebody might do what he did, in the name of stopping the liberal agenda? I can't in all honesty say it is.
Does that mean liberals are spotless? No, of course not, nobody has said that was the case. Liberals have a terrible problem with acting superior to those who do not agree with them. Derriding their values as old fashioned, and acting as if conservatives are nothing but gunk that needs to be cleaned out so the machine of progress can run smoothly.
Coincidentally liberals don't strongly support the individuals right to bear arms, and so the image of a lone person with their gun standing up to the government does not resonate with them. Do they wish the current slew of popular conservatives big mouths could be silenced so that their ideas could be easily spread, sure, but they aren't suggesting that violence is part of that equation, or even remotely close to being called for.
If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
As it is, in my time listening to conservative media, I have been impressed with their ability to rouse emotions in an apathetic populace, but not their ability to suppress those who take those emotions too far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
Me too. Beams and motes and all that, really.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
Wait a second, I'm confused here. How about BOTH sides use more common sense and restraint? It took 10 minutes before democrats on media outlets were questioning whether or not this kid had anything to do with the Tea Party, even though there was no information whatsoever linking the two.
Let's be honest. Even if Conservatives stopped using the kind of rhetoric you disagree with, Democrats would just come up with something else to complain about. And vice versa.
This is just politics as usual. It's been going on for over 200 years.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
It's fine to want that. I want that too. But achieving that by suggesting, particularly in this low information/high speculation environment, that Laughner committed this crime (partially) because of <edit>conservative</edit> big mouths and the environment they created is both unjustifiable and counter-productive.
<edit>For reasons it's counter-productive see every post by Geraine, Ron and capaxinfiniti in this thread. Because the discussion began with accusation, it's continued with defensiveness, counter accusation and bickering. Both sides get frustrated and in the end the problems are exacerbated rather than ameliorated.</edit>
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: If conservatives (and many *are doing this) would simply decry this sort of action, and tell their audience that they are ashamed that any American would resort to this action, *then* complain that liberals are trying to capitalize on this incident, I would be perfectly content.
Me too. Beams and motes and all that, really.
They would have to disapprove first. Not intellectually difficult- but if you spend all your time as a pundit exhorting emotion and action and arousing agression, then putting the brakes on things doesn't come that naturally. And constantly touching on violent imagery, I would think, could put you in a violent sort of mood as well. One might not be ashamed to see this kind of thing happening. Thing is, I think at least some conservative pundits don't particularly disapprove of violence- particularly the ones on the wing nut fringe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Wait a second, I'm confused here. How about BOTH sides use more common sense and restraint?
Yes. And then the democrats will still be using three times as much as the conservatives. Good idea.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks. BlackBlade, but I would say that there is a huge difference between wanting conservative big mouths to be silenced and wishing they would shut up. Heck, even wanting them to shut up is more extreme than most liberals are comfortable with. How about asking them use some common sense and restraint?
I wasn't very clear on this point. When I meant silenced I meant "They wish they'd shut up." But, I *have* heard liberals gripe about the fairness doctrine, when to me that's just them whining that they don't have the same viewership somebody like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh has.
--------
Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
I promise you, if liberal media voices start talking about using guns to enforce their agenda, I'll be one of the first to decry it, and tell them to stop immediately. Right now, conservatives are talking about guns, the possible end of the union/civilization in this country, government taking away all our rights (among others, the right to have a gun) and so a rebellion might be necessary, etc. It needs to stop. ------
Orincoro: Come on.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Actually Sam, at the university I attended, General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges. Or at least it was back then, when academic standards were higher.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And the conversation changes again, Ron.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Would you like to use a shovel Ron? digging with bare hands can be uncomfortable and I keep my own tools around for when I too resort to quippy little insults to misdirect a discussion, although I prefer my grave shallow as to hear them laugh at me above.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually Sam, at the university I attended, General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges. Or at least it was back then, when academic standards were higher.
Ron, I am not kidding. One more post like this, and we will be going in a different direction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: General Psychology was taught on the Sophomore level--as it usually is in most colleges.
'Scuse me? In every college I am familiar with (and as someone who processes transfer credits, I've seen catalogs from quite a few), General Psychology is PSY 101 (or PSYCH 100, or PSYC 1001) -- a very basic FIRST-year course.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Janitor Blade, when Samprimary and his kindred here in this forum quit seizing upon every little thing they can think of in anything I post on any subject to insult me and ridicule me and denounce my intelligence and knowledge, then I will no longer feel it is necessary to rebuke them as they deserve. They are the offenders. If you focus on me just because I am an easy target, being one person who is regularly piled upon, instead of taking all of them to task--for they are the ones truly and entirely at fault--then you are not doing a good job as a moderator. You are taking the easy way out.
Do you really want this forum to continue to be regarded as dominated by atheists and agnostics and anti-religious skeptics? Does Orson Scott Card identify with that crowd? I am the only one seriously fighting back, challenging their hegemony, countering their arguments and disputing their facts (or lack of same). If you side with them, then you have made this their forum. No one with religious beliefs need participate. They'll just get shouted down by the anti-religious minority, and you won't do anything about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, I'm neither an atheist, agnostic, nor an anti-religious skeptic, though I do place a high value on skepticism. In any event unless I've multiple personalities I'm neither an atheist nor anti-religious. I've asked you multiple direct, polite, and relevant questions that are relevant to the discussion at hand, many of which you've ignored. It's possible you've ignored all of them, I'm not sure right now. So that's another thing you're provably wrong about.
You can either accept that, or persist in flattering your own vanity by believing something that simply isn't true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*signs up for the Anti-Religious Hegemony*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Jon Stewart actually spoke about this really eloquently.
And, Geoff, I agree, in a sense- I don't necessarily want to see basic freedom of speech amended here any more than I want books to be banned because they're "communist" or video games or heavy metal music banned because they "cause" school shootings. But the paradigm has to shift to the point where people within a party or group feel empowered to say that their members or leaders who suggest violence towards their political adversaries might be justifiable are a blight on their party and unacceptable, and people outside that group are rightfully empowered to castigate those who trivialize violence for the sickness they are. Right now it seems like equating yourself with our forefathers and wrapping yourself in the flag makes you immune to any kind of censure.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Janitor Blade, when Samprimary and his kindred here in this forum quit seizing upon every little thing they can think of in anything I post on any subject to insult me and ridicule me and denounce my intelligence and knowledge, then I will no longer feel it is necessary to rebuke them as they deserve. They are the offenders. If you focus on me just because I am an easy target, being one person who is regularly piled upon, instead of taking all of them to task--for they are the ones truly and entirely at fault--then you are not doing a good job as a moderator. You are taking the easy way out.
Do you really want this forum to continue to be regarded as dominated by atheists and agnostics and anti-religious skeptics? Does Orson Scott Card identify with that crowd? I am the only one seriously fighting back, challenging their hegemony, countering their arguments and disputing their facts (or lack of same). If you side with them, then you have made this their forum. No one with religious beliefs need participate. They'll just get shouted down by the anti-religious minority, and you won't do anything about it.
I am well aware that there are other posters who do not abide by the TOS, and I do my best to deal with them on a case by case basis. You are certainly welcome to whistle their posts or point out to me when they step out of line.
In this particular instance your posts are a violation of the TOS. I'm not dogpiling you, though you may seem to you this way. I am not everywhere and in all things all the time, I have to go off what I see and am made aware of. Your posts in this thread are not the only violation of the TOS, and if you look closely I have said as much to other posters.
I don't much care what the ratio of atheists, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Wiccas is. I care that conversations that abide by the TOS take place here. This place was never intended to be a forum for any one group of people except one I label "TOS abiding human beings."
If you have other plans for this site, I suggest you take it up with the Cards, or submit an email to me and I will gladly forward it to them.
As a courtesy, if you disagree with anything I am saying in this post, I think our conversation has reached a point where we ought to take it to email so as to not distract from the conversation at hand.
Thanks Ron.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron, seriously, what this has to do with is that you used a psychological word — specifically, schizoid — which has nothing to do with a psychotic/schizophrenic break, but which I guess sounded similar enough that you used it or you were under the mistaken impression that schizoid is one of those words that means generic la-la shooting spree crazy, but schizoid means a personality disorder typified by avoidance of social activity and extreme reluctance to engage in interaction with others. It's being an extreme shut-in. A 'schizoid break' — not that that's used terminology for anything — would be him shutting himself in at home and not talking to anyone.
That's it. It's just called 'using a wrong word.' You just exposed a level of amateur pseudopsychology which you really do need to scale back on, especially if you've convinced yourself that you 'always know what you're talking about' or that once upon a time you had psych 101 minus the high level courses in deviant psychology that pertain specifically to this stuff. You do not need to turn this into an epic Ron christian martyrdom narrative of you standing heroically against the unclean secular hordes. You get prodded constantly because you write very dumb and incorrect things and are impervious to correction or the admission of being wrong in nearly all of those instances, not because the forum views you some insolent way for daring to keep this place 'safe' for the pious or something. It is the mother of all invented narratives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: <edit>For reasons it's counter-productive see every post by Geraine, Ron and capaxinfiniti in this thread. Because the discussion began with accusation, it's continued with defensiveness, counter accusation and bickering. Both sides get frustrated and in the end the problems are exacerbated rather than ameliorated.</edit>
the counter-accusation has little to do with anything proposed here. If I'm a side, I didn't get frustrated, I pointed out that I'm glad that the tastelessness of common imagery and speech used in politics — and, whether conservatives want to admit it or not, much more tastelessly by their side than by liberals; they want to hide behind a false equivalency and say the liberals should share the 'blame' for the crafting of the national rhetoric — in a way which has ramped up significantly in the last two years has now become a political liability.
If I was frustrated by anything, it's that it wasn't already. Or that the 'he's not our problem' game would be hashed out to death by the counter-accusation crowd. Wait, I'm not even frustrated by that. I expected it so much that it's just become noise.
Somebody else said this, and I find it remarkably worthwhile to repeat:
quote:Naturally, most people don't ever act out in violence, but they propagate the mindset until it infects the next Jared Loughner. By then the direct influence is gone, it's simply the ripple effect of thousands of angry people splashing violent rhetoric against a fragile mind. We can all claim it wasn't our fault, exactly, and move on.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Sterling, thanks for pointing out the Daily Show video. That was a nice viewpoint compared to what I've heard on the radio so far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was going to mention that Jon Stewart video, but I'll content myself to simply point out it's pretty much how I feel about the matter.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
I promise you, if liberal media voices start talking about using guns to enforce their agenda, I'll be one of the first to decry it, and tell them to stop immediately. Right now, conservatives are talking about guns, the possible end of the union/civilization in this country, government taking away all our rights (among others, the right to have a gun) and so a rebellion might be necessary, etc. It needs to stop.
Blackblade, I can point out some Democrats that are calling for the same thing, especially after the November election. Ted Rall's Anti-American Manifesto is an example. And before you say "He is just a cartoonist," this guy has been a political commentator on MSNBC.
To even suggest that Conservatives are the only ones with violent rhetoric right now is simply ridiculous.
Biden said he would like to strangle the next Republican that talked about balancing the budget. Obama said before the election that if a Republican held Congress were elected that it would result in "hand to hand combat."
Did anyone think for a second that Obama was going to uppercut John Boehner? No. Nor did anyone believe that Biden wanted to strangle anyone? Joe Manchin actually fired a rifle in a political ad at a copy of the cap and trade bill. No uproar over that.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski said:
quote:"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks"
I'm sorry, I don't buy that Conservatives are the only group with violent rhetoric. Do they contribute to the problem? Absolutely, and the rhetoric must change. Here we have a (now former) Congressman saying someone should put a governor against a wall and shoot him. To me that sounds pretty violent, and a lot worse than putting targets on a map or saying "Don't Retreat, Reload."
This attempt to demonize the Conservative movement based on rhetoric that the Democrats themselves use is just dishonest, hypocritical, and stupid. If you want to change the rhetoric and discussion, don't engage in it yourself. You just make yourself look like a fool. (That comment wasn't directed to anyone on the forum, but to everyone out there in politics and the media )
That being said, both sides need to tone it down. Violence doesn't belong in political discussion. There are ways to talk about gun control without using violent metaphors, and I do not believe that Conservatives have tried to do that hard enough.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
My two cents: I think the criticism that Sarah Palin etc. has received for e.g. rifle cross-hairs on maps is unfair (don't worry; I will get around to criticizing her later). To me, this is perfectly consistent with the violence shown on TV, in video games etc., and is no more or less likely to cause violence than these.
Having said that, I do think the commentary targeting viewers/listeners paranoia can lead bad outcomes from those with problems. Both this latest case and the guy who flew into the IRS building are not really identifiably right or left. They both are, however, disturbed and very anti-government. IMO, when the democrats have control, there is a subset of commentators on the right whose views morph from being small government to being anti-government, and they fuel anti-government sentiment with conspiracy theories such as end-of-life-counseling == death-panels. Is there a world of difference between thinking that the US government is planning to off old people and thinking the US government is using grammar as a means of control? The willingness to say anything to divert the debate has the side effect of legitimizing cranks. This can be avoided by actually trying to make substantive policy points.
[ January 11, 2011, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Geraine, your every post seems totally preoccupied with insisting angrily that we can not possibly criticize the conservative rhetoric more than its liberal counterpart. You also keep suggesting these things:
quote:I'm sorry, I don't buy that Conservatives are the only group with violent rhetoric.
quote:To even suggest that Conservatives are the only ones with violent rhetoric right now is simply ridiculous.
Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric? Would you at least admit they have the lion's share of the violent rhetoric and imagery that ends up looking terrible after an event like this?
When six lie dead and another fourteen are wounded, now suddenly we're concerned that it is rude and politicizing a tragedy to point out that the right wing has pioneered and produced a toxic atmosphere that pollutes our politics with hatred and the rhetoric of violence?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the counter-accusation has little to do with anything proposed here. If I'm a side, I didn't get frustrated, I pointed out that I'm glad that the tastelessness of common imagery and speech used in politics — and, whether conservatives want to admit it or not, much more tastelessly by their side than by liberals; they want to hide behind a false equivalency and say the liberals should share the 'blame' for the crafting of the national rhetoric — in a way which has ramped up significantly in the last two years has now become a political liability.
If I was frustrated by anything, it's that it wasn't already. Or that the 'he's not our problem' game would be hashed out to death by the counter-accusation crowd. Wait, I'm not even frustrated by that. I expected it so much that it's just become noise.
Somebody else said this, and I find it remarkably worthwhile to repeat:
quote:Naturally, most people don't ever act out in violence, but they propagate the mindset until it infects the next Jared Loughner. By then the direct influence is gone, it's simply the ripple effect of thousands of angry people splashing violent rhetoric against a fragile mind. We can all claim it wasn't our fault, exactly, and move on.
When I mentioned counter-accusations, I was refering to the reflexive need to defend one's self (or ideological co-travellers) by saying "Anyway, your side does it too." Neither the initial accusation, nor the defensive counter-accusation, are helpful for moving the conversation forward.
<edit>And neither does the counter-counter-accusation (ala Parkour's entry into the fray). I'm not condemning it, I think it's wholly understandable from both sides. But exactly because it's understandable, even predictable, it's why tying the debate over angry rhetoric to a tragedy like this is a move doomed to failure. It's bound to result in squabbling rather than discussion. Unless that's the goal (to get your political opponents angry), in which case I think it's strategically flawed and somewhat morally reprehensible.</edit>
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I get to be team counter counter counter accusation!
What makes my position different is that some of us came from places where Palin's bullseye map was known and already criticized. People were saying "This is stupid. What if one of these people is shot? Palin should know better than to engage in this". We already knew that there was a bunch of stupid silly imagery by alarmists and anti-government people that created violent rhetoric. This all came before the shooting. Maybe you were not seeing any of it here.
Then when the shooting happened, that was the FIRST THING we thought of. Remember those bullseyes? Remember don't retreat, reload? Yeah. Now that something like this happened, this is what we were talking about. Now they catch flack for it, and WE KNOW WHY.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Remember those bullseyes? Remember don't retreat, reload? Yeah. Now that something like this happened, this is what we were talking about. Now they catch flack for it, and WE KNOW WHY.
there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did.
and from above:
quote:Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric? Would you at least admit they have the lion's share of the violent rhetoric and imagery that ends up looking terrible after an event like this?
conservatives dont have the lions share of any such thing. and 'lions' share is a misleading term to use because there simply isnt that much violent rhetoric out there especially considering everything thats said among the many forms of media.
and this:
quote:When six lie dead and another fourteen are wounded, now suddenly we're concerned that it is rude and politicizing a tragedy to point out that the right wing has pioneered and produced a toxic atmosphere that pollutes our politics with hatred and the rhetoric of violence?
how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did"
Which is not the point at all, and people who think that other people are making this point need to re-read. A lot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: there is still no evidence showing that palin's crosshair/bullseye/reload comments led the shooter to commit the violent act he did.
You are valiantly assailing points which have nothing to do with what we're all talking about here. I mean, you make comments about how the thread appears to be conspiracy theory central, but upon observation, it's because you are either not reading or are poorly comprehending what stances have been made.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Which is not the point at all, and people who think that other people are making this point need to re-read. A lot.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You are valiantly assailing points which have nothing to do with what we're all talking about here. I mean, you make comments about how the thread appears to be conspiracy theory central, but upon observation, it's because you are either not reading or are poorly comprehending what stances have been made.
what is the point and what are we talking about according to your interpretations of the discussion in this thread?
i see clearly see the stances being taken and the points being made but i reject the poor logic and blatant fabrication some have use to arrive at those positions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You don't see the point of how important it is to point out your misinterpretation of people's positions?
...
sigh.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You don't see the point of how important it is to point out your misinterpretation of people's positions?
...
sigh.
its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You don't see the point of how important it is to point out your misinterpretation of people's positions?
...
sigh.
its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
In one of my posts I said this,
quote:When I was listening more to conservative radio, about a year ago, I was much more in touch with what was being said, and it wasn't pretty. Many progressives were right to express concerns that many conservatives were using militant imagery to describe them as well as the measures that needed to be taken to stop them.
Lets say this guy is completely off his rocker, and has *zero* ties to conservative thought. Is the state of popular conservative rhetoric such that there isn't a reasonable chance somebody might do what he did, in the name of stopping the liberal agenda? I can't in all honesty say it is.
Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
i can see your point but i dont think that anything said so far would prompt this sort of violent action.
what palin said is more a rally call than a call to arms or a battle cry. mentally stable and rational people know that words and imagery use in political rhetoric are often hyperbolic, highly sensational and are use to elicit an emotional response from the intended audience. this is a tactic use by all pundits and politicians to some degree or another. i think such imagery can stoke the fires of partisanship, even cause undue anger, and when in comes to this i can at least understand the call to be more civil in the national dialogue if for no other reason than to more efficiently use the political system we have.
if liberals want to silence far-right rhetoric theyre going to have to wait until something truly and intentionally violent is said because everything said so far is still within the protection of free speech and shouldnt be neutered because of the 1 in 300 million chance that some crazy deranged person might twist it into fitting their repertoire of crazy ideas.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: its a simple question. i dont see why you wont answer it. if youre going to accuse me of missing the point at least show it.
The point is that you are assuming through blatant misinterpretation that the argument put forth here is something which it very manifestly is not. Multiple posters are trying to correct it for you, and you're still fighting against arguments that you assume are what are being offered here, but which are not. Continuing to ask 'what's the point?' when called on this accomplishes nothing except perhaps to point out to us that you don't understand, despite repeated clarifications, that you're misconstruing other people's arguments here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if this shooting wasn't prompted by conservative rhetoric, the statements people have been citing by Palin and others are the sorts of statements that prompt this sort of action.
i can see your point but i dont think that anything said so far would prompt this sort of violent action.
what palin said is more a rally call than a call to arms or a battle cry. mentally stable and rational people know that words and imagery use in political rhetoric are often hyperbolic, highly sensational and are use to elicit an emotional response from the intended audience. this is a tactic use by all pundits and politicians to some degree or another. i think such imagery can stoke the fires of partisanship, even cause undue anger, and when in comes to this i can at least understand the call to be more civil in the national dialogue if for no other reason than to more efficiently use the political system we have.
if liberals want to silence far-right rhetoric they're going to have to wait until something truly and intentionally violent is said because everything said so far is still within the protection of free speech and shouldn't be neutered because of the 1 in 300 million chance that some crazy deranged person might twist it into fitting their repertoire of crazy ideas.
But think of it this way. Is it really so hard to rally people together without using weapons as part of that message? Even if nobody is flat out saying, "We need to start an armed rebellion tomorrow, and take back the capital, starting with the president!" There are still ways to incite violence without saying any one thing that is out of line.
Lets take Glenn Beck for example. There have to be conservatives out there that read or listen to what he has to say right? Maybe even a considerable number of listeners as Beck last time I checked is the 3rd most listened to radio show in the nation. Now here are some things I have heard from him, that create the foundation for a very fatalistic and dangerous world view.
1: Buy gold. Yes, I'm tired of people complaining that he shills for gold companies. It's an advertisement that he has been asked to read, and has accepted. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on whether you work for the gold company, he doesn't read the advertisement as an aside from his show. He often leads into it. So after castigating the Obama administration for their financial policies, talking about debt to China, and the overall insolvency of the economy, he naturally leads into a discussion about the advantages of buying gold, because the dollar is going to fail. In short, buy gold, because when our economy collapses gold is going to be the only thing worth anything, unless of course Obama is stopped.
2: Emergency bunkers. Now I'm as much a fan of people having a safe place to flee to during a disaster as anybody. But Beck has an annoying habit of saying, "Something's coming, I don't know if it will be tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or next decade, but I feel it, it's coming, it's real. Will you be ready, do you have someplace to go? "
3: Emergency food supply. As a Mormon we believe everybody ought to have a two year supply of food, just in case, that way you are in a position to help rather than ask for help in a disaster. This is related to the bunkers and gold points as well. He advertises for emergency food supply companies, but leads it in from his rhetoric about the collapse of the American nation. In short, when the apocalypse of undetermined chronology hits, you are going to need food. Or you know, you could stop the apocalypse from happening.
4: Liberals want all your rights, and want to live your life for you, they are also lying when they say they don't. Beck has for years now portrayed the progressive movement as an insidious, secretive, and patient movement that is slowly consolidating all power into the hands of the federal government, and when that is finally completed, they will inject Marxist, socialist, fascist doctrines that will be imposed on me and you. And why is he the only one saying anything about it? Because he's the only one who has found the hidden agenda, through his studying, and hopefully they won't be able to shut him up in time. Here comes the chalk board, where he can write out the whole sordidly complicated web of facts.
Take those ideas, hammer them into people over and over, then combine it with Sarah Palin's emphasis on the use of ones gun when one is threatened, "Don't retreat! Reload!" and sprinkle some Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment Solutions." Finally for good measure put on some Rush Limbaugh, who will tell you that every single thing the Democrats say is a lie designed to deceive and control you, and that our president is a fraud who is consciously trying to destroy the nation, and you have a situation like The Knoxville Church Shooting where somebody who was big into Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage takes a gun and blows as many people away as they can before dying, much like a suicide bomber. That was only three years ago or so.
If I must say it again, I will I guess. Liberals have their own set of troublesome voices and ideas that manifest in very real ways, like the idea that conservatives are less smart than they are, that's why they disagree. Their objections aren't to be taken seriously because again, they are just stupid. But that is completely beside the point. When somebody calls you violent, one of the easiest ways to avoid acknowledging the behavior is to say what is wrong with them, and why they have no business pointing out your flaws.
When Jesus said take the beam out of your own eye before pointing out the mote in your neighbors, he never intended for us to act like everybody has beams, so screw it, nothing can change.
Maybe heated conservative rhetoric hasn't directly lead to the death of anybody, but it's already in a place that is unhealthy. You can rally people together just fine with talk about the economy being in shambles, or the disconnect between smarty pants politicians and salt of the earth folk, or the never ending war in another country. People have been doing it for years. As Mr. Card said in an essay some time ago about fighting against certain liberal policies, "Put your gun away."
That's all I really want. A staunch second amendment supporter to say, "Put your guns away, we don't need them." No harm can come of it, but harm germinating in the mind of some slightly beside themselves person just might be prevented. There's no glory in preventing a problem like that because you can't prove it, but it's just stupid to always wait around for a person to start shooting before you say, "Maybe we should calm down a little."
[ January 12, 2011, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well said.
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
BB, I really hate to follow up your adult and compelling argument with a bit of fluff/snark.
but I will.
Sarah Palin and other conservatives are complaining that they are being blamed for the insane violent antic of a fringe lunatic. They say its not fair, not American, and not justified.
Guess they now know how Muslims in the US feel.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well said.
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
They are incendiary. They are useful for sparking up a small fire but hard to control from spreading into a conflagration.
(Especially if the surrounding area is particularly dry and ready for sparks to take hold.)
--- Added: BlackBlade, that was really well-written.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well said.
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well said.
I guess part of it is looking at what emotions politicians are trying to stir up. Fear and anger are easy ones to use but they are also dangerous.
Isn't this exactly what the media and Democrats are now doing but in reverse? They are using this horrific event to try to stir up emotion, anger, and fear against conservatives, where little, if any, is warranted.
This is nothing new . Clinton blamed talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, video games were blamed for Columbine, etc.
I have already said I agree the rhetoric should be toned down. I just don't agree with the hypocrisy. Putting crosshairs on a map is not as bad as saying someone should put a governor against a wall and shoot him.
Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
BB, I enjoyed your post. I think that 99% of the people out there are not sheep, and can think for themselves. I listen to Glenn Beck on occasion and he does make me roll my eyes at times. Other times I agree with him. The first 10 minutes of his show on Monday he spoke about the shooting, and a lot of what he said was absolutely true. He brought up the rhetoric that both sides are using and says that everyone should follow the examples of Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King.
Some of his commentary is trash, but a lot of it is good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: I have noticed that there are times where I agree with Beck. But not with enough consistency, that I listen as much as I used to.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
Why is the "just as guilty" thing so important on the right? Do you really think that the left is as inflammatory right now as the right? It seems to me that, at least at the moment, the crazies on the left (9/11 was an inside job!) are well defined as crazies, while the crazies on the right are mainstream enough that, for instance, multiple Republican congressmen have been unwilling to concede that Obama is definitely a natural born citizen.
This means that more hyperbolic demagoguery (death panels!) can happen on the right which becomes part of the accepted message of popular right wing figures and their acolytes.
[ January 12, 2011, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The idea that Martin Luther King and Gandhi did not excoriate their political opponents for perceived misbehavior is one that baffles me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That goes for Jesus, too.
Edit: Ok. Maybe not political opponents. But opponents.
[ January 12, 2011, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
i never used the word 'censorship' in my post. i wasnt even referring to that. but i was referring to exactly what you describe: shaming people or manipulating them into feeling undue guilt for the actions of others. theres no evidence the shooter listened to conservative talk-radio or held people like palin in high regard. in fact there has been considerable talk that he was just the opposite: that he shunned all mainstream media outlets, both left and right.
and assuming loughner did listen to and believe deeply things said on far-right talk radio, by which standard or measure do you ascribe co-guilt in a case such as this? i said this before and no one addressed it. is sarah palin even 1% guilt in the shooting even though there is zero proof of any connection? there are too many unknown variables that are being filled in using speculation. i still havent seen a convincing argument with proof that a) the top 5 or so far-right talking heads have b) created a toxic and hostile political environment where c) violent acts are encouraged and condoned. the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly.
in a society that values open dialogue and public involvement, you shouldnt have to tailor what you say because some emotionally traumatized basement crazy, indoctrinate with, among other things, communist ideas and zeitgeist conspiracy theories, is going to snap one day and go on a shooting rampage.
i see the point a few here are trying to make and i just dont buy it. i like having respectful discussions and i respect most of the posters here, but i get the impression that instead of acknowledging a different view point and that some might perceive and interpret things differently, some people just say 'you dont get it' and dismiss the other persons point entirely.
blackblade: i dont listen to or support beck and i only hear what he says through the liberal lense of his opponents but i like what you said, especially the last two paragraphs. i dont like the polemics and deceptive, argumentative rhetoric but i find hope in all the moderate debate and commentary which i see as being much more prevalent. if there werent people at each end of the spectrum screaming nonsense it would feel like somethings not right with the system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly
Short of lapsing into civil war, what would a violent political environment look like?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly
Short of lapsing into civil war, what would a violent political environment look like?
Pakistan currently? Or Lebannon? Or any number of other countries where political assassination and violent rioting occasionally occur and are seen as a viable methods of opposition.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
i never used the word 'censorship' in my post. i wasnt even referring to that. but i was referring to exactly what you describe: shaming people or manipulating them into feeling undue guilt for the actions of others.
I specifically said "responsibility," and I specifically said "shame." I also specifically said *not* guilt. I also specifically indicated that I believe that there is a difference between responsibility and guilt and that I believe conservative pundits are *responsible* for the things they say and their contributions to the atmosphere, but that they are not *guilty* of other people's actions. I cannot be more clear.
And while I'm well aware you didn't say "censorship," if that was not the indication you wished to make, you were far from clear. If your only argument was that we shouldn't address the way conservatives have been talking, and hold them publicly responsible for that, even though they are not guilty of any crime, then I just disagree with you. The fact is that we are living in a political environment which long before this incident became infused with notions of aggression, fear, and violent opposition. The patron of this board even exhorted violent opposition to the government over at least one social/political in the last year. This event brings focus to that environment. It is not less valid to adress that issue now. I do so not out of a desire to score political points. I do not believe the democrats are participating in this atmosphere of violent rhetoric to any degree approaching the conservative clamor. That is a fair judgement to make, and it can be made apolitically.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly
Short of lapsing into civil war, what would a violent political environment look like?
Pakistan currently? Or Lebannon? Or any number of other countries where political assassination and violent rioting occasionally occur and are seen as a viable methods of opposition.
Lebannon is actually a very good example, as Hezbollah just picked up their ball and walked away. A sign many people see as them gearing up for violence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
Why is the "just as guilty" thing so important on the right?
The "BOTH parties are in the wrong" stuff is just more of the false dynamic that shifts the blame away from the people who really are throwing fuel on the fire.
Insisting on a false equivalence between the two sides is usually very important to the side which is much worse at whatever's being talked about. It's such a common thread for the GOP in recent years that I think I even predicted it in this thread before the argument was legitimately passed on.
The 'lock and load' rhetoric that's been gaining steam in right-wing circles is having a negative effect, was reprehensible to begin with, and we have an obligation to criticize it from its true sources in measured proportion. Right-wingers don't want measured proportion, apparently (maybe not, I can look into it seriously, but this thread and its representative right-wingers makes it seem so). They want to pretend both sides are equally to blame, now that it's become a political liability in earnest.
For what it's worth though, I don't turn this into a general screed against all people on the right. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Samprimary,
I linked a quote from just a few months ago where a Congressman said a candidate for Governor should be put up against a wall and shot.
Obama has made comments. Biden has. So have many other Democrats. The difference is that all of the sudden these conservative quotes are the ones that are hyped as being inflammatory and violent. I'll bet you never heard any outrage over Obama, Biden, or the Congressman's violent quotes. If you did, where were you then, decrying the violent rhetoric?
I've made it very clear that I think it is wrong no matter who is doing it. What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric. I'm not justifying the action. I'm not blaming one side or the other. I'm saying that they should practice what they preach.
quote:They want to pretend both sides are equally to blame, now that it's become a political liability in earnest.
I'd like to point out that rhetoric like this has not been what you consider a "political liability" for over 200 years. Now all of the sudden the left has tried to make it one.
But hey, never let a good crisis go to waste, right?
ETA: The best thing Obama can do tonight during his speech is use the time to decry the action and to comfort the families. I hope he doesn't bring politics into it.
In the State of the Union address he could then ask everyone to be kinder and more respectful and to tone down the rhetoric.
[ January 12, 2011, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Obama has made comments."
I'm sorry, I think you need to substantiate that.
"I'll bet you never heard any outrage over Obama, Biden, or the Congressman's violent quotes."
And this. Particularly the idea that their speech has been notably violent. Particularly that such violent speech was aimed at political opponents rather than, say, terrorists, criminals, enemies of freedom and democracy, etc etc. Nobody here is crooning over Bush and Cheney "rooting out evil," because that kind of talk is justified and well directed, even if their policies and actions weren't.
Notice, Samp is talking about *proportion.* That is, where is this coming from *most*? That is the part of this that he is accusing you of dismissing, which you just... did.
""I'd like to point out that rhetoric like this has not been what you consider a "political liability" for over 200 years. Now all of the sudden the left has tried to make it one. "
What? I mean really, what? Support of violence against the United States is a major political liability around the world. Violent rhetoric is a major political liability. Really, clarify, please, what in the world are you talking about?
"In the State of the Union address he could then ask everyone to be kinder and more respectful and to tone down the rhetoric."
Honestly, I'm just flabbergasted. What do you think he's been doing for two years? What do you think he's been doing, at his own political peril, for two years? Because I and a lot of liberals on this board have noted our frustration with him over his tendency towards *appeasement* of his political opponents. I don't feel like a partsan shill. I don't believe in all of Obama's policies, but seriously, the man has bent over backwards and been snapped in half trying to keep things on an even keel.
"What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric"
Kay. We all grasp that you are referring to this. We do not believe such an hypocrisy exists in this case. Nor do we suggest that this is indeed a monopoly on violent rhetoric. It is a preponderance of violent rhetoric, certainly a controlling market share of violent rhetoric, a majority of violent rhetoric, but a monopoly on such a thing doesn't exist, and never could exist, and has never been suggested as having ever existed, by anyone here.
Is it impossible for you to accept the idea that the conservatives are simply representative of a larger share of this kind of rhetoric? Is that idea simply right out? Through-scored? Unimaginable? If they did represent a significantly larger share, would that matter to you? Would it mean anything? Does it have to be 100%, or 50%, and nowhere in between? Would the implications of their having a larger share of the violent rhetoric on their actual outlook and motivations have any meaning to you at all? Would it indicate anything significant to you about them and the way they think other than that they simply talked this way more?
[ January 12, 2011, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What Geraine is talking about is stuff like "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun". The Right has made a point of scouring every word of Obama's on record and has come up with maybe 5 or 6 quotes that in some way invoke violent imagery.
Nothing like the "2nd amendment solution" and various other references to actually addressing grievances with real as opposed to metaphorical violence that the right is pretty much exclusively producing.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I've made it very clear that I think it is wrong no matter who is doing it. What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric.
And who is saying that conservatives have a monopoly on violent rhetoric? You are AGAIN missing that this is not about saying that conservatives have 100% of the blame and that liberals never do anything like this. It is about trying to make the claim that we can not criticize conservatives any more than we criticize liberals, which is stupidly false in this case.
/ geraine, my last post to you had this in it.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric?
[ January 12, 2011, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Parkour ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
capaxinfiniti, you should read my post again, these questions you are asking me have so little to do with anything I had actually posted ..
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
capaxinfiniti, you should read my post again, these questions you are asking me have so little to do with anything I had actually posted ..
i just re-read it. youre going to have to elaborate because whatever youre hinting at isnt clear to me.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The political left has been trying for a number of years now to curtail public expression of conservative views, through such apparently innocent-sounding ideas as the "fairness doctrine," which provides equal time for the expression of opposing viewpoints. This sounds fine, except that conservatives not only vastly outnumber leftwingers, but conservative talk shows and TV shows are extremely popular and high-rated, while so few people tune in to the few attempts at liberal talk radio, etc., that they can't make it financially. Fox News, which simply tries to offer "fair and balanced reporting" routinely has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and other left-leaning cable news networks combined. So the so-called fairness doctrine would have the effect of taking Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reille, Rush Limbaugh, etc., off the air, just because liberals cannot compete with them.
Now liberals are trying to paint conservatives as the major offenders in ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, for the same ulterior motive--to shut down the conservative voices that they otherwise cannot compete with fairly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or it could just be that liberals are tired of being called traitors and having their lives threatened. Who knows which is more likely?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm actually kind of impressed at how inaccurate that was. I'm looking for a single sentence that doesn't contain a falsehood but so far I'm coming up empty.
The political left has been trying for a number of years now to curtail public expression of conservative views, through such apparently innocent-sounding ideas as the "fairness doctrine," which provides equal time for the expression of opposing viewpoints.
I believe most people on the left would like to curtail propaganda, rabble-rousing, and outright lies. While I'm sure many of them would like to see more liberal views espoused and fewer conservative ones, it's not the conservative position that's really the problem. Liberals can often work with conservatives. But it's very difficult to work with sworn enemies who accuse you at every turn of treason. And if they are hoping for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine they're remarkably lazy about it. There's been mention here and there, but no legislation for it has been introduced in over 6 years.
This sounds fine, except that conservatives not only vastly outnumber leftwingers, but conservative talk shows and TV shows are extremely popular and high-rated, while so few people tune in to the few attempts at liberal talk radio, etc., that they can't make it financially.
This was almost true -- right wing shows definitely draw bigger audiences, by a massive margin -- but that outnumbering thing caught you. Link, please? I went looking for a breakdown of the parties and didn't find a good source for one. Latest I could find was 2004, when about 55 million citizens were registered Republicans and about 72 million were registered Democrats. A 2008 Pew Research paper says it runs 51% Dem to 38% Rep.
Fox News, which simply tries to offer "fair and balanced reporting" routinely has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and other left-leaning cable news networks combined.
Fox News speaks to its base. Aside from the fairly obvious bits of bias you can see there every day, several memos have surfaced over the past few months that show Fox execs handing down what the spin needed to be. Fox News itself is slightly better than the rest of its programming, but the rest of the programming on that channel is so overwhelmingly anti-Democrat it's hard to tell. You're right about the ratings, though.
So the so-called fairness doctrine would have the effect of taking Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reille, Rush Limbaugh, etc., off the air, just because liberals cannot compete with them.
Now liberals are trying to paint conservatives as the major offenders in ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, for the same ulterior motive--to shut down the conservative voices that they otherwise cannot compete with fairly.
So close. But you continue to baldly state that liberals are fighting against conservatives, when mostly the people who are fighting are fighting against nutjob conservatives. They would like some control levied against those who openly lie and spew venom and poison the political process by making it impossible for anyone to work together.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: This was almost true -- right wing shows definitely draw bigger audiences, by a massive margin -- but that outnumbering thing caught you. Link, please? I went looking for a breakdown of the parties and didn't find a good source for one. Latest I could find was 2004, when about 55 million citizens were registered Republicans and about 72 million were registered Democrats. A 2008 Pew Research paper says it runs 51% Dem to 38% Rep.
Just to play a little devil's advocacy here (or maybe go under the guise of fairness), the 2008 report is dated. Democrats do outnumber Republicans by a fairly health margin, though self-describing independents outnumber the both of them. When leaners are taken into account, these days there's only a 1 point gap between democrats and republicans.
But what's more at issue is we have a little bit of apples to oranges going here. Ron was talking about liberals and conservatives, not democrats and republicans. When you go with political ideology, conservatives dooutnumber liberals by a healthy margin. Self-identifying Republicans have become a fairly homogenous group as far as ideology is concerned with far more identifying with conservative than democrats identifying with liberal. Indeed, within the democratic party, liberals and moderates have only a 1 point gap separating them.
ETA: You're spot on with everything else though. /ETA
And just to add to the record, I'm not asking conservatives to stop expressing their political viewpoint. I'm asking that folks own up to their rhetoric. I'm concerned by the violent tone our country has taken. Many conservative cases have been pointed out. But there are liberal cases too, I admit it. Like Gwar disemboweling Sarah Palin in effigy at their concerts. I'm not cool with that, and I loathe Sarah Palin. Yeah, Gwar is free to express themselves that way. But just because you're free to do or say something doesn't mean you should.
The finger pointing of who went violent first, who is violent more often, and who deserves more blame is ridiculous. Can't we be parental to our fringe elements and say, "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it*?"
*Non-violently, of course.
[ January 13, 2011, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:[W]hen a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
quote:[W]hat we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
quote:The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Gabrielle Giffords has opened her eye's so I heard from Channel 2 news this morning ...
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Rawrain, please, please, please, apostrophes are for possessives, not plurals.
So: there are two cars. The first car´s hood is damaged. Ok? Please fix this, it´s very annoying.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
I love this sentiment.
-Bok
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
"Be the change you wish to make in the world" Mahatma Gahndi
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Weak-Dead, there are exceptions. While usually apostrophes indicate possession (or contractions), in some cases the apostrophe must be omitted for possession. Example: It's clear to see that its color is blue. To make it even worse, sometimes you have to leave off the "s": "That is the Johnsons' house."
What can we expect? English is a trainwreck between Anglo-Saxon and Norman French, with Latin and Greek roots all stirred up in the mix. Although, come to think of it, I do not recall that Koiné Greek or Latin had much punctuation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm aware of that, Ron. It's not relevant to the issue at hand. I'm an English teacher myself. Start with what you have, finish with what you want.
The key issue here is clarity. There are multiple takes from different style guides on plural possessives, but the way he is using the apostrophe is just plain wrong. It's out of laziness, I suspect- not a lack of comprehension.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Weak-Dead, there are exceptions. While usually apostrophes indicate possession (or contractions), in some cases the apostrophe must be omitted for possession. Example: It's clear to see that its color is blue.
That's because "its" is already by definition a possessive word, like "his" or "hers", it's not actually an exception at all.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
True enough, jebus202. But it still looks like an exception, though, that confuses people all the time whether to use it's or its.
Orincoro, I am so used to putting up with blatant misspellings of so many basic words in forums like this, that it seems pedantic to quibble over punctuation protocols. Those are the least of our problems. If you even start to make an issue out of all the misspellings, you get accused of being a "spelling nazi." That's apparently something like being a "grammar nazi," which some seem to believe is even worse.
I do admit, sometimes it does get a bit appalling to discover how many people seem to be unable to speak and write their own native language. Especially we Americans, who generally are too aloof to bother learning any other languages.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Oops, I just noticed, I misspelled Week_Dead Possum's name. I spelled it Weak-Dead. Sorry about that. Wasn't deliberate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Ahem. Getting back on topic, I think it is wonderful news that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes, and when her husband asked if she could see him, she moved her arm and hand and gave a thumbs-up. He also asked her to touch his ring, and she did; then he asked her to touch his watch, and she did. There were several other people in the room, friends and colleagues from Congress, who were thrilled to see this. This demonstrates that she really can see, and that she can comprehend instructions and comply with them. It also of course demonstrates that she can hear and understand what she hears. Now we need to see if she can talk, and if so, with how much of her former facility and acuity. Wouldn't it truly be nothing less than a true miracle if she can come all the way back--regain all her faculties, so she can return to her seat in the House of Representatives? Right now she still has the breathing tube in to protect her airways, even though she is breathing on her own. When doctors decide to remove the breathing tube, then maybe we can see if and how well she can talk. Then they can start to test her memory, long-term and short-term.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I would hate to be the person to bring her up to date.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One tea party leader says that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has herself to blame for getting shot in the head Saturday.
The Arizona congresswoman shouldn't have attended an event "in full view of the public" if she had security concerns, according to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries.
Giffords warned MSNBC's Chuck Todd last year that there would be "consequences" to violent rhetoric and imagery after Fox News' Sarah Palin released a graphic which placed crosshairs over the congresswoman's district.
"But the thing is that the way that [Palin] has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said. "And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action."
But Humphries thinks Giffords was just speaking out against Palin for political gain.
"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
"For all the stuff they accuse [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we're hearing right now."
"There are people who are genuinely confused, scared, and I understand it. But there are also people who are deliberately manipulating this event and tragedy for political ends," Humpries added.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I would hate to be the person to bring her up to date.
yeah, including the part where she probably will have to be told multiple times.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But there are also people who are deliberately manipulating this event and tragedy for political ends," Humpries added.
You can say that again, sheesh.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Samp-
From what I can tell from the quote you posted, Humphries is saying suggestions that Giffords was truly concerned for her personal safety are contradicted by the fact that she had no personal security at the event. He's responding to the portion of the population who are pointing to Palin's map and saying something like this was bound to happen, and that furthermore Giffords knew it. You might not find his contradictory evidence very persuasive (I'm certainly not convinced it means very much), but he's in no way saying that 'she has herself to blame.'
Was that a quote from somewhere, or your own personal thoughts?
<edit>It apparently comes courtesy of Crooks and Liars. Following their link-thru to the Guardian article verifies that Humphries was talking specifically about the suggestion that Giffords was concerned for her life, that she took her own complaints about the violence Palin's map might bring seriously. The excerpts from the Guardian interview show a relatively thoughtful, concerned individual who expresses his sadness, his respect for Giffords as a political opponent, and his concern over how this event will impact people's desire to engage in political dialogue in the future. It is not a portait of an angry, selfish, cold-hearted man. I think Crooks & Liars take, which you posted here, is significantly twisting the facts to make him into a convenient enemy.</edit>
[ January 13, 2011, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it. She needs to heal a little more before she is saddled with that huge a burden of grief. Her friend, the federal judge--personal staff members wounded or killed (I forgot how many). And that nine year-old girl, Christina Green--so pretty, so optimistic, just won election to the student council at her elementary school, brought there by a neighbor to see a woman who was successful in politics, born on 9/11/01. I just hope whoever tells Rep. Giffords keeps stressing to her that it was not her fault. She did not get those people killed. It's likely going to prey on her. If she does recover fully enough that she can return to her seat in Congress, I suspect she will never again host such an open, public event without any security. Nobody will. And to the extent that makes a further separation between us and our elected officials, that is a loss for our whole society.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it.
What??
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it.
What??
ron is just saying that considering it wont benefit her recovery, theres no need at the moment to burden her with the details. the breathing tube comment was the most irrelevant part of his post. im surprised you took issue with it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Seconding Parkour's "What" and adding my own embellishment of "the heck?"
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im surprised you took issue with it.
The most irrelevant? Because what kind of quack doctor is going to leave someone intubated for that???
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im surprised you took issue with it.
The most irrelevant? Because what kind of quack doctor is going to leave someone intubated for that???
yeah. do you really feel it necessary to comment on ron's speculation given that you two almost never agree?
i imagine you reading the thread and getting to ron's post:
"what!? ron said something from way left-field? im going to call him on it because god knows no one else will and it needs to be done!"
seriously..
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
I really think that's an exceedingly uncharitable reading of what Humphries is saying. What I got from the Guardian interview, was that he was asked if tea-party supported violent rhetoric, like Palin's map, was partly to blame for Laughner's actions. He's responding first by saying there's no evidence of any link between Laughner and any of the rhetoric, and second by saying no one really believed before the event that any of the rhetoric had significantly changed the likelihood of violence. In support of this idea, he says that Giffords didn't feel the need for personal security at a public event.
It may be a weak justification for the issue he's discussing, but 'blame-the-victim' it isn't.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Some choice statements from the comment section of the Crooks and Liars story:
quote:These people are troglodytes
quote:Worthless Teabaggers
quote:These "people" truly are subhuman. Pond scum.
quote:What a worthless piece of human excrement.
quote:[A]re these people even human?This totally makes me sick if anything.All these people just don't even get it, they have got to be totally mindless zombies.
quote:Palin's teabaggers are some really sick *** terrorists and killers.
quote:Have I said tonight how much I hate these people?
quote:[W]hat we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another.
That last one wasn't on the comment board. Someone else said it, somewhere.
<edit>This is just to say, the Crooks & Liars blog serves members of a certain subpopulation of the liberal community that really like demonizing their political opposition. In this case, the site members' collective normative bias has caused them to significantly misrepresent something a political opponent has said.</edit>
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im surprised you took issue with it.
The most irrelevant? Because what kind of quack doctor is going to leave someone intubated for that???
yeah. do you really feel it necessary to comment on ron's speculation given that you two almost never agree?
i imagine you reading the thread and getting to ron's post:
"what!? ron said something from way left-field? im going to call him on it because god knows no one else will and it needs to be done!"
seriously..
What do you expect to accomplish with this post? So there's something really weird that Ron says in a post, and I really do wonder what the heck he's talking about, but I should just not ask, to make you feel better?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
I really think that's an exceedingly uncharitable reading of what Humphries is saying. What I got from the Guardian interview, was that he was asked if tea-party supported violent rhetoric, like Palin's map, was partly to blame for Laughner's actions. He's responding first by saying there's no evidence of any link between Laughner and any of the rhetoric, and second by saying no one really believed before the event that any of the rhetoric had significantly changed the likelihood of violence. In support of this idea, he says that Giffords didn't feel the need for personal security at a public event.
It may be a weak justification for the issue he's discussing, but 'blame-the-victim' it isn't.
Conversely, in the Glenn Beck clip linked earlier Beck stated he spends something in the neighborhood of $1 million on his personal security. Guess that means liberals have literally declared war on him.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Conversely, in the Glenn Beck clip linked earlier Beck stated he spends something in the neighborhood of $1 million on his personal security. Guess that means liberals have literally declared war on him.
Or that he's paranoid. Or concerned about one of his own 'followers.'
I think the correlation between feeling endangered and being endangered is not always strong. People feel unsafe on airplanes, but safe in their cars. Parents keep their kids away from strangers but let them play unattended around unfenced pools. We're very prone to availability bias in such things, and Glenn Beck dwells a lot (from what I've heard) on frightening scenarios that would make him more prone to beefing up security than others, perhaps.
Furthermore, in Giffords' case, the non-existence of security doesn't necessarily demonstrate she was unconcerned for her safety, or that her comments about Palin's map were simply political posturing. Like I said, Humphries' evidence doesn't strongly support his point, but he's not blaming Giffords for getting shot.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I am surprised that anyone took issue with my speculation about an additional reason for leaving the breathing tube in Rep. Giffords. For those who may not remember, a few days ago doctors removed her from the artificial respirator, and she has been breathing on her own ever since. BUT they left in the breathing tube--they SAID, to protect her airways. I was merely suggesting that an additional reason might have been to prevent her from asking questions that doctors do not want to answer until she is stronger. To my knowledge, doctors have not yet removed the breathing tube.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There has been some criticism of Rep. Giffords for having such an open-to-the-public meeting with no security at all, after the threats she had aleady received, including a prior contact with Loughner. Most congress people, when trying to touch base with their constituents, sit in their local office and allow people to come in to see them--in a more controlled setting.
But Giffords has done this before, a few other office-holders have, and nothing has happened. It is always easier to criticize in hindsight than to take foresight seriously.
I think that one unfortunate consequence of this tragedy is that office-holders will not dare to be quite so freely accessible to the public. I think our society is less, just as our society is less because in most places, we cannot leave our doors unlocked any more. (I can remember when we seldom locked our doors.) Things change, and not always for the better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was merely suggesting that an additional reason might have been to prevent her from asking questions that doctors do not want to answer until she is stronger.
And it surprises you that some people considered this an offensive possibility?
-----
quote:But Giffords has done this before, a few other office-holders have, and nothing has happened.
Every senator and congressperson I have ever had has made a regular routine out of doing this sort of thing.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For those who may not remember, a few days ago doctors removed her from the artificial respirator, and she has been breathing on her own ever since. BUT they left in the breathing tube--they SAID, to protect her airways. I was merely suggesting that an additional reason might have been to prevent her from asking questions that doctors do not want to answer until she is stronger. To my knowledge, doctors have not yet removed the breathing tube.
You live in a strange, strange world.
You actually believe that a doctor would gag a patient to stop them from asking about something difficult.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, seriously. I want to know where anyone gets the idea that a doctor might have even plausibly left a breathing tube inside someone for that reason. I mean, for what reasons does someone think her doctors would do that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doctors are probably more likely to believe in things like evolution, and thus not to be trusted.
ETA:
quote:Most congress people, when trying to touch base with their constituents, sit in their local office and allow people to come in to see them--in a more controlled setting.
And, no, this isn't true at all either. Particularly before and after campaigning, congress members do wide-open public appearances frequently. Are you going to stand by this strange statement, Ron, or pretend it never happened?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok, i'm providing this link just for a laugh. It's not about 'all conservatives having a monopoly on violent rhetoric' or whatever, it's just a lolworthy statement on the part of this individual right-wing radio host.
quote:Local conservative talk radio host Bob Durgin hasn’t pulled his on-air punches in the wake of Saturday’s shootings in Arizona, lambasting liberals for using the tragic event to slander conservatives like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
“God, I hate the liberal media,” Durgin said Monday during his highly rated afternoon show on WHP580. “It’s like, if you don’t follow Obama and believe in Obama’s policies, then you are a potential terrorist.”
In talking about The New York Times, often seen as queen of the left by conservatives, Durgin added, “Somebody ought to burn that paper down. Just go to New York and blow that sucker right out of the water.”
'_.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The LA Times (and other outlets) have released, courtesy of Pima Community College, a video Loughner made of himself wandering around the campus making angry statements. The video, recorded about 4 months ago, was the final straw in his expulsion from the college.
A transcript (to the best of my ability and patience) of Loughner's rantings:
quote:Alright, so here's what we're doing. We're examing the torture of students. We are looking at students who have been tortured. Their low-income pay in two wars. The war that we are in right now is currently illegal under the constitution. What makes it illegal is the currency. The date is also wrong. It's impossible for me to...it's mind-control.
(sees someone walking out of a building) How's it going!? Thanks for the 'B'; I'm pissed off. (chuckling laughter as man walks off with a confused 'Wha?'). I lost my freedom of speech to that guy. And this is what happens. And I'm in a terrible place. This is the school that I go to. This is my genocide school, where I'm going to be homeless because of the school.
I haven't forgotten the teacher who gave me a 'B' for my freedom of speech. This is where my sociology class was. And here's the microwave that I'll be using when I'm homeless, in the cafeteria where they make illegal transactions.
This is Pima Community College, one of the biggest scams in America. The students are so illiterate it effects their daily lives. Here's the best part; the bookstore. The bookstore, the bookstore, the bookstore. It is so illegal to sell this book under the Constitution. We are also sheltered by our freedom of speech. They are controlling the grammer. They control the grammer.
This is the police station. This is where the whole shaboozie goes down with the illegal...activity.
If the student is unable to locate the external universe, then the student is unable to locate the internal universe. Where is all my subjects? I could say something sound right now, but I don't feel like it.
All the teachers that you have are being paid illegally and have illegal authority over the Constitution of the United States under the First Amendment. This is genocide in America.
Thank you. This is Jared of Pima College.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you are all educated stupid. Time is simultaneous four-day creation.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, there is nothing nefarious about doctors not wanting someone in critical condition to be aprised of really tragic news. It is a matter of obeying their oath to "do no harm." Doctors and nurses frequently withhold information about a spouse dying in the same accident inwhich the patient was injured, until the patient is off the critical list. The patient may demand to know, but normally doctors will not volunteer that information. I used to be married to a nurse who worked in Critical Care.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really? Did she tell you that they would intentionally gag patients to prevent them from asking questions?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do believe that doctors routinely withhold bad news if they feel it will hinder the patient's immediate recovery.
But I do not believe would purposely leave in a breathing tube to help avoid the issue. I would think the removal of the breathing tube when the patient is ready for it to be removed is important and a valuable diagnostic measure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I just have no idea why Ron is stuck on this notion. Just pride I'm sure.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I only suggested that maybe this was one reason they left in the breathing tube. What is the matter with some of you people? You are the ones who are showing stubborn pride. You jump on me for making a reasonable suggestion? If you think it is not a reasonable suggestion, then show why. What would be wrong with doing so? Has anyone asked the doctors if they are keeping the news of how many died from Giffords? Keeping the breathing tube in would prevent Giffords from talking. Anyone deny that? So why is the breathing tube still in, several days after she was weaned off the respirator, and a day or so after she has shown that she can see, she can focus, she has enough motor control to move her arms and hands and fingers in a directed manner?
All I have gotten from my habitual, knee-jerk critics is "Oh no, a doctor wouldn't do that!" How do any of you know? How about asking a few doctors whether they would consider that "unethical," or in some other way improper.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You jump on me for making a reasonable suggestion?
You're being questioned about it, in the 'wait, why would you think that they would do that?' because it's not a reasonable suggestion. It is unethical, and improper, and virtually all doctors maintaining an intubated patient would know it. It's not plausible, but we want to understand why you're fixated on the notion that it is. Where does it come from? Where have you gotten the idea that something like this is plausible or in any way commonplace? Why wouldn't you view your own presupposition with even a tenth of the skepticism that you apply to stuff that you aren't individually invested in?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"All I have gotten from my habitual, knee-jerk critics is "Oh no, a doctor wouldn't do that!" How do any of you know?"
Because it is unethical. Because if a doctor did that, he could lose his license to practice medicine. Ron, having a breathing tube kept in your airway is not safe. It can cause damage to the larynx and vocal chords, it carries a risk of infection, and it is emotionally and physically distressing to the patient. The only reason; again, the *only* reason one is kept in is if taking it out would be considered a greater risk than leaving it in. In this case, the woman was shot in the head. Brain injury and consequent swelling and bruising of the brain can have unpredictable effects on breathing. They don't know what kind of control he has over her airway. They are probably not sure if she will have problems swallowing, keeping herself from gagging, and regulating her own breathing reliably once the tube is out. If she turns out to have these issues, it will have to be reinserted, which carries further risk of complication.
Understand, as well, that a person who is intubated is not typically kept fully alert. They are sedated, while the airway is maintained and the body is given a chance to heal. So it's not like she's sitting there desperately waving her hands and trying to communicate with people. Hell, Ron, all she'd have to do to ask these questions is write them on a piece of paper. She's not even in a state to do that.
In short, Ron, the suggestion that they left it in to effectively gag her is utterly, patently, ridiculous. Her family would likely not stand for it, and a medical review board would *certainly* not. As a patient, she has rights- and one of those rights is not to be subjected to the continuation of an invasive and dangerous procedure out of some shadowy wish not to emotionally distress her. You are so far out of your depth that you are having trouble recognizing that there are people in this discussion with some knowledge of this subject beyond your own. This includes me- I was in the past a licensed medical technician. I am aware of the risks and complications of both intubation and brain injury, and I am telling you, from that position of authority, which is not even an impressive one, that you have no clue what it is you are talking about.
So, I'm telling you, I *know* the doctor wouldn't do that if he were a responsible physician. It's a really, really stupid idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was aware of that from regularly watching House M.D. And if I can recognize the flaws in your knowledge of something based on their layman's viewing of a prime time cable television show, Ron, perhaps you ought to re-evaluate the certainty with which you make some claims.
Then again, I'm just one of your knee-jerk, atheist/agnostic critics or something. No need to engage the brain God gave you and think about what I'm saying, particularly since it's criticism.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How about asking a few doctors whether they would consider that "unethical," or in some other way improper.
Absolutely. The risk of pneumonia and other associated sequelae of being mechanically ventilated unnecessarily makes detubing at the earliest possible time the medically appropriate thing to do. There are other, better [less invasive and less dangerous] ways to keep her from asking questions if that were the concern [for her mental health, and I can barely make a potential case for that in my head] -- e.g., keep her mildly sedated on something like Valium, but not sedated enough to require the (medical) trauma of mechanical ventilation.
---
Edited also to add: Orincoro said it so well, really.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Now you guys are just being blindly authoritarian. Why are you so certain what would be unethical for doctors to do? Are any of you doctors? How about asking a doctor, before you presume to make any more of your bold, authoritarian pronouncements. I think you will probably find that most doctors would consider it clever to leave in the breathing tube for a few extra days to prevent the patient from asking questions that could lead to a great increase in emotional trauma for a patient who is already critical. She was shot through the head, for crying out loud. You don't want anything to increase her blood pressure while her brain is still in danger of swelling or renewed bleeding.
By the way, CT, the purpose for leaving the breathing tube in is to PREVENT aspiration pneumonia from happening. That's what they mean when they say they left it in to protect the airway. What doctors desire to do as soon as possible is wean the patient off the respirator (which they have done, thankfully), because if a patient is on the respirator too long, the body comes to depend on that, and it can be a protracted and difficult process to wean the patient off a ventilator. The problem is not the breathing tube, the problem is the automatic respirator breathing for the patient.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So I know this is shifting the conversation away from doctors and intubation and all that, but...
I'm baffled by all the people in this thread that keep sticking with the idea that conservative politics is somehow infused with more violence or violent rhetoric than liberal. I mean... genuinely confused.
I'm not currently addressing the issue of whether or not conservatives should embrace or decry the violent rhetoric that really is propagated by their side; for the most part I think that sort of inflammatory language is counterproductive but I don't think any of it, on either side, is perhaps as bad as some of you do. I don't think that rhetoric on either side has anything to do with Loughner's actions, nor do I think it makes sense to use his actions as a reason to bring up this discussion in the first place. But that's really irrelevant to what I actually wanted to comment on.
So many people in this thread keep repeating the narrative that, while both sides might engage in some violent rhetoric, conservatives are obviously the really guilty ones. Really? Are you sure? That hasn't been my perception, certainly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Now you guys are just being blindly authoritarian. Why are you so certain what would be unethical for doctors to do? Are any of you doctors? How about asking a doctor, before you presume to make any more of your bold, authoritarian pronouncements. I think you will probably find that most doctors would consider it clever to leave in the breathing tube for a few extra days to prevent the patient from asking questions that could lead to a great increase in emotional trauma for a patient who is already critical. She was shot through the head, for crying out loud. You don't want anything to increase her blood pressure while her brain is still in danger of swelling or renewed bleeding.
By the way, CT, the purpose for leaving the breathing tube in is to PREVENT aspiration pneumonia from happening. That's what they mean when they say they left it in to protect the airway. What doctors desire to do as soon as possible is wean the patient off the respirator (which they have done, thankfully), because if a patient is on the respirator too long, the body comes to depend on that, and it can be a protracted and difficult process to wean the patient off a ventilator. The problem is not the breathing tube, the problem is the automatic respirator breathing for the patient.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that CT is a doctor.
Furthermore, even if she wasn't a doctor, you aren't a doctor either. If I was to assume that everyone in this thread was just making logical guesses as to the value of the use of a breathing tube as a gag, then I'd say you're falling way behind in this debate. Everyone on the "NO!" side of this debate has offered perfectly reasonable explanations as to why it would be wrong, dangerous and/or unethical to use a breathing tube for that purpose. Nothing on your side seems to adequately rebut and of their arguments.
But that's just a hypothetical. CT is right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So I know this is shifting the conversation away from doctors and intubation and all that, but...
I'm baffled by all the people in this thread that keep sticking with the idea that conservative politics is somehow infused with more violence or violent rhetoric than liberal. I mean... genuinely confused.
I'm not currently addressing the issue of whether or not conservatives should embrace or decry the violent rhetoric that really is propagated by their side; for the most part I think that sort of inflammatory language is counterproductive but I don't think any of it, on either side, is perhaps as bad as some of you do. I don't think that rhetoric on either side has anything to do with Loughner's actions, nor do I think it makes sense to use his actions as a reason to bring up this discussion in the first place. But that's really irrelevant to what I actually wanted to comment on.
So many people in this thread keep repeating the narrative that, while both sides might engage in some violent rhetoric, conservatives are obviously the really guilty ones. Really? Are you sure? That hasn't been my perception, certainly.
I think if you look, it won't be hard to find examples of violent sounding rhetoric on the liberal side of the aisle. To me, it's necessarily about being able to come up with 100 incidents over the last 10 years and say "look! they do it too!"
It's about the constant drum beat on the Conservative side. I think they are largely to blame for poisoning politics in to what it has become. They've demonized the entire Democratic party and liberals in general (I mean geez, who made it their life's mission to turn liberal into a dirty word?) as anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Freedom, etc. It's not even about the random speech that uses violent metaphors, though I find those especially problematic. It's about a culture of demonization, and you can find a lot of individual examples on the left I'm sure, but you'll likely never be able to convince me that it exists to nearly the same degree as it does on the right. Democrats have been trying to compromise for years, and for years they've gotten slapped down and demonized for it. It's only gotten worse since 2006 when Democrats became the majority, and ever since then, Republicans have generally refused to participate in the process at all except to grind it to a halt, and every word out of their mouths is about how evil Democrats want to take your freedoms and how unAmerican they are. We've been hearing that since around September 12, 2001.
I think part of it is just that Republicans are so damned good at staying on message as a team. They all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high, and they do it into every microphone that's turned on within speaking distance of them. They saturate the press with it. It's about the national mouthpiece, not just about the fringe elements that both sides have. When it comes to that aspect of national discourse, yes, I think Republicans are far, far worse.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron, CT is 1) a physician, 2) a professor of medicine, and 3) holds a doctorate in philosophy with (if i remember correctly) speciality in ethics). You are a fool to disagree with her on this and an even greater fool to presume you could lecture her on the topic.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Ron, CT is 1) a physician, 2) a professor of medicine, and 3) holds a doctorate in philosophy with (if i remember correctly) speciality in ethics). You are a fool to disagree with her on this and an even greater fool to presume you could lecture her on the topic.
Hey Ron - seems like this is the ultimate test to me.
You can admit that you're likely way off base and drop your stupid argument, in which case all your detractors who have (correctly thus far) pointed out that you are incapable will have to adjust their position (at least slightly).
Or you can act in your usual fashion and "stick to your guns" in a baseless arrogant fashion.
Which is it going to be? I know where the safe money is...
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
A sudden moment of clairvoyance has come upon me. I'm seeing... the future! I see... Ron... he's dropping this topic and... he's not posting again in this thread until the discussion has shifted to something entirely different and people have given up trying to show him why what he said is crazy...
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Are any of you doctors?
Yes, I am a medical doctor.
quote:How about asking a doctor, before you presume to make any more of your bold, authoritarian pronouncements. I think you will probably find that most doctors would consider it clever to leave in the breathing tube for a few extra days to prevent the patient from asking questions that could lead to a great increase in emotional trauma for a patient who is already critical.
No, the question came up specifically in my training (in an ICU, working as a physician). The answer was "no" because the medical risks are so great. There are other ways to deal with the problem that are not so invasive. [see above]
It's bad medicine to keep a patient intubated just for that reason. We don't go for "clever," but for "medically appropriate."
quote:By the way, CT, the purpose for leaving the breathing tube in is to PREVENT aspiration pneumonia from happening. That's what they mean when they say they left it in to protect the airway.
Yes, that is one concern. And if she cannot protect her airway (which is an issue of functioning reflexes, not of mood), then it is the medically appropriate reason to keep the airway in.
There is also a well-known and quite problematic issue of ventilator-associated pneumonia (it even has an acronym, VAP). The Wikipedia article is pretty good. Excerpt:
quote:VAP primarily occurs because the endotracheal or tracheostomy tube allows free passage of bacteria into the lower segments of the lung in a person who often has underlying lung or immune problems. Bacteria travel in small droplets both through the endotracheal tube and around the cuff. Often, bacteria colonize the endotracheal or tracheostomy tube and are embolized into the lungs with each breath. Bacteria may also be brought down into the lungs with procedures such as deep suctioning or bronchoscopy.
Additionally, as Orincoro noted above, there is airway trauma from the tracheal tube itself. Even when "cuffed," or cushioned by an inflatable doughnut-shaped balloon, it is damaging to the surrounding tissues to remain intubated. And just having the tube in place is associated with increased intracranial pressure, which -- as you note -- is low on the list of what you want to be happening. So much so that medications are chosen to suppress that effect in head trauma patients.
It's a big deal to be intubated and an equally big deal to stay intubated. On daily rounds in the ICU, each day we would assess whether the tube could safely be removed, or whether it had to stay for medical reasons. If no compelling medical reason to keep it, the chest X-ray was cancelled for that day (checking position of the tube -- another reason not to leave it in unless absolutely necessary) and it was pulled out.
---
Edited to add VAP excerpt, tidy up typos, and the following: Ah, I see others have posted meanwhile. Ron, it's a reasonable idea to have, but it isn't feasible or defensible in practice because the situation is much more complicated physiologically than you might think.
[ January 16, 2011, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Now you guys are just being blindly authoritarian. Why are you so certain what would be unethical for doctors to do? Are any of you doctors? How about asking a doctor, before you presume to make any more of your bold, authoritarian pronouncements. I think you will probably find that most doctors would consider it clever to leave in the breathing tube for a few extra days to prevent the patient from asking questions that could lead to a great increase in emotional trauma for a patient who is already critical. She was shot through the head, for crying out loud. You don't want anything to increase her blood pressure while her brain is still in danger of swelling or renewed bleeding.
No, this is a very, very silly supposition, and you are simply wrong. Sorry to be "authoritarian," I forgot that in your world, everyone is entitled to his own facts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
CT, Thank you for the clarification. I always appreciate your politely and calmly reasoned explanations on issues of medicine and medical ethics.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think we call that passive aggression, TR.
(on your part, not on CT's)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think we call that passive aggression, TR.
(on your part, not on CT's)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So I know this is shifting the conversation away from doctors and intubation and all that, but...
I'm baffled by all the people in this thread that keep sticking with the idea that conservative politics is somehow infused with more violence or violent rhetoric than liberal. I mean... genuinely confused.
I'm not currently addressing the issue of whether or not conservatives should embrace or decry the violent rhetoric that really is propagated by their side; for the most part I think that sort of inflammatory language is counterproductive but I don't think any of it, on either side, is perhaps as bad as some of you do. I don't think that rhetoric on either side has anything to do with Loughner's actions, nor do I think it makes sense to use his actions as a reason to bring up this discussion in the first place. But that's really irrelevant to what I actually wanted to comment on.
So many people in this thread keep repeating the narrative that, while both sides might engage in some violent rhetoric, conservatives are obviously the really guilty ones. Really? Are you sure? That hasn't been my perception, certainly.
You're forgetting that conservatives are more likely to be gun owners, and tend more to fit the typical profile of an NRA member.
If you don't own a gun, it's harder to shoot people. So I hear, anyway.
Conservatives, as a group, are MUCH more likely to support totally unfettered gun ownership.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thank you, CT. You may be correct. I was only suggesting it might be a possibility that doctors were leaving the breathing tube in--even after taking her off the respirator--for a FEW DAYS extra to help prevent her from asking questions about the shooting that they don't want her to know until she is out of the woods. Everything I said remains true, about the main concern being to wean the patient off the RESPIRATOR. Leaving the breathing tube in is a separate issue. Did you make that distinction in your comments? I am not sure you did.
There are people here who are so madly obsessed with contradicting everything I say about anything, it is hard to maintain even a reasonable suggestion in the face of their blizzard of hateful insults and ill-informed assertions. I just hope you are not one of them.
I look forward to the announcement that doctors have finally removed the breathing tube, and to being informed when Rep. Giffords was told about the full scope of the shootings. Unless the doctors involved say otherwise, I will still suspect that they left the breathing tube in at least partially for the purpose of forestalling questions about that until she is out of the woods, and the emotional trauma would be less likely to kill her. None of you have given me a logical reason to believe otherwise.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
You are simply suggesting something totally unreasonable. It´s just not reasonable. There is nothing about it that approaches reason. You have been provided with ample explanations of why that is. You continue now only out of stubborn pride. You lose. Good day sir.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Everything I said remains true, about the main concern being to wean the patient off the RESPIRATOR. Leaving the breathing tube in is a separate issue. Did you make that distinction in your comments? I am not sure you did.
Yes, I made the distinction. As I noted, the breathing tube itself is a primary medical problem -- see again, e.g., the excerpt on ventilator-assisted pneumonia (it references the problem the tube poses because it presents a direct pathway for the bacteria to enter lungs and cause pneumonia). Additionally, it is the tube which traumatizes the trachea.
There are also problems with being on a respirator, as you note. That doesn't mean there aren't serious problems with the tube itself, as well.
quote:There are people here who are so madly obsessed with contradicting everything I say about anything, it is hard to maintain even a reasonable suggestion in the face of their blizzard of hateful insults and ill-informed assertions. I just hope you are not one of them.
I don't think we have spoken before. You haven't really been on my radar, Ron, and I suspect I haven't been on yours. We seem to move in different threads, and I think it will stay that way.
I care about this issue because physicians are being presented as [of questionable ethics and competence], and that doesn't aid in public confidence at all. I'm fine if you want to hold whatever belief about what decisions would be made in that setting -- but as someone from that setting, I also want to be on record as disagreeing with that belief.
quote:... and the emotional trauma would be less likely to kill her. None of you have given me a logical reason to believe otherwise.
a. She could have had the tube removed and be mildly sedated enough on valium to keep her from being coherent enough to form questions -- if that were the goal -- rather than keep the tube in, if the tube were not medically indicated for airway protection.
b. The presence of the tube and the suctioning of secretions it requires actually increases the pressure in the brain, which -- as you noted -- is what should be avoided if possible. See (a) above.
--- Edited to add: I respect that you care enough about her well-being to try sorting through this. I am also not interested in dogpiling on you. As I said, we have tended not to interact, and I'm not going to chase the issue here just for points' sake. At this time, I'm sure we are in accord at our best wishes for her wellbeing, and we can leave it at that. I will.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'd like to point out that at this point no one knows if she could speak even if the tube were removed. Brain injury could prevent her from having muscular control of her vocal chords and other muscles required for speech, she may also have damage to the speech centers in her brain, and thus not be able to form words. All we do know is that she can hear and recognize the meaning of words.
Until the tube is removed, there isn't even a chance to find out if she is capable of speech, and I would think that that information would be a pretty important part of forming a prognosis with respect to her recovery.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good points, Glenn. If I remember right, though, the speech center is on the middle side of the left hemisphere, and the bullet would have passed through the frontal lobe entering from her temple to exit at the opposite side of her forehead. Seems like it would have likely missed the speech center. Of course, the bullet must have produced damage in the immediately surrounding tissue from the heat and shockwave of its passage through the brain--this is why it is so uncertain as yet what faculties she may have left, and why it is so encouraging that she can see and can respond to instructions. There is also a speech center in the right hemisphere, that is used more often for singing. There is the famous case of one of the Beach Boys who suffered damage in an accident to the speech center in his left hemisphere, and could no longer talk--but he could still sing!
Week-Dead, please explain why my suggestion is, as you claim, "totally unreasonable." That is a rather extreme assertion. It is really just based on no more than the opinion some have that "a doctor wouldn't do that." I think the reasons I gave are reasonable--the emotional trauma of learning about the other shootings could kill her, and she cannot ask about it while the breathing tube remains in. Remember, all she knows is that she was shot, since she was the first one shot. She does not know about her aide being dead, about her friend, Judge Roll, being dead, or about the nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, being dead, or the fact that three others besides died, and 12 more besides Gifford were injured. (I think that was the count--19 total shot.)
[ January 16, 2011, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, an ethical doctor would not do that. It would increase her medical risk for no good reason, and symbolically involve inflicting medical harm on a woman just to shut her up. That's why, at the top of the page, I was amazed that you didn't realize that your suggestion was offensive; it amounts to asserting that her doctors might be unethical -- and stupid (since, after all, there are many ways to keep her from asking questions that would not do her as much harm).
It would be, I believe, a straightforward violation of the Hippocratic Oath to keep a breathing tube in a patient to prevent her from being able to ask awkward questions.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:all she knows is that she was shot, since she was the first one shot
She may not even know this. A trauma like this could prevent the memory from having formed. It's possible that she still has no idea why she's in the hospital bed.
But I would argue that it's her right to know, and on those grounds preventing her from asking questions would be a violation of her rights.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points, Glenn. If I remember right, though, the speech center is on the middle side of the left hemisphere, and the bullet would have passed through the frontal lobe entering from her temple to exit at the opposite side of her forehead.
TBI (traumatic brain injury) frequently causes secondary damage to other parts of the brain. Swelling and other issues are common, so a prognosis based solely on where the bullet was is unlikely to be terribly useful.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:In more than 95% of right-handed men, and more than 90% of right-handed women, language and speech are subserved by the brain's left hemisphere. In left-handed people, the incidence of left-hemisphere language dominance has been reported as 73% and 61%.
That is, somewhere around 5-10% of right-handed people have language primarily lateralized to the right, and somewhere around 25-40% of left-handers do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I also am aware of several studies that indicate verbal functions are more delocalized in woman than men. I suspect that finding is somewhat controversial. Even if its true for the typical woman, there is no way to know whether it would be true for a specific individual.
It's also impossible for me to speculate about what delocalized verbal functions would mean for someone with TBI. A function that was delocalized might be more sensitive to damage to any part of the brain but conversely it might make it easier for the brain to compensate for damage in any specific area.
I know 3 people who've experienced TMI. Based on that admittedly limited experience, doctors really don't know enough about the brain to be able to predict how any brain injury will ultimately affect any individuals abilities. You just have to wait and see.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One more thing, its very common for people to have no memory of events surrounding a traumatic personal injury, even when a head injury was not involved. It's relatively unlikely that Rep. Giffords remembers what happened to her.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Based on that admittedly limited experience, doctors really don't know enough about the brain to be able to predict how any brain injury will ultimately affect any individuals abilities. You just have to wait and see.
Yes. As it is often put, "she will tell us what she can do."
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's relatively unlikely that Rep. Giffords remembers what happened to her.
I would tend to agree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Is this my cue to plug the book I think anyone interested in TBI from the perspective of a family that went through it should read?)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So I know this is shifting the conversation away from doctors and intubation and all that, but...
I'm baffled by all the people in this thread that keep sticking with the idea that conservative politics is somehow infused with more violence or violent rhetoric than liberal. I mean... genuinely confused.
I'm not currently addressing the issue of whether or not conservatives should embrace or decry the violent rhetoric that really is propagated by their side; for the most part I think that sort of inflammatory language is counterproductive but I don't think any of it, on either side, is perhaps as bad as some of you do. I don't think that rhetoric on either side has anything to do with Loughner's actions, nor do I think it makes sense to use his actions as a reason to bring up this discussion in the first place. But that's really irrelevant to what I actually wanted to comment on.
So many people in this thread keep repeating the narrative that, while both sides might engage in some violent rhetoric, conservatives are obviously the really guilty ones. Really? Are you sure? That hasn't been my perception, certainly.
I think if you look, it won't be hard to find examples of violent sounding rhetoric on the liberal side of the aisle. To me, it's necessarily about being able to come up with 100 incidents over the last 10 years and say "look! they do it too!"
It's about the constant drum beat on the Conservative side. I think they are largely to blame for poisoning politics in to what it has become. They've demonized the entire Democratic party and liberals in general (I mean geez, who made it their life's mission to turn liberal into a dirty word?) as anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Freedom, etc. It's not even about the random speech that uses violent metaphors, though I find those especially problematic. It's about a culture of demonization, and you can find a lot of individual examples on the left I'm sure, but you'll likely never be able to convince me that it exists to nearly the same degree as it does on the right. Democrats have been trying to compromise for years, and for years they've gotten slapped down and demonized for it. It's only gotten worse since 2006 when Democrats became the majority, and ever since then, Republicans have generally refused to participate in the process at all except to grind it to a halt, and every word out of their mouths is about how evil Democrats want to take your freedoms and how unAmerican they are. We've been hearing that since around September 12, 2001.
I think part of it is just that Republicans are so damned good at staying on message as a team. They all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high, and they do it into every microphone that's turned on within speaking distance of them. They saturate the press with it. It's about the national mouthpiece, not just about the fringe elements that both sides have. When it comes to that aspect of national discourse, yes, I think Republicans are far, far worse.
Hm. I know Samp would never agree to this, but you might. Can we agree to disagree?
Because I still totally disagree, and this issue seems to very much be one of perspective. I'm not sure either you or I are very likely to convince the other, since examples on one side or the other do not definitively prove the trend.
I know that I grew up saturated in a culture that seemed to pretty strongly demonize Republicans. There was little talk of compromise, certainly not in a serious way. You mentioned some common labels conservatives throw at liberals, and you are totally right. And those are wrong, I agree. For the record, I don't think you're unAmerican or anti-freedom, Lyrhawn, I just think we disagree about stuff. That's okay. I disagree with most of my friends.
On the flip side, some common labels for conservatives are: racist, bigot, greedy, anti-freedom, fascist, bloodthirsty, ignorant... the list goes on.
I try not to bring too many details of my personal life into these discussions, as a general rule, but I'm going to now:
One of my siblings has a serious drug and alcohol addiction, a plethora of mental disorders, resists treatment, and is still living with my parents at the age of 35. But my parents have told me, with a straight face, that their biggest disappointment as parents is the fact that I somehow ended up a conservative.
It's not uncommon to see people say things like "The world would be a much better place if all the Republicans were dead" (actually the mother of one of my nephew's best friends said this on facebook just a few weeks ago.)
The disclaimer here is, I guess, that I grew up in the SF Bay Area, which is definitely a particularly strong liberal bastion. So maybe they make more extreme statements than most liberals. But this isn't the only place I have lived, and this isn't the only place I've encountered these ideas, so I'm skeptical that it's solely a matter of location.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This report from Fox News:
quote:Giffords had an operation Saturday to replace the breathing tube with a tracheotomy tube in her windpipe. That allows her to breathe better and frees her from the ventilator.
Though Giffords had been breathing on her own since she was shot in the head Jan. 8, doctors had left the breathing tube in as a precaution. A feeding tube was also put in to provide nutrition.
Those procedures are not out of the ordinary for brain-injured patients.
So as a matter of clarification, Giffords is not breathing through the breathing tube, she is breathing through a tracheotomy tube that bypasses the breathing tube. But they have left in the breathing tube for now.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News also reported this:
quote:The co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party said he is worried about the threats he is receiving, including a remark by a shooting victim made to him at a televised town hall meeting.
Trent Humphries told The Associated Press on Sunday he was surprised when shooting victim James Eric Fuller took a picture of him and said "you're dead."
The 63-year-old Fuller was arrested Saturday on disorderly conduct and threat charges and taken for a psychiatric exam.
So whose rhetoric likely inflamed this person? He probably believed the propaganda of liberals trying to score political points against conservatives by blaming conservatives for the violence in Tucson, and so now he made direct death threats against a Tea Party leader in public. This is where the attempts of liberals to blame conservatives is leading.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So whose rhetoric likely inflamed this person?
The fact that he got shot probably has something to do with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So as a matter of clarification, Giffords is not breathing through the breathing tube, she is breathing through a tracheotomy tube that bypasses the breathing tube. But they have left in the breathing tube for now.
Is this as close as you're going to get to admitting that doctors are unlikely to be deliberately silencing her?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
As a clarification, the only tube for breathing she has in right now is the tracheostomy tube. It "replaced" (see the FOX article***) the endotracheal tube, which goes through the mouth or nose, whereas the tracheostomy tube goes directly through a hole cut in the front of the neck.
Both endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes are types of "tracheal tubes."
quote:They replaced her breathing tube on Saturday with a tracheotomy tube in her windpipe to protect her airways.
Leaving the prior tube in could only lead to problems without adding benefits. You can learn to speak with a tracheostomy tube in place, but it takes time. Reading between the lines, I think this may mean they do not yet have the signs to inspire confidence that she can protect her airway for the foreseeable future. It would not be a good sign, although as The Rabbit noted, it's always a day-by-day game.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So I know this is shifting the conversation away from doctors and intubation and all that, but...
I'm baffled by all the people in this thread that keep sticking with the idea that conservative politics is somehow infused with more violence or violent rhetoric than liberal. I mean... genuinely confused.
I'm not currently addressing the issue of whether or not conservatives should embrace or decry the violent rhetoric that really is propagated by their side; for the most part I think that sort of inflammatory language is counterproductive but I don't think any of it, on either side, is perhaps as bad as some of you do. I don't think that rhetoric on either side has anything to do with Loughner's actions, nor do I think it makes sense to use his actions as a reason to bring up this discussion in the first place. But that's really irrelevant to what I actually wanted to comment on.
So many people in this thread keep repeating the narrative that, while both sides might engage in some violent rhetoric, conservatives are obviously the really guilty ones. Really? Are you sure? That hasn't been my perception, certainly.
I think if you look, it won't be hard to find examples of violent sounding rhetoric on the liberal side of the aisle. To me, it's necessarily about being able to come up with 100 incidents over the last 10 years and say "look! they do it too!"
It's about the constant drum beat on the Conservative side. I think they are largely to blame for poisoning politics in to what it has become. They've demonized the entire Democratic party and liberals in general (I mean geez, who made it their life's mission to turn liberal into a dirty word?) as anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Freedom, etc. It's not even about the random speech that uses violent metaphors, though I find those especially problematic. It's about a culture of demonization, and you can find a lot of individual examples on the left I'm sure, but you'll likely never be able to convince me that it exists to nearly the same degree as it does on the right. Democrats have been trying to compromise for years, and for years they've gotten slapped down and demonized for it. It's only gotten worse since 2006 when Democrats became the majority, and ever since then, Republicans have generally refused to participate in the process at all except to grind it to a halt, and every word out of their mouths is about how evil Democrats want to take your freedoms and how unAmerican they are. We've been hearing that since around September 12, 2001.
I think part of it is just that Republicans are so damned good at staying on message as a team. They all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high, and they do it into every microphone that's turned on within speaking distance of them. They saturate the press with it. It's about the national mouthpiece, not just about the fringe elements that both sides have. When it comes to that aspect of national discourse, yes, I think Republicans are far, far worse.
Hm. I know Samp would never agree to this, but you might. Can we agree to disagree?
Because I still totally disagree, and this issue seems to very much be one of perspective. I'm not sure either you or I are very likely to convince the other, since examples on one side or the other do not definitively prove the trend.
I know that I grew up saturated in a culture that seemed to pretty strongly demonize Republicans. There was little talk of compromise, certainly not in a serious way. You mentioned some common labels conservatives throw at liberals, and you are totally right. And those are wrong, I agree. For the record, I don't think you're unAmerican or anti-freedom, Lyrhawn, I just think we disagree about stuff. That's okay. I disagree with most of my friends.
On the flip side, some common labels for conservatives are: racist, bigot, greedy, anti-freedom, fascist, bloodthirsty, ignorant... the list goes on.
I try not to bring too many details of my personal life into these discussions, as a general rule, but I'm going to now:
One of my siblings has a serious drug and alcohol addiction, a plethora of mental disorders, resists treatment, and is still living with my parents at the age of 35. But my parents have told me, with a straight face, that their biggest disappointment as parents is the fact that I somehow ended up a conservative.
It's not uncommon to see people say things like "The world would be a much better place if all the Republicans were dead" (actually the mother of one of my nephew's best friends said this on facebook just a few weeks ago.)
The disclaimer here is, I guess, that I grew up in the SF Bay Area, which is definitely a particularly strong liberal bastion. So maybe they make more extreme statements than most liberals. But this isn't the only place I have lived, and this isn't the only place I've encountered these ideas, so I'm skeptical that it's solely a matter of location.
I'm generally fine with agreeing to disagree when it appears the discussion won't go anywhere.
However, I'm not sure we're on the same page. It seems like you're talking more about person to person. What John Smith says to Jane Smith on the corner of Main Street and Washington Ave the day before yesterday, or what Aunt Margaret said to you on Thanksgiving about who you voted for. Is that important? Yes, I think it is, but not as important as what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is what national and state level politicians say on 24 hour news, and what major television and radio personalities saturate the airwaves with. Why? Because what John Smith and Aunt Margaret say has an extremely limited ability to reach beyond a very few people, but people with national mouthpieces can affect millions with what they say. It may be that a certain city is a bastion of liberalism or conservatism, but how far beyond their walls does that message really reach? On that level, yes, the labels you've defined DO sound like the sort of things that liberals say about conservatives. Some of them are fair, some of them aren't, though none of them are fair as a blanket label (in other words, they're fair when applied accurately to specific people). But they don't really sound like the sort of things that national level politicians say about Republicans on a regular basis. I don't watch MSNBC, maybe they say it there. Other than that, you aren't going to see that kind of language in the press really either (again, not in any press that has a major mouthpiece).
Do you agree there's a difference?
Incidentally, my family is all over the map politically, but in general, if we're pulling aunts and uncles into the mix, my brother and I are the only liberals in our ENTIRE family. Every single aunt, uncle, and cousin is a hardcore Conservative, and some of them are hardcore Christian fundamentalist conservatives. We've mostly banned politics from the dinner table, but even when we did talk about it on a regular basis, it was generally civil (though I think they're wrong about pretty much everything). I don't think they're evil, and they don't think I am. We're easily able to disassociate a person from his politics. That's something it seems people have a pretty big problem with these days. You know it's actually sort of weird that my brother and I are the liberals of the family. My parents are about as apolitical as it gets. They have their traditional beliefs, but in a million years they'd never even try to sway you in any particular issue. They taught my brother and I right from wrong, to be responsible and polite, but never breathed a word to us about politics. We developed our political beliefs on our own. I think our parents' politics is a much more benign, traditional version of what my brother and I support, but in general I find it interesting.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? I'd say my political identity really started to form around the time of the 2000 election (I was 16 at the time). Before then I never really took the time to become informed about things, and thus my political reality is most heavily informed by post-2000 events. I'm wondering if you're coming at me from an 80s or 90s perspective, and if some of our disconnect might lie there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: A sudden moment of clairvoyance has come upon me. I'm seeing... the future! I see... Ron... he's dropping this topic and... he's not posting again in this thread until the discussion has shifted to something entirely different and people have given up trying to show him why what he said is crazy...
Jebus the soothsayer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB]Week-Dead, please explain why my suggestion is, as you claim, "totally unreasonable." That is a rather extreme assertion. It is really just based on no more than the opinion some have that "a doctor wouldn't do that."
You are being told, straightforwardly, by a doctor, why it is unreasonable. You have read it, yes? What do you think of that? Is that 'no more than the opinion' that a doctor wouldn't do that?
quote:I think the reasons I gave are reasonable--the emotional trauma of learning about the other shootings could kill her, and she cannot ask about it while the breathing tube remains in. Remember, all she knows is that she was shot, since she was the first one shot. She does not know about her aide being dead, about her friend, Judge Roll, being dead, or about the nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, being dead, or the fact that three others besides died, and 12 more besides Gifford were injured. (I think that was the count--19 total shot.)
two things: you're inferring that she has any recollection of being shot (most victims of TBI wouldn't have a recollection of that event) and that she hasn't otherwise been told.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's also inferring that doctors think the best way to keep her from being emotionally traumatized is to make sure a huge piece of foreign material is lodged in her throat.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News on air has stated that the breathing tube was removed after the tracheal tube was inserted, but that it may be a day or two before she is able to speak, even so. Her condition has been upgraded from critical to serious. Those who have visited patients who were intubated even for a day or two know how raspy their voices are, and how difficult it is for them to speak at all. It was also noted in the broadcast that she might be able to speak in a whisper, or at least mouth words. We certainly hope she will be able to speak soon, so doctors can begin testing her memory.
Incidentally, she may not remember getting shot, but she certainly must realize she is in a hospital for some reason.
In a few minutes, there is a scheduled press conference with her doctors. This will be the first time the press has been able to question doctors since the initial day of Gifford's admission. I hope someone will ask the questions I would ask--perfectly logical questions.(Post Edited by Janitor Blade. Disparaging other posters.)
[ January 17, 2011, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I did not hear any journalists ask whether she has been apprised of the full extent of the bad news about the shooting. (Only C-Span carried the full press questioning period. It took a few moments of channel changing to discover that.) The doctors did not volunteer whether they were deliberately withholding that information from her, nor whether they were instructing her visitors not to say anything about it. The quality of journalism these days is really poor. I can say that having been a journalist in the past. At least I knew how to ask meaningful questions and conduct an interview. Perhaps these journalists were somewhat intimidated, since many people still have a semi-worshipful attitude toward doctors even without realizing it. Doctors are human beings, subject to all human foibles. For some people, that is hard to keep in mind.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Doctors did add that she will not even be able to whisper until the tracheal tube has been removed, since no air can pass through her vocal chords or mouth. All she might be able to do now is mouth words. But they did not say she has been trying to do that yet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, yes, let's sweep the bizarre, "Doctors might keep her dangerously subjected to a medical procedure in order to stop her from asking questions despite there being other, much safer and more humane alternatives available," exchange under the rug, Ron. Pretend it never happened, even though when you asked, "Why don't we ask a doctor?" and one actually answered, well, you just behaved as though it was business as usual.
Very courageous of you. Fearless in fact. One certainly wouldn't call such behavior...cowardly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I did not hear any journalists ask whether she has been apprised of the full extent of the bad news about the shooting. (Only C-Span carried the full press questioning period. It took a few moments of channel changing to discover that.) The doctors did not volunteer whether they were deliberately withholding that information from her, nor whether they were instructing her visitors not to say anything about it.
I'm curious, why do you consider this question important?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm generally fine with agreeing to disagree when it appears the discussion won't go anywhere.
However, I'm not sure we're on the same page. It seems like you're talking more about person to person. What John Smith says to Jane Smith on the corner of Main Street and Washington Ave the day before yesterday, or what Aunt Margaret said to you on Thanksgiving about who you voted for. Is that important? Yes, I think it is, but not as important as what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about is what national and state level politicians say on 24 hour news, and what major television and radio personalities saturate the airwaves with. Why? Because what John Smith and Aunt Margaret say has an extremely limited ability to reach beyond a very few people, but people with national mouthpieces can affect millions with what they say. It may be that a certain city is a bastion of liberalism or conservatism, but how far beyond their walls does that message really reach? On that level, yes, the labels you've defined DO sound like the sort of things that liberals say about conservatives. Some of them are fair, some of them aren't, though none of them are fair as a blanket label (in other words, they're fair when applied accurately to specific people). But they don't really sound like the sort of things that national level politicians say about Republicans on a regular basis. I don't watch MSNBC, maybe they say it there. Other than that, you aren't going to see that kind of language in the press really either (again, not in any press that has a major mouthpiece).
Do you agree there's a difference?
Incidentally, my family is all over the map politically, but in general, if we're pulling aunts and uncles into the mix, my brother and I are the only liberals in our ENTIRE family. Every single aunt, uncle, and cousin is a hardcore Conservative, and some of them are hardcore Christian fundamentalist conservatives. We've mostly banned politics from the dinner table, but even when we did talk about it on a regular basis, it was generally civil (though I think they're wrong about pretty much everything). I don't think they're evil, and they don't think I am. We're easily able to disassociate a person from his politics. That's something it seems people have a pretty big problem with these days. You know it's actually sort of weird that my brother and I are the liberals of the family. My parents are about as apolitical as it gets. They have their traditional beliefs, but in a million years they'd never even try to sway you in any particular issue. They taught my brother and I right from wrong, to be responsible and polite, but never breathed a word to us about politics. We developed our political beliefs on our own. I think our parents' politics is a much more benign, traditional version of what my brother and I support, but in general I find it interesting.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? I'd say my political identity really started to form around the time of the 2000 election (I was 16 at the time). Before then I never really took the time to become informed about things, and thus my political reality is most heavily informed by post-2000 events. I'm wondering if you're coming at me from an 80s or 90s perspective, and if some of our disconnect might lie there.
first, it would help if you said who, exactly, these 'mouthpieces' are. second, you should quantify the influence of these 'mouthpieces', maybe even show direct evidence of such influences in a cause/effect presentation. you claim republicans 'all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high', as if conservatives who dont have a talk show cant possibly have their own ideas that originate from a pre-2000 era.
why have a few people with loud voices come to embody the collective views of an entire ideology? when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'? is it because the system must be broken when liberals cant force through unpopular legislation? or do some people just not want to hear the concerns of the other side? i assert that people like Palin parroted the demands made by tea party members at town-hall meetings, not the other way around. some lowly liberals have surrounded themselves so much with like-minded individuals that they honestly believe the labels the liberals 'on high' have put on conservatives: bigots, fear-mongers, facists. sadly, liberals are resorting more and more often to appeals to emotion and ancedotal, heart-warming fictions.
its not hard to find educated conservative responses to the silly nonsense found on the liberal blogs and shouted by the progressive blowhards lucky enough to maintain the modest ratings needed to keep a talk show. if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs. or are we to believe the intellectually dishonest and inflammatory stupidity krugman published, mere hours after the arizona shootings, is an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'?
Do you believe that, for example, calling liberals traitors to their country and insinuating that it may be necessary to kill a few of them constitutes "poisoning politics?" Are those also beliefs?
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs
Liberals make the mistake of believing this, now and then, which is why they lack the party discipline possessed by conservatives. "Policing your own" is something that liberals do to a far greater degree, but which turns out to be pretty counterproductive.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
capaxinfiniti:
quote:first, it would help if you said who, exactly, these 'mouthpieces' are. second, you should quantify the influence of these 'mouthpieces', maybe even show direct evidence of such influences in a cause/effect presentation. you claim republicans 'all parrot the same lines that are handed down from on high', as if conservatives who dont have a talk show cant possibly have their own ideas that originate from a pre-2000 era.
I think Lyrhawn is referring to the well known documents that Republican party leadership pass down regarding certain issues and the key phrases and language that need to be dropped when discussing it on TV, radio, etc, as well as what words ought not to be used when discussing it. It's not a secret, and the Republican party has put that to very good use. For example, during the Health Care Debates, phrases like "socialist take over" and "government bureaucrats coming between you and your doctor" were both phrases Republican legislators were asked to use during the debates.
Of course radio and TV personalities are not subject to those memos, but that does not mean they can't employ the phrases themselves so as to make the message more cohesive and consistant.
quote:why have a few people with loud voices come to embody the collective views of an entire ideology?
Because these loud mouths are the people cited by others when they discuss their reasoning. "I heard Sarah Palin say, and I think she'd be a great president, anyway, she said..."
quote:when does a group making their beliefs/demands heard become known as 'poisoning politics'?
It doesn't in of itself. When you lump your opposition together and paint them with the same black colored brush, then you are poisoning politics. Remember what happened when John McCain tried to say that Obama was an honorable man? Or when he told his supporters that now that he had lost the election, he needed them to show President Obama respect? The rage and anger was very evident. That does not prove the Republican leadership poisoned those people. But those people were most certainly suffering from the effects of poisonous anger. I'm open to alternate suggestions as to where that hatred and enmity came from.
quote:Is it because the system must be broken when liberals cant force through unpopular legislation?
This is a pointless dig, nobody here wants any party to be able to "force through" legislation. Just as I am sure that you and I both hope the Democrats do not use the filibuster to stop fair legislation that has a clear majority in the Senate after passing in the House.
quote: i assert that people like Palin parroted the demands made by tea party members at town-hall meetings, not the other way around.
To prove that, you'd need to establish her opinions on many of these matters she is currently sounding off about, before the rise of the tea party. I doubt that's the case, but I'd welcome the attempt.
This isn't a dig against her, I expect politicians to form and espouse opinions based on what their constituents want, as well as the facts that are presented to them. For example, it wouldn't be reasonable for Sarah Palin to necessarily have an opinion on universal health care before it came up in the political arena, she might, but it wouldn't bother me if she hadn't openly stated one.
quote:some lowly liberals have surrounded themselves so much with like-minded individuals that they honestly believe the labels the liberals 'on high' have put on conservatives: bigots, fear-mongers, facists. sadly, liberals are resorting more and more often to appeals to emotion and ancedotal, heart-warming fictions.
Exactly right, just as some conservatives have painted all liberals as Marxist, socialist, liberty hating, terrorist lovers. Further, some conservatives think that there is a historical narrative going all the way back to about Teddy Roosevelt where "progressives" were born, and have been trying to wreck this country systematically ever since. There's always "some" people in any demographic that we'd be better off if they weren't who they were. That's the way of the world I suppose.
quote:its not hard to find educated conservative responses to the silly nonsense found on the liberal blogs and shouted by the progressive blowhards lucky enough to maintain the modest ratings needed to keep a talk show.
I should hope so, any ideology should be able to surmount such a low bar quite easily. I find that I can destroy the "silly nonsense" found on many conservative and liberal talk shows without looking anything up, just looking at what I have observed and read in grade school. But I wouldn't exactly crow about it. I rejoice whenever a conservative writer helps me see clearer an issue that was monopolized by writers with a more liberal slant. I like having a better established POV on any topic. Don't you?
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs.
Absolutely true, and hopefully conservatives will muzzle their dogs without even glancing at whether or not the liberals do it. I'd certainly find it very amusing for liberals to openly say, "We'll stop destroying the possibility for effective governance when the Republicans stop too!" I mean, that line sounds like something a 10 year old might say about getting his hands caught in the cookie jar, "But Randy snuck a cookie too! Aren't you going to punish him too!?"
quote:or are we to believe the intellectually dishonest and inflammatory stupidity krugman published, mere hours after the arizona shootings, is an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
Did somebody put forward Krugman as an example of healthy, civil dialogue?
[ January 17, 2011, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you believe that, for example, calling liberals traitors to their country and insinuating that it may be necessary to kill a few of them constitutes "poisoning politics?" Are those also beliefs?
even when calling someone a traitor is accurate its more often used for exaggerative effect. the use of such a term isnt unique to this political environment and earlier politicians and the political process survived quite fine. going from 'traitor' to 'poisonous' rhetoric to killing politicians in public is one heck of a slippery slope argument. killing the opposition isnt a practice conservatives engage in nor is it an accepted or supported course of action.
quote:Liberals make the mistake of believing this, now and then, which is why they lack the party discipline possessed by conservatives. "Policing your own" is something that liberals do to a far greater degree, but which turns out to be pretty counterproductive.
i think youre entertaining a false illusion of party discipline. conservatism isnt a party, as you know well, and there are some parties and groups more stanch in their views and deeply committed to core values. conservatives cant be considered a homogeneous group simply because the individuals who identify as conservative more readily soften their hardened ideological positions for the sake of compromise with other like-minded individuals. because liberals cant act in a similar manner seems to be an internal problem.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:even when calling someone a traitor is accurate its more often used for exaggerative effect. the use of such a term isnt unique to this political environment and earlier politicians and the political process survived quite fine. going from 'traitor' to 'poisonous' rhetoric to killing politicians in public is one heck of a slippery slope argument. killing the opposition isnt a practice conservatives engage in nor is it an accepted or supported course of action.
I completely disagree. "Traitor" is a term on par with "Murderer" or "Villain" to me. It's such an aweful (I mean in the sense of deserving awe) term it should only be used loosely as we would never lightly call another person "an adulterer" and you could argue that these days, adultery is much more common place than treason.
During the founding of this country the charge of treason was so terrifying, our founding fathers had to accept they would be forfeiting their lives if their gamble had not paid off, and it very nearly didn't. Calling somebody a traitor was a very effective way to silence an opponent back then. It's still an effective way of convincing one's supporters that a person is an enemy agent and should be disposed of not listened to.
edit: Bah, I need to switch accounts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:if progressives are concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, their first item of business should be muzzling their own dogs
What would you say if I told you that if you're concerned with angry, hateful rhetoric, your first item of business would be to shut up everyone on your side who acts out in a way we can individually criticize, and that we'll be sitting over there waiting for that to get done?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In a few minutes, there is a scheduled press conference with her doctors. This will be the first time the press has been able to question doctors since the initial day of Gifford's admission. I hope someone will ask the questions I would ask--perfectly logical questions,
You didn't even answer my question at all. If you really do have difficult-to-counter logical arguments, then contorting to avoid actually answering me wouldn't be such a commonplace event.
Try answering my question.
(Janitor Blade: Sorry Samp you posted a bit too fast for me, I edited your quote to reflect the changes I made to Ron's post)
[ January 17, 2011, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i think youre entertaining a false illusion of party discipline. conservatism isnt a party, as you know well, and there are some parties and groups more stanch in their views and deeply committed to core values. conservatives cant be considered a homogeneous group simply because the individuals who identify as conservative more readily soften their hardened ideological positions for the sake of compromise with other like-minded individuals.
Two things here. First you're saying that of course conservatives aren't a party, granted. I think Tom was talking about the American conservative movement, aka, the Republican Party and everybody who generally supports it. Then you say this is a "false illusion." Then you immediately say that no, in fact, it has nothing to do with party discipline, it is simply that conservatives are much better at working together.
I think that's pretty much what party discipline *consists of*. The stuff about specific words and specific messages being universally touted happens also to be true, but party discipline is exactly what you represent the Republicans as having.
quote: because liberals cant act in a similar manner seems to be an internal problem.
Internal to what? Liberalism is not a party, after all. But I'll do you the solid you didn't do Tom and assume you mean "Democrats and most everybody who generally supports them."
And to address the point, I think you're wrong. The problem with party discipline in the Democratic party is that the party itself is simply more pluralistic. Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline. As long as whatever gets done by them contributes to the disruption of government, they can generally agree that it is a good idea in principle.
It's simply a much easier argument to have discussing how you're going to blow up a machine if everybody is on board with the idea that that is the best thing to do. Now if you want to *build* a machine, there are all these niggling and inconvenient little questions about what all it will do, what it will run on, who will drive it, pay for it, participate in its construction, design it, and etc.
Observe a rather simple analogy: hate is an easier thing to have in common than love. "You hate classical music? Me too!" End of discussion. "You love classical music? Me too!" Discussion goes on to become the basis of a friendship and involves ever-contentious arguments over the subject of mutual love for the next 27 years.
So, you've also implied that liberals have these "hardened" ideals that prevent them from reasoning together. Well, I rather agree. I think the nice thing about liberals is that they aren't just a bunch of gutless sellouts who cater to the fears of ignorant people by promising them to govern by refusing to be involved in the work of actual government- because that has the foul taste of "communism" and "socialism" in it, actually working for the government. I never could get over the oddity of that one- "elect me: I don't believe in the job I want to have." Because for all their harping on patriotic rah rah sentiments, conservatives generally seem to believe these days that the government that their forefathers set up to grow into future demands and stresses was pretty much a bad idea to begin with.
So yeah, Republicans are a lot better at agreeing on things- I just think the reason is that the things they need to agree on to be a party aren't very tall orders.
[ January 17, 2011, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Interesting note:
Google search: "calls conservatives traitors" Search results: 2
Google search: "calls liberals traitors" Search results: 959
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"liberals are traitors": About 27,100 results "conservatives are traitors": About 4,990 results
"liberals are fascists": About 23,800 results "conservatives are fascists": About 15,400 results
"liberals are nazis": About 1,840 results "conservatives are nazis": About 9,670 results
"liberals are idiots": About 24,100 results "conservatives are idiots": About 7,180 results
"liberals are morons": About 1,260 results "conservatives are morons": About 11,900 results
So there we have it: - Liberals are idiot fascist traitors. - Conservatives are nazi morons.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "liberals are traitors": About 27,100 results "conservatives are traitors": About 4,990 results
"liberals are fascists": About 23,800 results "conservatives are fascists": About 15,400 results
"liberals are nazis": About 1,840 results "conservatives are nazis": About 9,670 results
"liberals are idiots": About 24,100 results "conservatives are idiots": About 7,180 results
"liberals are morons": About 1,260 results "conservatives are morons": About 11,900 results
So there we have it: - Liberals are idiot fascist traitors. - Conservatives are nazi morons.
Negative results about liberals: 78,100 Negative results about conservatives: 49,140
That's not including:
"liberals are evil": About 94,600 results "conservatives are evil": About 3,660 results
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Note, that's not a very useful mode of measurement, especially if you are searching only grammatically identical terms. That doesn't account in any useful way for the amount of inflammatory language or implications made without these exact terms and syntax being used. I'd say a really effective survey using google would be pretty hard to do.
There's also a fairly major flaw in the terms here, because for instance the sentence: "Most people think liberals are evil, but most people are idiots," goes down under "liberals are evil."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not to mention it introduces a selection bias for people with access to the internet, as well as people who search for political messages on the internet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But BB, it produces big shiny binary terms that are easily digested!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Note, that's not a very useful mode of measurement, especially if you are searching only grammatically identical terms. That doesn't account in any useful way for the amount of inflammatory language or implications made without these exact terms and syntax being used. I'd say a really effective survey using google would be pretty hard to do.
There's also a fairly major flaw in the terms here, because for instance the sentence: "Most people think liberals are evil, but most people are idiots," goes down under "liberals are evil."
Obviously, in fact most of the first page results for "liberals are evil" seemed to actually be a result countering or mocking that argument, it's still funny to see the huge difference in results between the two though.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Conclusion: Vegetarians eat more chicken than liberals, conservatives, and Mormons combined. Of the four groups researched, liberals eat the most babies, upsetting previous suggestions that this distinction belonged to Mormons.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline.
Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
I don't know if I neccessarily agree with you that Conservatives have an easier time arguing their side of things. Both Liberals and Conservatives alike use emotion to argue their point. Conservatives tend to argue using fear, independence, and personal responsibility. Liberals tend to argue their points using compassion, group/societal wellness, and government reliance.
In some arguments, Conservatives have the edge. In other arguments Liberals do. Immigration comes to mind. Conservatives use fear by saying "Illegals are taking our jobs and are law breakers!" Liberals say "These people are trying to live the American dream and give a better life to their kids."
Well, both arguments are valid. The same goes for abortion, war, spending, etc. I think the problem isn't the issue, its the unwillingness of EITHER side to have an open and honest discussion about the issue.
I am sure most Conservatives would be ok with some type of amnesty if the border was made ultra secure as to prevent another influx of illegal immigrants from entering. I'm sure most Liberals would be willing to compromise on other issues if Conservatives would work with them.
In the past 8-10 years we have moved away from compromising and have gone more towards the attitude of "My way is the only right way." Sure Republicans blocked a ton of legislation. Reid wouldn't allow Republicans to bring forth any amendments in a lot of the legislation voted on. Both sides blamed each other instead of looking for a way to work together.
This is what frustrates me about this whole argument. Instead of playing the blame game on hateful/violent rhetoric, would it not be more constructive to the country as a whole to work together through this instead?
We could argue all day that one side or the other has the MOST violent rhetoric, but that doesn't solve the problem. If I make you a milkshake and put one ounce of dog crap in it or three ounces, the fact doesn't change that it is still a dog poop milkshake. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Because Democrats chiefly (and liberals generally) are mostly interested in legislation which supports the most effective government possible, and because the effectiveness of the government, and what priorities it has with an expanded list of responsibilities is complicated, the Democratic agenda is naturally more contentious. As long as Republicans have advocated chiefly the dismantling of an effective central government in the United States, they have had an easier road in terms of party discipline.
Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
Aww, jeez. And here I was thinking my opinion was fact. Thank you for reminding me. How easily I forget!
quote:Well, both arguments are valid. The same goes for abortion, war, spending, etc. I think the problem isn't the issue, its the unwillingness of EITHER side to have an open and honest discussion about the issue.
Meh, no, and this is consistently your largest intellectual difficulty. One side of the argument is simply better. One is based in a better grasp of the realities, and presents more workable solutions in the short and long term. One doesn't. Walking around in a fog thinking that just because you have two arguments with *some* validity in each means that they are equal partners is a problem. You, and a lot of people really, need to learn that lesson. Just as all historical decisions have history either on their side or against them, so too do the decisions we make today. I would find it terribly claustrophobic in your head if you truly need to balance every two opposing arguments with equal weight, all the time. Of course I know that you don't *actually* do this- you're just saying it because that's what you think politics is- either you win, or it's a tie. Either you made the right decision, or there were two equally right decisions and you chose one of them. Sorry- I don't think it works that way.
quote:In the past 8-10 years we have moved away from compromising and have gone more towards the attitude of "My way is the only right way." Sure Republicans blocked a ton of legislation. Reid wouldn't allow Republicans to bring forth any amendments in a lot of the legislation voted on. Both sides blamed each other instead of looking for a way to work together.
Geraine, I'm sorry if I sound terribly dismissive of you so much of the time, but this is simply not accurate. In the last two years, the Republicans enjoyed a position from which they could block *all* action. Compromise was wrought out of sacrifices made by democrats, which they applied to their own bills. A wonderful position for the Republicans, because while the compromise work was going on (and don't even fool yourself into believing it didn't because *wow* did it ever), they got to continually make a show of proposing amendments they fully expected not to be adopted. The fact that the Democrats, who were in the majority, voted down amendments from Republicans is not a sign of lack of compromise- it was a political show, to the benefit of Republicans. Again, the compromises were written into the bills themselves, in order that they might be allowed to pass. Trust me, lack of compromise would have been manifested in legislation the likes of which you didn't see in the last legislative session.
I'm trying to think of an analogy for you. Let's try this one: You are hired by a publisher to write a book. You write it. The editor refuses to approve it at all, because it isn't what he wants. So you rewrite it into something more like a book he might rubberstamp. Then he gives you a list of changes he wants made to the book, effectively changing the entire book and shortening it, effectively, to a couple of pages of chicken scratch. You reject the changes, but in the process you rewrite the book yourself yet another way, and come up with about 5 pages of near nonsense with the basic ideas of your original book sort of in place. Ok, time to publish this sucker. That's essentially what happened with the health care bill. The editor now gets to claim it was entirely against his vision, and contained none of his input, when in fact it was all his work to reduce it to what it became. That's your vision of compromise.
[ January 18, 2011, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also note that Liberals, conservatives, Mormons, atheists, and Jews all eat more babies than they eat chicken. Only vegetarians eat more chicken than they eat babies.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Those are babies?! But they fry up so well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Conclusion: Vegetarians eat more chicken than liberals, conservatives, and Mormons combined. Of the four groups researched, liberals eat the most babies, upsetting previous suggestions that this distinction belonged to Mormons.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Also note that Liberals, conservatives, Mormons, atheists, and Jews all eat more babies than they eat chicken. Only vegetarians eat more chicken than they eat babies.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Aww, jeez. And here I was thinking my opinion was fact. Thank you for reminding me. How easily I forget!
Glad we cleared that up maybe that will mean you will at least try to present an argument instead of just your opinion...
quote: Meh, no, and this is consistently your largest intellectual difficulty. One side of the argument is simply better. One is based in a better grasp of the realities, and presents more workable solutions in the short and long term. One doesn't. Walking around in a fog thinking that just because you have two arguments with *some* validity in each means that they are equal partners is a problem. You, and a lot of people really, need to learn that lesson. Just as all historical decisions have history either on their side or against them, so too do the decisions we make today. I would find it terribly claustrophobic in your head if you truly need to balance every two opposing arguments with equal weight, all the time. Of course I know that you don't *actually* do this- you're just saying it because that's what you think politics is- either you win, or it's a tie. Either you made the right decision, or there were two equally right decisions and you chose one of them. Sorry- I don't think it works that way.
Well that didn't last long. Really? "I know this is just my opinion... But you are wrong and I am right and liberalism is just better?"
To respond though, I don't think ANYTHING is purely right or purely wrong. Nothing is. There is no such thing as a perfect government, policy, etc. You consistently sound like liberal policies are all perfect, and anything else is just bad. It sounds like you are in the fog.
What I am trying to get at, which you choose to ignore, is that we need discussion. If it is found that a liberal policy will work best, then by all means lets implement it. But don't act like it is the be all end all. There are problems with implementing almost any policy, be it liberal or conservative. If you don't have the discussion, how can you honestly say which side is based in reality and will have the most benefit in the short and long term?
quote:Geraine, I'm sorry if I sound terribly dismissive of you so much of the time, but this is simply not accurate. In the last two years, the Republicans enjoyed a position from which they could block *all* action. Compromise was wrought out of sacrifices made by democrats, which they applied to their own bills. A wonderful position for the Republicans, because while the compromise work was going on (and don't even fool yourself into believing it didn't because *wow* did it ever), they got to continually make a show of proposing amendments they fully expected not to be adopted. The fact that the Democrats, who were in the majority, voted down amendments from Republicans is not a sign of lack of compromise- it was a political show, to the benefit of Republicans. Again, the compromises were written into the bills themselves, in order that they might be allowed to pass. Trust me, lack of compromise would have been manifested in legislation the likes of which you didn't see in the last legislative session.
I'm trying to think of an analogy for you. Let's try this one: You are hired by a publisher to write a book. You write it. The editor refuses to approve it at all, because it isn't what he wants. So you rewrite it into something more like a book he might rubberstamp. Then he gives you a list of changes he wants made to the book, effectively changing the entire book and shortening it, effectively, to a couple of pages of chicken scratch. You reject the changes, but in the process you rewrite the book yourself yet another way, and come up with about 5 pages of near nonsense with the basic ideas of your original book sort of in place. Ok, time to publish this sucker. That's essentially what happened with the health care bill. The editor now gets to claim it was entirely against his vision, and contained none of his input, when in fact it was all his work to reduce it to what it became. That's your vision of compromise.
Ok. First of all, horrible analogy. A better analogy would be this: You are asked to collaborate on a book, you contribute, then saw the finished product and realize the book is horrible. You suggest changes and are largely ignored. You ask to keep the book out of stores, but the request is denied. The book hits retail shelves. It is largely criticized because it is over 2,000 pages and there is no plot, resolution, or characters that interact with each other. It reads more like a jumble of non-related short stories, though it was marketed as one of the greatest dramatic novels of our generation.
If you think that way fine. Next time the Democrats are in the minority and filibuster one thing, I'd love to see you justify their actions. I think you are a little confused as to how filibusters work and why they are important for both the minority and majority. I find it frustrating that you pin the blame on Conservatives. Do you believe that whoever is in control should be able to pass whatever legislation they want without any opposition?
Let me give you a scenario. Lets say in 2012 the Republicans retain control of the house, take the presidency, as well as the majority in the senate. Soon after the election, a gigantic immigration bill comes to the floor that deports all illegal immigrants, builds a 50 foot high electric fence on the border, and places a minefield around it. It will completely change the way we deal with immigration.
It passes the house without a problem, with some democrats submitting a few minor changes. It goes to the senate. All 40 Democratic senators are against the bill and 59 Republicans are for it, with the exception of John McCain. The Democrats submit amendments to remove the electrical component of the fence, remove the minefield completely, and set limits on deportations. The Senate Majority leader says "Nah, we like it the way it is, but hey thanks for the input."
The Democrats filibuster. Republicans scramble, because they don't have the votes to overcome it. They change the bill a bit, lowering the voltage of the electric fence so it isn't fatal. They also promise to only deport illegal immigrants that don't have children born in the US. The Democrats still don't like that, and plan to hold onto their filibuster. The Republicans go to McCain and tell him that if he votes for the bill, they will make sure the portion of the fence bordering Arizona is not electrified, not mined, and that they will let the state work out who to deport. The government will give Arizona money to hire their own policing force.
With McCain on board, the bill passes, much to the Democrats (and most of the US population's) dismay.
This is how I saw the Health Care Bill. You seem to want to blame the Republicans for how it turned out. The Democrats passed it, not the Republicans. Democrats could have easily scrapped the bill, started over, and pinned the blame on the Republicans. They may have even been able to save some of the seats in the house they lost. Instead we got this bill that Liberals and Conservatives don't really care for, albeit for different reasons. Why did it pass then, if it was so horrible?
Look, if you want to change the way filibusters work, then fine. Use the nuclear option to change the senate rules. I don't believe that will ever happen, because it paves the way for the majority to abuse their power. It would completely eliminate the use of the minority. The Republicans nor the Democrats are dumb enough to do that. Not only would the majority be able to pass whatever they wanted, but when the balance of power shifted it could all be easily repealed by the party that took control. That would do wonders for stability.
If you have a good solution, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it. I propose actually talking through things and compromising. All I have seen from you "Liberal policies are better, Conservatives are just wrong!"
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Germaine, how I saw the last two years was this:
A secretary is upset that he has been asked to assist an author in writing a book. They sit down and agree on some details, but the secretary keeps demanding more and more input in the book, more than the author who was hired to write it. The author takes many of the suggestions, but not all. Eventually the secretary just refuses to type anything he's given, refusing to let the book be written because the secretary doesn't get to be the author.
The secretary's goal is not to get their views into the book. They want to be the author, and they believe that if the people who hired the author see nothing getting written, they'll fire the author and hire the secretary to be the next author.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The secretary doesn't think the book should be written at all.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Geraine, on the filibuster, yes, I believe it should be abolished. It is abused by the minority party to obstruct legislation which has a clear majority, and it puts the minority in the unproductive position of having such an option. As for the majority party, they are duly elected, and they maintain a responsibility to voters, who can oust them and reverse their actions that way. I don´t think that the minority party having such a tool is useful to the process, and I think *that* contributes a good deal to any lack of compromise that we percieve. Why compromise when you can dock your ores? The minority position is disempowered for a reason, and the party in the minority should be forced to build effective coalitions with majority members to pass necessary legislation. The filibuster was nuked in the house years ago, and yet things there are still on the rails.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The minority position is disempowered for a reason, and the party in the minority should be forced to build effective coalitions with majority members to pass necessary legislation.
Absolutely, yes!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The healthcare reform passed, as it was, because, despite what you may think Geraine, if it was scrapped, it'd be years before anyone touched it. That's political reality. Like when Bush tried to pass immigration reform that was actually kinda progressive. Since then, how many serious proposals have been put on the docket?
Of course, this all ignores that fact that there was never going to be any "coming to the table" by the Republicans on health care, despite the fact that most citizens believe some change needed to happen. It's the same tactics as 93/94. Further, the Democrats came up with a plan that actually was a REPUBLICAN proposal back then, and the Republicans of 2009 as a block refused to even debate it (which is what the use of filibuster means)
Quote from FrumForum (hardly a liberal bastion):
quote: Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Emphasis mine. Also, search results on "obama waterloo health care" from Google):
Your 2012 scenario ignores the fact that such a scenario existed for 6 years (or was it 4?) (Republican controlled House, Senate, White House), and the Democrats didn't filibuster nearly to the extent of the last two years by the Republicans, which implies that the Democrats are more willing to come to the table to ACTUALLY GOVERN.
-Bok
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
I agree with this. I would also consider discontinuing it entirely for legislation (as against judicial confirmation) when the government is divided.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Further, the Democrats came up with a plan that actually was a REPUBLICAN proposal back then
quote: The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
To quote Mitt Romney "Let's see, I can't think of a great metaphor. Maybe Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: they both have two arms and two legs, but they're very different creatures. There are some similar benefits. The fact, for instance, that insurance is affordable—that's a similar benefit in my plan and the Obama plan. But there's simply an enormous difference when you have one plan that imposes massive tax hikes and another that does not. [There's] a huge difference with a plan that dramatically cuts Medicare Advantage and one that does not impose a new burden on senior citizens."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Restoring taxes to what they were in the clinton era (when you had a surplus) is not a tax hike.
quote: Ok. First of all, horrible analogy. A better analogy would be this: You are asked to collaborate on a book, you contribute, then saw the finished product and realize the book is horrible. You suggest changes and are largely ignored. You ask to keep the book out of stores, but the request is denied. The book hits retail shelves. It is largely criticized because it is over 2,000 pages and there is no plot, resolution, or characters that interact with each other. It reads more like a jumble of non-related short stories, though it was marketed as one of the greatest dramatic novels of our generation.
Rofl.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We should at least go back to having actual filibusters where debate is delayed by someone actually having to stand up in front of congress and take responsibility for holding up debate. This notion of the automatic filibuster is nonsense.
Yeah, it is. A sort of stately, dignified, officially recognized form of complete nonsense.
Sometimes I imagine a family sitting in the car ready to go to the beach or something, and one of the kids suddenly says, "I forgot something in the house." And then they all just sit there in the car. And they wait.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Great post Orincoro, but how did you come to the conclusion that liberals support the "most effective government possible?" I respect your opinion, but really that is all it is.
Have you ever had a political science class in a major university? Utilitarianism and Millerite Liberalism is pretty much what American and Canadian liberals foundation, of "the greatest good for the greatest number", if you've read what these are, and how they work and why they're important you'ld see that Democrats and Liberals in general do in fact believe in making the most effective government.
Conservatism is all about the status quo, reactionaries are about rolling back the status quo to what it was like before, conservatism works and purpose is to act as a break on reckless liberalism but not 'better' or mean to stop any and all progress at all.
Which is what the republicans are doing, doing everything to stop any change at all or better rollback any changes made.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Blayne:
quote:Rofl.
Recollect how you feel when people say that to you after you have just posted something you earnestly believe. I think you will find it is not a good emotion, nor one that anybody should have to feel on this forum. You have a habit of asking others to treat you one way and then behaving another, and I can't say I'm very impressed with it. Please stop.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Okay fine, slightly more substantive commentary: Geraine your analogy basically a perfect checkbox list of every Republican-US Right Wing gripe of the healthcare process as spoonfed by fox news and is extremely different from how a majority have viewed the process, you claim that the bill was a mess but why is it a mess and more importantly how is it a mess? Have you read the bill? Can you come up with a percentage of how much is "mess" to "substance"?
Would have having no bill really been better than having this bill that sets the foot in the door for more substantial reform later?
I've spent a little too much time on IRC so my apologies but reading it made my eyes roll.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Germaine, how I saw the last two years was this:
A secretary is upset that he has been asked to assist an author in writing a book. They sit down and agree on some details, but the secretary keeps demanding more and more input in the book, more than the author who was hired to write it. The author takes many of the suggestions, but not all. Eventually the secretary just refuses to type anything he's given, refusing to let the book be written because the secretary doesn't get to be the author.
The secretary's goal is not to get their views into the book. They want to be the author, and they believe that if the people who hired the author see nothing getting written, they'll fire the author and hire the secretary to be the next author.
Ta-da! Besides, the writing-a-book analogy doesn't work because it's describing what law effectively is, even in the best of times. On the whole, the effects of the law are widely consistent and have already provided some improvement. It's better than the status quo. People are outraged at the mere suggestion that it is, because they make the claim that U.S. healthcare is great as it is. (it's not)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Great interview by Diane Sawyer last night of Astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords!
During the broadcast, a model was displayed showing where the bullet traveled through Giffords' head--and once again, we see that early reports got yet another detail wrong. Earlier it was reported that the shooter fired laterally across her head from her temple. But the model showed he must have held the gun to her forehead, above her right eye, and it traveled longitudinally backwards at a rising angle. Fortunately the bullet missed major blood vessels. It may have gone through or just above Broca's area, believed to be the control center that enables us to speak, but it clearly missed the speech control center in the middle side of the left lobe which enables us to recognize words. (At least, this is believed to be the way most brains are organized.) This is evident from the fact that even as she arrived at the hospital, she was able to respond to commands. We will just have to wait and see if she can speak.
Commander Kelly said he had not told her yet about the shootings.
Their relationship is really inspiring. Even Sawyer admitted she was unusually impressed at the couple's devotion to each other.
Kelly has piloted the Space Shuttle three times, and is tentatively scheduled to pilot the very last shuttle mission in a few more months. He is also a test pilot who has flown in 50 different types of planes, has done landings on aircraft carriers, and flew on many combat missions in the Gulf War. Yet he said that his wife works harder than he does. When Sawyer asked him if he would ever consider running for office, he said he did not think he wanted to work as hard as his wife does.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bill O'Reilly reported the following last night; he said the information was first published in The New York Post.
quote:Sixty-three-year-old James Eric Fuller was shot in the knee by Jared Loughner but recovered quickly. He then attended an ABC News event, where he made threats against a Tea Party leader.
Fuller, a far-left activist, was almost immediately taken into custody. Authorities used Arizona's involuntary psychiatric evaluation law to get him off the street.
There is no question that Fuller is troubled. Here's what he said a few days after the shootings:
"It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled. Senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls."
But Fuller did not stop there. He told the New York Post that some conservatives should be tortured: "There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end ... and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center."
Fuller's rantings were said well after the far left began its campaign of vilification, blaming various people on the right for encouraging the assassin Loughner. Of course, that turned out to be completely bogus, but Fuller heard it, no question.
An "ear necklace"? This savagery from an avowed liberal. He was one of the people shot. But he must have believed the police chief who said explicitly that in his opinion the Tea Party was to blame. So then he goes and makes a death threat at a public meeting where the local leader of the Tea Party was. It was caught on tape by ABC News. Police then removed Fuller and took him in for mandatory psychiatric evaluation. It's a good thing he did not have a gun on him.
The attempt by many liberals to capitalize politically on the tragedy in Tucson by trying to blame it on conservatives, has pretty much backfired in their faces.
[ January 19, 2011, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes. Continue to ignore the bizarre breathing tube debate... It never happened...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But he must have believed the police chief who said explicitly that in his opinion the Tea Party was to blame.
Exactly how did he do this, Ron? This is a direct question put straight to you, mind. A link to quotations would be what's required to substantiate such a bold accusation.
quote:This savagery from an avowed liberal.
You forgot the scare-quotes.
quote:The attempt by many liberals to capitalize politically on the tragedy in Tucson by trying to blame it on conservatives, has pretty much backfired in their faces.
Feel free to tell yourself whatever narrative makes you feel more superior about the situation, facts to the contrary. That's an easy thing to say to you, since it's a given.
One thing, though: it is fortunate that this guy wasn't 'strong' enough, as you say, to own a gun. Because you're the man who said that owning a firearm was a sign of personal strength, yes? Good thing he wasn't strong. Otherwise things could've gotten unpleasant.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: Do you think anybody really wants to continue to talk about the breathing tube?
Ron: Capitalizing on a situation doesn't seem to be what Fuller is doing so much as venting his anger that he nearly lost his life. Perhaps his anger has been misplaced, but at least he is being evaluated by doctors, something Loughner unfortunately was not given the benefit of.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: During the broadcast, a model was displayed showing where the bullet traveled through Giffords' head--and once again, we see that early reports got yet another detail wrong. Earlier it was reported that the shooter fired laterally across her head from her temple.
I don't know where you got that unless it was very early. Every report I heard had this detail correct.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This savagery from an avowed liberal.
*sigh* Again, we see a random crazy dude -- who, after having a fairly hard day, said something extremely stupid and apologized for it later -- hauled out to "disprove" the assertion that pundits and Republican leaders should stop speaking in ways that provoke random crazy dudes to violence.
And, yes, I know the Freepers are circulating the story about a Democratic House member who once suggested that a Republican gubernatorial candidate who was fired under a cloud of scandal after his company defrauded the government of millions of dollars should be "put up against a wall and shot" instead of being nominated for governor. And, yeah, I'll bite the bullet and say that's a pretty irresponsible thing for him to have said.
So. Are we agreed that a very long list of Republican politicians and pundits have said a lot of very irresponsible things, and that a couple Democrats might have, too? Or are we still desperately trying to claim that there's absolutely no need for people to, y'know, stop being deliberately inflammatory?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are we agreed that a very long list of Republican politicians and pundits have said a lot of very irresponsible things, and that a couple Democrats might have, too?
Is this the type of tone that you want your politicians to have now? Isn't your question deliberately inflammatory?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Orincoro: Do you think anybody really wants to continue to talk about the breathing tube?
I don't want to actually discuss it in detail, but for all that Ron crows about how awful, stupid, and ridiculous liberals are, it'd be nice for him to man up and show some guts and integrity on a given issue.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay fine, slightly more substantive commentary: Geraine your analogy basically a perfect checkbox list of every Republican-US Right Wing gripe of the healthcare process as spoonfed by fox news and is extremely different from how a majority have viewed the process, you claim that the bill was a mess but why is it a mess and more importantly how is it a mess? Have you read the bill? Can you come up with a percentage of how much is "mess" to "substance"?
Would have having no bill really been better than having this bill that sets the foot in the door for more substantial reform later?
I've spent a little too much time on IRC so my apologies but reading it made my eyes roll.
Blayne, you assume that I have no idea what is in the bill. Do you? Have you read all 2000+ pages? I have. Every single page of it. I know what is in the bill. I know what kind of programs this bill calls to have implemented and frankly it scares the hell out of me. There are some REALLY good things in the bill. Then there are some absolutely atrocious things. Democrats know this, which is why they are willing to discuss removing some of these things rather than repeal the bill altogether, and I'm fine with that.
An example: The new 1099 rule is idiotic and has nothing to do with health care.
So now everytime your business buys ANYTHING over $600, you have to 1099 that business. Buying a new projector for the office? You have to 1099 Office Max. Buying a plane ticket for a business trip? You have to 1099 Southwest Airlines. Having an office Christmas party? You have to 1099 Claim Jumper.
Next time you accuse someone of regurgitating FoxNews, try not to do the same by regurgitating the liberal talking points.
Samprimary, I think it is important to point out that while some of the provisions in the Health Care law were Republican ideas, the way you typed it made it sound like it was the exact same bill. It wasn't.
The bill isn't without merit. I don't think it should repealed at all. I think there are portions that need to be removed, but I'm sure most people would agree with that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geraine, What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And what's wrong Geraine with clamping down on tax evasion?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I forgot whether it was the chief of police or the Sheriff, but I heard him myself about an hour or so after the tragedy saying on national TV explicitly that he thought the Tea Party was to blame. That he said this has not been denied by anyone in the media. The man's words were recorded and broadcast, and I have seen them rebroadcast. And he wasn't the only one who talked this way.
Jered Loughner was a non-partisan nut.
Eric Fuller is an extreme liberal activist.
And Fuller certainly had to have heard all the irresponsible propaganda from the left blame the Tea Party for the shooting. That is why he made the death threat in public, on-camera, against the local leader of the Tea Party.
In the early reports, on the same day as the shooting, journalists repeatedly referred to the temple as the area where the bullet entered Rep. Giffords' head. This seems to be par for the course for the quality of journalism that day. Early reports also said Rep. Giffords was dead, and even announced that they had confirmed it. Imagine how devastating it was for her husband, mother, and children to hear this announcement on TV! In the interview last night with Diane Sawyer, Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, said when they heard that announcement on TV, the kids burst out crying, her mother was close to screaming, and he went into the restroom and broke down.
Tom, the issue is not about inflammatory rhetoric, and no matter how many times liberals repeat that false script, that will not make it true. The real problem was the left trying to capitalize on a tragedy solely for poltical gain, by proclaiming flat out that conservatives were to blame for this particular shooting. That is absolutely inexcusable, and liberals are paying a heavy price for it right now nationally, whether they have the sense to see it or not. Do liberals think they can overcome the tremendous groundswell of condemnation of the left that was evident in the election last November, by offending people even further by such an obvious attempt to politicize a tragedy? Just wait until the next election! When are liberals going to wise up and realize they are only shooting themselves in the foot, and are not scoring points with anyone?
By the way, Tom, I would argue that it is the left that are more likely actually to commit acts of violence, since they manifestly believe that the ends justifies the means. They are the ones ready to ignore and junk if they can the U.S. Constitution, because it keeps getting in the way of what they think is "Progress."
It is conservatives who champion "law and order" and the Constitution.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What about when the US Constitution allowed slavery, or didn't provide equal rights to women? Were Progressives "wrong" back then to change and admend the constitution to reflect more mature social values?
What about Conservatives who passed laws that violate habeus corpus and the rights of privacy and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures? It is ultimately conservatives who find the Constitution a roadblock against greater security?
Did not George W Bush call the Constitution 'just a piece of paper'?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery. It was not anyone we would today identify as leftists or liberals or progressives. They were the Dixiecrats in the South who held on to Segregation for another hundred years.
Just because someone claims they are for progress, or identify themselves as progressives, does not mean they really are for progress or really are progressive. What matters more than progress is progress in what direction. Progress in the direction of collectivism where the state controls the individual in every way, is not progress, it is falling back toward the tyranny of the Dark Ages.
True progress is progess toward increased freedom for the individual; i.e., liberty under Constitutional law for everyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I forgot whether it was the chief of police or the Sheriff, but I heard him myself about an hour or so after the tragedy saying on national TV explicitly that he thought the Tea Party was to blame. That he said this has not been denied by anyone in the media. The man's words were recorded and broadcast, and I have seen them rebroadcast. And he wasn't the only one who talked this way.
So you don't actually have an explicit quote, do you, Ron. If they've been rebroadcast, surely you can quote them. See, I'm pretty sure I know which quote you're referring to, and if I'm right, it doesn't do what you say it does. This is sounding very much like when, on page one of this discussion, you said something provably false: "said that it was the rhetoric of the Tea Party that had inflamed people and leads to such atrocities."
Then there was the bizarre 2nd Amendment question. And then you just...dropped that part of the discussion with me when called on it directly. You're probably going to do it now, Ron.
I'm asking you a direct question about a plain statement you've made. You've said that, first, that the police chief 'explicitly blamed' the Tea Party for the attack. Then you said it was either the sheriff or the chief. Then you said you don't remember exactly what was said, but it's rebroadcast a lot...but you won't quote it, even though it's broadcast often.
Will you show this much dignity and integrity, Ron? To substantiate your remarks by citing them? The man's a police officer. You're a conservative. You're supposed to respect that, remember?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery. It was not anyone we would today identify as leftists or liberals or progressives. They were the Dixiecrats in the South who held on to Segregation for another hundred years.
Lincoln would probably have told a very different story about the Republican Party in its beginnings, Ron, given his exhaustive statements to the effect that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery but to save the Union.
In fact, there's no 'probably' about it, Ron. President Lincoln did tell a different story about it, before and during his time as President. So, no, you're factually inaccurate. Again. Can we get to the part where you pretend this misstep never happened, or will we have to prance through the 'that's not quite what I meant waltz first?
And then there's the fact that of course segregation existed quite thoroughly in reality throughout the nation, among Democrats and Republicans, exercised through simple economics as much as anything else, something which is widely known as well. Nor were the 'Dark Ages' as dark as everyone thinks, and in the respect that they exemplify a greater involvement of the church in the state obviously reflect your leanings much better.
But you tell yourself whatever stories make you feel better about conservatives, as usual.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Ron.
That a definition of progress from one part of a wide widewide spectrum of political beliefs, ever read "On Liberty" by Mill? His concept of liberty included the possibility that there could be such a thing as too much liberty and proposed reasonable boundaries between negative and positive liberties.
Just because you say increased freedom for the individual is true progress doesn't mean it is, surely giving me the freedom to shoot you and take your wallet is automatically alright because 'restricting it' would be 'against freedom'.
Liberal/Progressivism and Conservatism have been fairly consistent since the 1800's.
Liberals: We want political reform. Socialists: We want Social reforms. Anarcho-Liberals: We want but aren't getting political reform. Communists: We want but aren't getting social reforms. Conservatives: We want to keep the status quo. Reactionaries: We want to roll back reform. Fascists: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.
This is how it's mostly consistently been, Liberalism evolved from the enlightenment and parliamentary reform, conservatism has it roots in royalism.
The details may change over 'what' but the above simplification has generally been fairly consistent.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you surely are not denying that Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, are you? Or that he was one of the first Republicans, and helped to found the party? Or that the Civil War was fought between the slave states vs. the free states?
President Eisenhower (Republican) was the first president who tried to do away with segregation. When segregation finally was abolished during Johnson's presidency, it required a united, bipartisan effort against the main holdouts in the South--who were all Democrats.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is this the type of tone that you want your politicians to have now? Isn't your question deliberately inflammatory?
I consider that tone a distinct improvement over the current one, yeah.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No. I note with a distinct lack of surprise that you're not answering my question about the, who was it, sheriff or police chief, first of all.
Second, the EP didn't destroy slavery. Second, Lincoln himself would have told you, emphatically and repeatedly (I know this because he did, so often, to contemporary Americans, privately and publicly) that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery.
Insofar as another human's mind can be known, Ron, this is a fact. You're wrong. Your claim of a Republican foundation in the destruction of slavery is ignorant self-aggrandizement that is, and I can say this truthfully, pretty sad because it's rooted in a high-school level misconception about Lincoln.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, I know it has been explained to you about a dozen times - at least once or twice by me - that the Republican and Democratic parties are not the same now as they were in 1860. Civil rights basically flipped them. Quit pretending that you are unaware of this. Or are you going to start claiming that Bob La Follette was a conservative, too?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, for my part, I'm personally willing to let Republicans hearken back to their anti-slavery past, as long as they also want to hearken back to their high-tax, trust-busting, pro-regulatory-protections-for-factory-workers past.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nice to see another cheesehead, Tom. Some of us old Wisconsin ex-Republicans still mourn for the G.O.P.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Heh. I should have written 1960.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I consider that tone a distinct improvement over the current one, yeah.
Not exactly a surprise that you would favor a tone which is much more insulting to your opponents than it is to you. Same old, same old
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You believe that Republicans suffer disproportionately if people are expected to behave with civility?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I have an idea, lets all do the PC thing.
By PC I don't mean Politically Correct.
I mean Polite Conversation.
Those who fight the PC are just being rude. If you are rude that means you are not talking to me, you are talking at me, or about me.
Rudeness is petty.
Lets try not to be petty.
Rudeness in juvenile.
Lets be mature.
Civility is just a fancy way of saying polite.
We don't need to be fancy.
Politeness does not mean you have to agree with me. It means that you realize that I am a human. It means that you must listen to what I say if you expect me to listen to what you say.
It means that the power to control the conversation does not go the the loudest screamer, or those with the biggest threats, but it is shared by those who actually have something to say.
And if you are rude, being polite means I don't get mad, or get even, or suggest you are harmed. It means I quit listening to you.
Being polite requires wit, not the ability to call someone names. There is no wit needed to call someone a Nazi, or a Tea-bagger. Those terms are just rude.
I don't like rude people.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?
My take is that it is a waste of time and is only being done to try to score cheap political points. Republicans should take the approach of removing certain portions of the bill while leaving the much needed changes in. Repeal right now would mean rolling back benefits some are already receiving, and would cause more harm than good. Removing other portions that have bi-partisan support before they go into effect however would be a positive thing.
quote:And what's wrong Geraine with clamping down on tax evasion?
I have nothing against clamping down on Tax evasion. What I have issue with is that the HHS department has been given power to interpret this tax law. Not the IRS. Right now you only have to give a 1099 to an individual making over $600. Now every corporation will receive a 1099 from every single entity they did business with. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments.
That isn't to mention the amount of work businesses are going to have to do to make sure they are compliant or the billions of extra 1099's the IRS is going to have to wade through. To do that you can bet they will have to hire more people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.
The estimates I saw said it could potentially bring in $2 billion each year. I couldn't find any estimates on how much it would take to enforce the law or process the additional 1099's, but I assume it would be quite a bit.
ETA: Looks like Rep. Giffords will be moving to rehab soon. I'm glad she is recovering so well!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I only recently learned that Lincoln would have kept slavery in the Union if there was any other way to keep the Union together. That he really issued the EP out of political necessity, rather than moral or personal drive. But I hadn't taken any hitory past 10th grade. I learned this through "the People's History of the US." But then again, I knew I was pretty ignorant when it came to history, and never claimed any real authority on the subject.
So I am suprised that Ron seems not to have known this, since he has claimed extensive knowledge on this (and many other) subjects.
My impression is, through this book, that a large chunk of what I thought was my knowledge of history is really some bizarre form of happy, scrubbed, near propoganda, and that I often see and hear this repeated and affirmed through a lot of media. I want to say mainly Fox-like media, but I don't watch TV enough to really make a firm claim there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?
My take is that it is a waste of time and is only being done to try to score cheap political points. Republicans should take the approach of removing certain portions of the bill while leaving the much needed changes in. Repeal right now would mean rolling back benefits some are already receiving, and would cause more harm than good. Removing other portions that have bi-partisan support before they go into effect however would be a positive thing.
Given the Republicans behavior here and throughout the process of working on health care reform, can you see how many people believe that they are not working in good faith? And given this, that trusting them in attempts to work with them or compromise is likely to be a waste of time at best and most likely detrimental to the process and result?
---
edit: I agree that the 1099 thing was stupid. If this is really a problem, I'd suggest the high profile prosecution of it in a bunch of cases to scare people straight as opposed to adding a mess of costly paperwork to everyone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.
The estimates I saw said it could potentially bring in $2 billion each year. I couldn't find any estimates on how much it would take to enforce the law or process the additional 1099's, but I assume it would be quite a bit.
ETA: Looks like Rep. Giffords will be moving to rehab soon. I'm glad she is recovering so well!
There are more than enough Democrats supporting a repeal of that specific provision of the healthcare bill to pass a repeal of it. Republicans, however, while carping about the issue, refused to entertain the notion of small specific fixes that might make it look like they tacitly accept the bill. So instead of small fixes, they go for full repeal of the whole thing, which will never happen, and they know won't happen.
It's political theater in the places of actual governance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The thing is, the 1099 thing can't be removed and keep the good scoring of the bill. The scoring of that section of the bill just assumes the extra revenue and ignores the associated costs. That's part of why it made it into the bill in the first place (along with a number of other boneheaded provisions that largely serve to shift existing federal costs onto the states -- removing them from the bill's official accounting, but screwing over the economy).
The main thing that's missing from the bill is an honest assessment of its costs, and that's one thing the Republicans were right about. Of course the provisions coming into effect right now are successful and popular: all the popular provisions were frontloaded, and as many of the costs as possible were backloaded!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Weren't the insurance exchanges (which were supposed to be both popular and cost-saving) backloaded?
Either way, Democrats have indicated their willingness to sit down and work on amending this part of the law. Republicans have indicated they absolutely hate this provision. I don't recall if I've seen anything about how they'll fix it, but might not be a straight out repeal. I kind of figured this was more of a paperwork issue than a revenue issue, as in, they'd make the reporting requirements less onerous rather than kill the entire provision, but I'll admit to not having read up on the subject at length.
I expect it'll be months before they actually get into a room to negotiate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Weren't the insurance exchanges (which were supposed to be both popular and cost-saving) backloaded?
The insurance exchanges are only cost-saving in the long run. In the short-run, they're going to be a very expensive adjustment. I admit "all" is probably a mild exaggeration, but not all that much.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Also, insurers are prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for any individuals based on pre-existing medical conditions until 2014. So says wikipedia anyway. I'm sure that will be a big deal for some.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, that's an extremely popular provision that was one of the first implemented. It is also one of the cheapest, at least in the short to medium term. Whether there'll be long term costs is much more up in the air, and depends heavily on what ends up happening with the insurance exchanges. Also, I'm fairly certain that the societal total costs will be gains, not costs.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, the law enforcement official who blamed conservative talk radio and TV for the shootings in Tucson, and agreed with other liberal Democrats that the Tea Party was to blame, was Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff, Clarence Dupniks. Here is one excerpt from The Washington Post:
quote:In a news conference Saturday evening, Dupnik condemned the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" that he said has gripped the nation and suggested that the 22-year-old suspect being held in the shooting was mentally ill and therefore more susceptible to overheated messages in the media.
"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."
His remarks especially resonated with liberals, who even before the name of the suspect was released suggested that the shooter may have had been incited by the tea party. There is no indication that the suspect, Jared Lee Lougner, identified with the tea party or was politically conservative. During the campaign, liberal pundits and politicians asserted that the sometimes militant language some conservative politicians used could incite violence.
In the on-air statement by Dupnicks that I remember, which he gave a few hours after the shooting, he mentioned the Tea Party by name, himself.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Has it come into effect? I thought it had, but then wikipedia said not until 2014. However this one came into effect in 2010:
Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.
Is wiki wrong?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, the law enforcement official who blamed conservative talk radio and TV for the shootings in Tucson, and agreed with other liberal Democrats that the Tea Party was to blame, was Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff, Clarence Dupniks. Here is one excerpt from The Washington Post:
quote:In a news conference Saturday evening, Dupnik condemned the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" that he said has gripped the nation and suggested that the 22-year-old suspect being held in the shooting was mentally ill and therefore more susceptible to overheated messages in the media.
"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."
His remarks especially resonated with liberals, who even before the name of the suspect was released suggested that the shooter may have had been incited by the tea party. There is no indication that the suspect, Jared Lee Lougner, identified with the tea party or was politically conservative. During the campaign, liberal pundits and politicians asserted that the sometimes militant language some conservative politicians used could incite violence.
In the on-air statement by Dupnicks that I remember, which he gave a few hours after the shooting, he mentioned the Tea Party by name, himself.
Ron: I'm a bit confused. In your link, none of his comments place the blame on the tea party. He places the blame on people who make inflammatory remarks, and rabble rouse. The article merely states that liberal groups have inferred that implicates the Tea Party.
You still haven't provided a direct quote where a law enforcement official while speaking to the media fingered the Tea Party.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hmm, I might be misremembering. It seems they did only put in the pre-existing conditions clause for children. If anything, that annoys me. I'd like to see it put earlier. Ah, I recall what I'm thinking of: the bill immediately created an insurance program for people with pre-existing conditions who have lacked insurance for six months.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, the usual liberal Democrat passion for revisiting history can really be awe inspiring. Let me see if I have it right:
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War that ended Slavery, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he did not really want to do away with slavery. Is that what you are saying is your *Superior* liberal scholarship?
And oh yes, let me not overlook this one:
The Civil War was fought between the slave states and the free states, and the result of the Union victory was the abolition of slavery in America--But the liberal view is that the Civil War was not really about slavery at all, it was about "States Rights." (But state's right to do what--continue with slavery?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not confused at all. I don't expect him ever to actually do it. I expect him to do what he did back on page one, which is make the accusation and then not substantiate it.
He might respond to you, given the other hat you wear, but then again that might be a post of thinly veiled invective about how you're betraying the Cards by giving into to liberal atheist/agnostics such as myself (heh) and making this forum unfriendly to their ideals.
All while most likely, if he holds true to pattern, never directly returning to the question at hand and acknowledging, "The police chief/sheriff/dog catcher never actually explicitly blamed the Tea Party as I initially said more than once."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, the usual liberal Democrat passion for revisiting history can really be awe inspiring. Let me see if I have it right:
Revisionism can indeed be awe-inspiring. Here's a great example: I voted for Dubya twice, came close to voting for McCain for President, and am a registered Independent and have been since I could vote. I expect this statement of fact to be as persuasive towards you as pointing out that, no, I'm not actually an 'agnostic/atheist', nor do I 'oppose the 2nd Amendment', and other frankly bizarre accusations you've leveled. They're a strange mixture of weird and street theater.
But let's look at what I actually said, instead of the much easier, less ethical route you're taking of putting words into my mouth:
quote:Second, Lincoln himself would have told you, emphatically and repeatedly (I know this because he did, so often, to contemporary Americans, privately and publicly) that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery.
Insofar as another human's mind can be known, Ron, this is a fact. You're wrong. Your claim of a Republican foundation in the destruction of slavery is ignorant self-aggrandizement that is, and I can say this truthfully, pretty sad because it's rooted in a high-school level misconception about Lincoln.
At no time did I say the Republican Party didn't have a huge hand in the destruction of slavery, I said that that was not their goal as a whole at the time. It was the preservation of Union, as it was President Lincoln's in particular.
I haven't spoken here about what my view on what the Civil War was about, so how on Earth you presume to know what my mind is on the subject is beyond me. Who are you to claim such powers, Ron? If I went by the KJV, I'd not suffer you to live!
Now, how about let's go back to what the sheriff/police chief of Tuscon said about the Tea Party, shall we? You've said it's been broadcast so often, so it will be easy for you to dredge up a quotation for us to go over. No, this isn't going to go away. You're not going to throw a nice big neon red herring on the floor like whether the Civil War was really about slavery (though that's a great try!) to divert the subject. You made a statement. Be as strong as gun ownership and stand behind it!
------
ETA: Heh, I was going to let Ron continue saying ridiculous things before just doing a ten second bit of Google work of Lincoln quotes, kmbboots, but that's certainly a good start!
Prediction: Ron will say soemthing like, "Sure, he said that, of course I knew that all along, but what was clearly in his heart the entire time was the destruction of slavery, and no one can dispute it was destroyed in the United States under Republican leadership."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I could not find a link to that particular statement (on air at Fox News about 2pm EST, Jan. 8). But I myself heard Dupnicks make the statement where he explicitly mentioned the Tea Party himself. I am an eye witness. And not the only one, considering Fox News' high ratings.
You can doubt me. You are free to doubt anything I say. But you will be wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your objectivity on this statement is underwhelming. Your appeal to the authority of the viewership of Fox News is unconvincing. You have failed to put your money where your mouth is.
If he had explicitly blamed the Tea Party as you say he did, you're perfectly aware it would be plastered all over the web. The fact that you've failed after repeated requests to find a quote of him doing so is a pretty persuasive indicator that he didn't.
And, this may surprise you: doubting you doesn't equate to being wrong. To think an un-Ron thought doesn't equate to wrongness. Such a thought! I'm getting Inherit the Wind chills here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
--- Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ron, please address the quote (from Lincoln) that kmbboots provided.
How does it not demonstrate, emphatically, that Lincoln's primary goal was keeping the Union together, and not ending slavery?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War that ended Slavery, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he did not really want to do away with slavery. Is that what you are saying is your *Superior* liberal scholarship?
Lincoln most certainly did not approve of slavery. But he became President at a time where states had been making very serious overtures at succession, including the succession crisis of Jackson's presidency. The previous President had been paralyzed as things began to crumble, and so Lincoln absolutely felt his first priority was preserving the union.
quote:The Civil War was fought between the slave states and the free states, and the result of the Union victory was the abolition of slavery in America--But the liberal view is that the Civil War was not really about slavery at all, it was about "States Rights." (But state's right to do what--continue with slavery?)
I think you are confused Ron. Liberals accept that the Civil Warm while it was being conducted, adopted the end of slavery as an issue. States that did not leave the union were most definitely allowed to maintain their slaves and plantations, even after the emancipation proclamation. But the current consensus on the scholarship is that *Southern* states, in order to continue utilizing slave labor most definitely cited slavery and Northern pressure against slavery as one of the reasons they were justified in leaving the union. That dogged refusal to depart from slavery is almost funny in that many Southerners now wish to whitewash that part of their history and pretend the civil war was all about state's rights, and tie that into current conservative thought. So it's actually many conservatives that are acting like slavery had nothing to do with the civil war.
They are partly right, in that I'm am quite confident that if the Southern states hadn't attacked Union forces, they could have scared the Northern states and kept their slaves for the time being.
[ January 19, 2011, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The real problem was the left trying to capitalize on a tragedy solely for poltical gain, by proclaiming flat out that conservatives were to blame for this particular shooting.
No.
Mostly the people who have proclaimed anything at all -- which does not include all "the left" -- have blamed it on violent, hostile rhetoric. Many have named specific commentators who often use such violent rhetoric. A few have, indeed, blamed all Republicans or all conservatives, but the overwhelming bulk of complaints have been about the loud, angry, violent talkers.
I do not think that loud, angry, violent talker = conservative. I'm really hoping you don't. There are many conservatives who are calm, intelligent, reasonable people who wish to govern together with their fellow politicians. And I'd really like to hear more from them, if I could get the loud ones to simmer down a minute.
Sarah Palin said, in her interview on Hannity, that no one will silence her. I think it's telling that, when asked to be civil, she complains of being silenced. Apparently when you take away her hostility, she has no voice at all. Does she have ideas? I'd like to hear them. So far I've mostly heard why all the Left's ideas are wrong and how they all hate her.
But, please, stop blaming the complaints about violent rhetoric on the left. An awful lot of us, left, right and independent, are damn tired of all of you, left, right, up, down, whatever. Between the bickering and the games and the points-scoring and the grandstanding and the name-calling and the lying and the endless fight for power and prestige and airtime, we'd like to see some of the people in office take maybe 15 minutes a day and frickin' govern something.
You know what? Liberals aren't going away. Neither are conservatives. There will never be a time when all of America suddenly decides that [pick either party] is completely right, largely because neither side ever will be. It's far past time for all of you to grow up out of the preschool mindsets you're stuck in and learn to work together to find solutions that work for as many people as possible.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Is the nuance really that difficult to follow?
The war was entirely tied up with slavery as an institution and political issue, it's just that slavery alone was not responsible for secession, nor for the beginning of the war. It was not the banner issue at the outset, though it was partly responsible for and indicative of the general conflict.
It's like this Ron: Oil has everything to do with the war in Iraq, by simple virtue if *nothing* else, of Iraq's history as an oil producing nation. Oil is a big part of what made Iraq into what it was by 2003- and oil has contributed to US foreign policy around the world for a long time. That doesn't mean we fought that war over oil- it doesn't mean the war was "about oil." Were it not for oil, it's doubtful that war would have happened- but it did happen, and the general political circumstances surrounding it were still bigger than oil.
So while you can say that were it not for slavery, the Civil War would likely not have happened, you cannot say that the war was about slavery in its entirety. It simply wasn't- it was about the effects that slavery had already had on the economies of the north and south. It was about the rot that slavery had caused in the South. So if Lincoln could have fixed that without abolishing slavery and going to war, he might have tried to do it. The fact that it was impossible to fix, and that eventually the only thing for it was to commit fully to an end of slavery as an institution to ensure that Reconstruction would go ahead and this conflict would never happen again doesn't mean the war was about slavery as a political issue.
So, slavery = a cause of the war. However slavery != *the* cause of the war.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Apparently when you take away her hostility, she has no voice at all."
I do have difficulty recalling anything she has said publicly that has not been mixed up with hostility or bitterness, or not been otherwise adversarial. Interestingly, the boys on "It's All Political," who have both listened to and read a great deal more of her public record than I have, commented last week that a key problem in her public persona is that she apparently doesn't present any position on public policy that isn't couched in opposition to some other person, group, or policy itself. They seem to think that if she wishes to run for office, the fact that her current public policy agenda is presented entirely as opposition to existing policy agendas is going to be a major liability.
I would characterize her as perhaps the worst on the score of having no new ideas, but it's an issue that runs through the conservative movement- which is going to be interesting in this coming session. So far they support a number of policies which failed rather badly under Bush, and they oppose a number of policies that have yet to be tested.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Aaaand we're off and running with the whole "civility" thing. A House Democratic, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), went off on the Republicans and brought up the Nazis:
quote:"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing."
Cohen, you moron. Now everyone will ignore the point you were trying to make -- lies yelled loud enough and often enough will be believed, which is true -- and focus on your hostility, idiocy, and willingness to lump all opponents into the "they hate America and probably want to kill us all" group. And if you did have any good points as a politician you just threw them all away.
Honestly, what is it about people that makes them so ready to demonize their opponents? What Republican would be willing to work with Rep. Cohen now? What result was he expecting? To shame them into giving up? Shame rarely works in politics.
I have no use for any public speaker of any party or media who relies on volume, logical fallacies either accidental or, worse, intentional, and fear to rouse his or her listeners.
Editing to add: You want to make the same point? Try this:
"Americans are of many minds about health care reform. They worry that it costs too much, or will hurt small businesses, or that it's a socialist plot. And many of those worries are our fault, because we failed to comprehend just how loudly and how forcefully some opponents of health care reform would be willing to lie about it.
"Day after day, night after night, some opponents of health care reform, whether in office, on television or on the radio, screamed lies into the ears of their audiences. They didn't let up, they didn't acknowledge when they were proved wrong, and they all agreed with each other so that their audiences knew they must be right. Small wonder so few Americans know what to believe.
"Health care reform is a government takeover? That's a damn lie. That's what you hear from a corrupt businessman who fears that reasonable regulations that protect the consumer will keep him from making as much money as he wants.
"Death panels! Not only was that a whopping lie, it was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The bill contained a provision for covering the costs of end-of-life counseling for the elderly, to answer their questions about living wills, powers of attorney, and the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy in the bill, and it would pay for that counseling up to once every five years. That's it! Entirely voluntary, solely there to help people nearing the end of their lives to have a little more control over what was happening. But don't worry! After enough idiots yelled "Death panels!" for long enough, they heroically got that useful, compassionate service chopped out. And they still wouldn't stop lying about it, even after it was removed from the bill, because it was too good a lie to let go.
"There are good and reasonable arguments against many aspects of this reform, and I am eager to sit down with good and reasonable people and find solutions. But the American people deserve to be told the truth, good and bad, and they deserve representatives who work together in good faith with what's real. When you lie to someone and they agree with you, you can't point at that agreement and claim a mandate, you can't tally up deluded voters and say this is what they want.
"Say a lie often enough and loud enough, and people will believe it. I say have the guts to tell the truth so that people will understand it."
OK, needs polishing. But 20 minutes and I wrote a speech that is just as impassioned, but without the Nazi comparison or the automatic condemnation of huge classes of people. Surely someone with a speech-writing staff could do far better.
[ January 19, 2011, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Ron: Rakeesh, the usual liberal Democrat passion for revisiting history can really be awe inspiring. Let me see if I have it right:
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War that ended Slavery, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he did not really want to do away with slavery. Is that what you are saying is your *Superior* liberal scholarship?
And oh yes, let me not overlook this one:
The Civil War was fought between the slave states and the free states, and the result of the Union victory was the abolition of slavery in America--But the liberal view is that the Civil War was not really about slavery at all, it was about "States Rights." (But state's right to do what--continue with slavery?)
Lincoln said something to effect of 'If I could have saved the union without ending slavery, I would have done it, and if I could have saved the union by abolishing slavery, I would have done it.'
He might have been opposed to the specific text of something like the Crittendon Amendments, but Lincoln would have supported a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in the south (but not anywhere else (which I guess was moot since slavery couldn't really exist much outside of the areas it was already in)) if that would have stopped secession from happening.
In fact, if you READ the Emancipation Proclamation, it didn't actually end slavery everywhere. In fact, it ended slavery only on the basis of slaves being captured as war materiel. He didn't issue the proclamation on moral or civil rights grounds, but on strategic grounds since slaves were important to the southern war effort. Slaves were still slaves in the border states like Kentucky and Maryland, and weren't freed until the 13th Amendment was passed.
To be fair though, Lincoln hated slavery. Part of what I think made Lincoln so interesting was the battle between what Lincoln felt was ideologically right (ending slavery) and what he had to do in his duty to forestall or win the civil war (which to begin with meant appeasing the south).
So, the war wasn't actually fought just between free and slave states. Border states had slaves. And the issue of slavery's role in the war is hotly contested amongst historians to this day. I'm of the opinion that you can trace a lot of issues back to slavery, but the states' rights issue is one that went back decades regarding a lot of issues that had nothing to do with slavery. A federal vs. state showdown was looming, slavery provided a context to frame the battle. But there were plenty of other issues too. Lincoln's election and the rise of the Republicans had a lot to do with it, especially when southerners realized that their multi-decade hold on Congressional power had finally come to an end. They took their ball and went home, and that was only tangentially related to slavery.
It's not just a black and white issue.
ETA: My bad, I didn't see that Blayne quoted the full paragraph of the Lincoln quote on the last page. Thanks Blayne.
[ January 20, 2011, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You overestimate both the abilities of speechwriting staff and the critical discernment of elected officials, Chris. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery.
Here's a question I want you to go independently research: was abraham lincoln the founder? was he the first presidential candidate offered by the party?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: I consider that tone a distinct improvement over the current one, yeah.
Not exactly a surprise that you would favor a tone which is much more insulting to your opponents than it is to you. Same old, same old
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You believe that Republicans suffer disproportionately if people are expected to behave with civility?
I laughed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Blayne, good work finding that quote. I was about to look for it, as I am familiar with it, but you beat me to it.
Ron....I'm a nurse, and have been a medic. I've worked with trauma patients, trach patients, and patients on vents.
You've been proven wrong many times here oh Hatrack, but this one one of the worst examples of it. What you suggested was unethical, dangerous to the patient, and against every single piece of medical advice I have ever heard in all of my training, all of my experience, and everything I have ever read on the subject.
I understand how the idea might have come to you in the first place, and you are not wring about MD's withholding info if they fear for the patients medical condition. However, after a number of people IN THE MEDICAL field explained why it was a bad idea, and ever stated specific MEDICAL reasons why doing so would gravely endanger the patient's health, I don't know why you would insist it was a reasonable idea, let alone one that MD's were actually pursuing.
It's time to man up.
In other news......Rep. Giffords stood today for the first time.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
One thing we CAN all agree on is our hope that she makes a full recovery.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
She will not make a 'full recovery,' btw. She will make 'the best recovery possible.' The reality of a TBI like hers is that she'll never really get back to where she was before, and will have to spend years dealing with the recovery process.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery.
Here's a question I want you to go independently research: was abraham lincoln the founder? was he the first presidential candidate offered by the party?
This is usually the point in class where I raise my hand and say "Oh me! Me me me!"
It's actually a somewhat complicated question depending on whether or not you trace the roots of the party through the Free Soilers and the Liberty Party.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
You're one of the heavy hitters on 19th century American history I was talking about:) But even I know (and Ron should know) that of course evidence leads us to conclude Lincoln couldn't stand the institution of slavery.
He was really a torn man, and the not-so-funny thing is that I believe Ron does know this, because it's actually common knowledge to folks who know have more than just a passing knowledge of American Civil War history. That is, that Lincoln hated slavery, yet didn't fight the Civil War to end it, along with a bunch of other factually inaccurate hokum thrown in there to the glory of the Republican party. Another sad thing is that it's all so unnecessary, because having been the party that, y'know, spearheaded the destruction of slavery is actually pretty damn good in and of itself without tarnishing that record by claiming the party as a whole wanted that end at the time, an obvious lie.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Blayne, good work finding that quote. I was about to look for it, as I am familiar with it, but you beat me to it.
I've spent a good while doing a wiki walk a week or so back on Lincoln and the civil war so it was fresh in my mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn,
You're one of the heavy hitters on 19th century American history I was talking about:) But even I know (and Ron should know) that of course evidence leads us to conclude Lincoln couldn't stand the institution of slavery.
He was really a torn man, and the not-so-funny thing is that I believe Ron does know this, because it's actually common knowledge to folks who know have more than just a passing knowledge of American Civil War history. That is, that Lincoln hated slavery, yet didn't fight the Civil War to end it, along with a bunch of other factually inaccurate hokum thrown in there to the glory of the Republican party. Another sad thing is that it's all so unnecessary, because having been the party that, y'know, spearheaded the destruction of slavery is actually pretty damn good in and of itself without tarnishing that record by claiming the party as a whole wanted that end at the time, an obvious lie.
Very true. Republicans did some great things in the 1860s and 70s. Of course, when they abandoned the south after 1876, they left ex-slaves defenseless against a pissed off and vengeful south, so, that somewhat mitigates their successes. But I can say pretty solidly that if I had been forced to choose a party in 1860, I would have been a Republican. They had a lot going for them
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wasn't them doing alright though under Teddy? I'ld vote for teddy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Teddy Roosevelt was a total aberration in a number of ways. I think he's easily in my top five list of most interesting Americans ever, not even just politicians. Maybe even most interesting people ever.
The first odd thing about him is that he never really should have been president. It's unlikely he ever would have won the nomination on his own. He was forced on McKinley because the Republican party machine in NY was pissy over all the reforms he was enacting. The VP spot was supposed to pigeonhole him. If anyone had an inkling that McKinley wouldn't serve out his term, Roosevelt never would have won.
His status as a war hero and national patriarch helped win him an easy reelection, and if he hadn't stepped down to let Taft take his place, he would have easily won a third term. He never really should have even been a war hero. War politics were interesting back then. William Jennings Bryan wanted to join the war effort but McKinley specifically kept him out of the war for fear he'd become a war hero. Roosevelt's movement of ships as Assistant Secretary of the Navy is a small part of what helped get America into the Spanish-American War, and when he left his post to command a cavalry unit, he was never actually supposed to go.
So many Americans signed up for the war and headed to Florida that the government didn't know what to do with them all. Roosevelt was never assigned a ship to Cuba, so instead, he literally held up a transport at gunpoint and forced the assigned unit off the ship so the Rough Riders could cross.
And while Roosevelt was loved by the people, the Republican establishment actually wasn't entirely pleased with him because he rooted out corruption and graft, which was the grease that made political parties run at the time (still does, just a different form of it). He didn't listen to anyone but himself when it came to political advice, he acted on his own beliefs and conscience. He also cut across party lines on a dozen different issues. Roosevelt in many ways wasn't a Republican or a Democrat, he was Roosevelt, and he just happened to have an R next to his name.
If anyone is a real Roosevelt enthusiast, I'd recommend reading The River of Doubt. It's an account of Roosevelt's exploration of the River of Doubt (now the Rio Roosevelt) in Brazil in 1913 with his son Kermit and some other explorers. It's tragic and thrilling in a number of ways. His son Kermit is a particularly interesting person during the journey. It's a celebration of just how much of a badass Roosevelt was, and also how much of a conservationist, explorer, father and overall fascinating individual, but during a time removed from his days as president. It's a great read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery.
Here's a question I want you to go independently research: was abraham lincoln the founder? was he the first presidential candidate offered by the party?
*raises hand I know this one!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You believe that Republicans suffer disproportionately if people are expected to behave with civility?
You are demonstrating the exact reason why there will never be civility. You are much more interested in the zinger, making yourself appear witty while also slighting your opponent. It's all a game to you. This seems to be how you feed your ego and convince yourself that you are the smartest guy in the room. Your response didn't relate to what I said, but you knew that. You just wanted to make the pointed comment and give others a chuckle at my expense. "Do I as I say, not as I do"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
His response actually does relate to what you said, and he can ably explain why. It should also be evident to you, if you put aside the whole wounded pride schtick and analyze it a bit closer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ya gotta shoot them inna head
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: His response actually does relate to what you said, and he can ably explain why. It should also be evident to you, if you put aside the whole wounded pride schtick and analyze it a bit closer.
You can make anything relate if you stretch it enough, but we both know why he said what he said and that it really doesn't relate directly and is an attempt to zing. You are also misrepresenting for the same reason. There is no wounded pride schtick. I made a valid point so you do what you do, twist it and make it be about something else. I appreciate your consistency.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I will freely confess to being so witty that wit rises from me like morning mist. However, I submit that accusing me of dishonest motives and accusing Samp of outright dishonesty is -- just perhaps -- less civil than anything I've said in this thread.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That, *is* the wounded pride schtick.
But to be fair, this is a "zing" as you call it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I see that your pride has been hurt. Don't feel bad that your, and Samp's, intentions were noticed and commented on. Unless you are denying that you use sarcasm to belittle the other person while attempting to make your point?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: You believe that Republicans suffer disproportionately if people are expected to behave with civility?
You are demonstrating the exact reason why there will never be civility. You are much more interested in the zinger...
You too are demonstrating why there cannot be civility. I myself, and others took a lot of time to try and compose thoughts on this particular issue, and have tried to allocate blame where it belongs, but very little of those posts were responded to by the opposition, who then proceeded to back track to "But liberals say inflammatory things too!"
People who try to remain respectful just are not as interesting to talk to. It's so much easier to latch on to the statements made by others that irk just a little bit more, and then blast them back. It's hardly interesting to say, "Hmmm that's true, I'm going to try to change without caring whether others do the same thing."
No, instead it's better to just go right back to those easy one liners that you can get outraged over and say some things that somebody else on the other side can do the same thing to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* DK, I wasn't being sarcastic at all when I asked whether you were worried that Republicans would be disproportionately hurt by a conscious recommitment to civility. It seems to me like a very genuine concern you might have.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You too are demonstrating why there cannot be civility.
Politics are about people's beliefs. I would guess that a great many people are passionate about those beliefs. When those beliefs are criticized and ridiculed people respond passionately.
quote: I myself, and others took a lot of time to try and compose thoughts on this particular issue, and have tried to allocate blame where it belongs, but very little of those posts were responded to by the opposition, who then proceeded to back track to "But liberals say inflammatory things too!"
Of course they do. It would be different if people on the left were saying that the left needs to tone down it's rhetoric. But the left is not saying that. Look at what Tom said "a very long list of Republican politicians and pundits have said a lot of very irresponsible things, and that a couple Democrats might have, too". The premise of his question should be rejected and denounced by left leaning people for its tone but it wasn't. As Darth_Muave pointed out, NPR spent a day railing against conservative media while Palin was making the silly arguement that the crosshairs were surveyor symbols. The biggest difference is that NPR is a news outlet who prides themselves on being very nonpartisan and Palin is a talking head who talks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When those beliefs are criticized and ridiculed people respond passionately.
Do you believe it is impossible to be both passionate and civil, or unreasonable to expect people to try?
quote:The premise of his question should be rejected and denounced by left leaning people for its tone but it wasn't.
How would you more politely word the observation that a long list of Republican politicians and pundits have been irresponsible, along with a handful of Democrats? Do you disagree with the tone of the statement, or the claim embedded in it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anyone interested truly and only in civil, productive political discussion knows better than to waste their time here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Teddy Roosevelt was a total aberration in a number of ways. I think he's easily in my top five list of most interesting Americans ever, not even just politicians. Maybe even most interesting people ever.
The first odd thing about him is that he never really should have been president. It's unlikely he ever would have won the nomination on his own. He was forced on McKinley because the Republican party machine in NY was pissy over all the reforms he was enacting. The VP spot was supposed to pigeonhole him. If anyone had an inkling that McKinley wouldn't serve out his term, Roosevelt never would have won.
His status as a war hero and national patriarch helped win him an easy reelection, and if he hadn't stepped down to let Taft take his place, he would have easily won a third term. He never really should have even been a war hero. War politics were interesting back then. William Jennings Bryan wanted to join the war effort but McKinley specifically kept him out of the war for fear he'd become a war hero. Roosevelt's movement of ships as Assistant Secretary of the Navy is a small part of what helped get America into the Spanish-American War, and when he left his post to command a cavalry unit, he was never actually supposed to go.
So many Americans signed up for the war and headed to Florida that the government didn't know what to do with them all. Roosevelt was never assigned a ship to Cuba, so instead, he literally held up a transport at gunpoint and forced the assigned unit off the ship so the Rough Riders could cross.
And while Roosevelt was loved by the people, the Republican establishment actually wasn't entirely pleased with him because he rooted out corruption and graft, which was the grease that made political parties run at the time (still does, just a different form of it). He didn't listen to anyone but himself when it came to political advice, he acted on his own beliefs and conscience. He also cut across party lines on a dozen different issues. Roosevelt in many ways wasn't a Republican or a Democrat, he was Roosevelt, and he just happened to have an R next to his name.
If anyone is a real Roosevelt enthusiast, I'd recommend reading The River of Doubt. It's an account of Roosevelt's exploration of the River of Doubt (now the Rio Roosevelt) in Brazil in 1913 with his son Kermit and some other explorers. It's tragic and thrilling in a number of ways. His son Kermit is a particularly interesting person during the journey. It's a celebration of just how much of a badass Roosevelt was, and also how much of a conservationist, explorer, father and overall fascinating individual, but during a time removed from his days as president. It's a great read.
Wasn't there a book by a recent Daily Show guest as well?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Anyone interested truly and only in civil, productive political discussion knows better than to waste their time here.
Ba-dump-CHING! Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: *laugh* DK, I wasn't being sarcastic at all when I asked whether you were worried that Republicans would be disproportionately hurt by a conscious recommitment to civility. It seems to me like a very genuine concern you might have.
No, TD, it is not a concern at all to me. I believe that the Democratic party and many in the media would struggle far greater with controlling their own rhetoric.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I would guess that a great many people are passionate about those beliefs. When those beliefs are criticized and ridiculed people respond passionately.
Yes, because that's the easy way to respond. If your point is that conservatives are not saying anything inflammatory things, then embody that principle and just calmly state the facts. But if your position is, "No more than what liberals are saying." Well that's a morally indefensible position.
There have definitely been people here who have said liberals say hateful things too. But as far as I can recall you, as well as some others have yet to indicate that there are fire brands in the conservative movement who ought to check themselves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Anyone interested truly and only in civil, productive political discussion knows better than to waste their time here.
I shall continue to squander then, and frequently.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do you believe it is impossible to be both passionate and civil, or unreasonable to expect people to try?
It is not impossible, nor unreasonable to expect people to try.
quote: How would you more politely word the observation that a long list of Republican politicians and pundits have been irresponsible, along with a handful of Democrats? Do you disagree with the tone of the statement, or the claim embedded in it?
I disagree with the claim embedded in it
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Then your problem is not my tone, is it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: You are also misrepresenting for the same reason. There is no wounded pride schtick. I made a valid point so you do what you do, twist it and make it be about something else. I appreciate your consistency.
Dude, there's no 'twisting it to be something else.' Tom was doing exactly what I said he was doing, this was subsequently shown, and you have yet to convince me with any substantive gesture on your part that I haven't appraised this well. The part which is consistent is the reaction you have to stuff you politically disagree with, and I've already gone over the whole poor reading comprehension thing with you before, so there's no need to cycle through that again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Anyone interested truly and only in civil, productive political discussion knows better than to waste their time here.
I think you truly believe this! So, you know what this says about you when you continue to post merely to spit scorn and pretty much contribute nothing more than that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...Palin is a talking head who talks.
This is untrue, DarkKnight, and I think you know it. It might be what she is to you, but that's most certainly not her only force in national politics, and it's especially not true when you look at what her role has been in as little as the past year or two.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If your point is that conservatives are not saying anything inflammatory things, then embody that principle and just calmly state the facts. But if your position is, "No more than what liberals are saying." Well that's a morally indefensible position.
Defining 'civility' can be harder than it appears. Was TD being civil when he asked his question? Arguements could be made either way. Personally, I have not come out for or against civility in our political discussions. Things were not particularly civil in politics at any point in history so why is it so crucial now? Despite assertions by Glen Beck, this is not the most critcal point in US history. It's a point, like many many others. Civility is a buzzword of the day, and we will move on to the next catch phrase soon enough. I do not think we will be discussing an increasing need for civility if a Republican, or if by some incredibly unlucky misfortune Palin, becomes President.
This is also how 'civility' can be elusive Take this article for instance Jobless Aid Here is the headline and opening of the story:
quote:Fewer Americans applied for jobless aid last week Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week, adding to evidence that hiring will pick up this year.
The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of people seeking benefits fell by 37,000 to a seasonally adjusted 404,000 for the week ended Jan. 15. That's not much higher than the 391,000 level reached last month, the lowest in more than two years.
The decline suggested that an unexpected rise in applications a week earlier was the result of seasonal factors. Applications often rise in early January after retailers lay off temporary holiday workers.
Now we find this later on in the very same story
quote: Net job gains in December were modest. Employers added only 103,000 jobs, less than half of the total needed to reduce the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent from 9.8 percent last month. About half that drop came from unemployed workers giving up on their job searches. The government only counts as unemployed people who are still looking for work.
The number of people continuing to receive unemployment benefits fell to 3.9 million in the week ending Jan. 8, its lowest level since October 2008. But that may just mean many people have exhausted their 26 weeks of state benefits.
The figure doesn't include millions of long-term unemployed who are receiving extended benefits from the federal government under an emergency program set up during the recession.
How much different would this story appear, yet still be true, if the headline and opening paragraph read: "Millions give up job searching The unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent from 9.8 percent last month as many unemployed workers gave up on their job searches. The number of people continuing to receive unemployment benefits fell to 3.9 million in the week ending Jan. 8 but that may mean many people have exhausted their 26 weeks of state benefits.
The figure doesn't include millions of long-term unemployed who are receiving extended benefits from the federal government."
quote: Unemployment rate near 4-year low Rate dips to 5.0 percent, lowest since 9/11, BUT job growth again falls short of forecasts.
The unemployment rate fell to 5 percent from 5.1 percent in May, the Labor Department reported, the lowest since a matching reading in September 2001, the month of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Economists had forecast the rate would remain unchanged at 5.1 percent.
BUT the department's survey of employers showed they added just 146,000 jobs to payrolls in June, up from a revised 104,000 in May. That was well short of the average forecast for a net gain of 195,000 jobs last month, according to economists surveyed by Briefing.com.
I capitalized the BUTs in the quote. That should have been a really positive article yet it has 'buts' to counteract the good news. Neither one of those articles nor my changed article sounds uncivil yet in subtle ways, they can be thought of that way.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Then your problem is not my tone, is it?
The problem is tone and content of the question.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This is untrue, DarkKnight, and I think you know it. It might be what she is to you, but that's most certainly not her only force in national politics, and it's especially not true when you look at what her role has been in as little as the past year or two.
I think she is being made out to be more important than she truly is, and once the spotlight is taken off of her she will very quickly fade. I do believe the left runs to her constantly because the know she is going to say something they can use. Constant Palin bashing makes her more sympathetic to others
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would love to test that theory. It would be great to go for a few weeks even without Mrs. Palin all over the TV.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I would too, I highly doubt it will happen though. Ironic how she is useful to both sides, yet useless overall
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: This is untrue, DarkKnight, and I think you know it. It might be what she is to you, but that's most certainly not her only force in national politics, and it's especially not true when you look at what her role has been in as little as the past year or two.
I think she is being made out to be more important than she truly is, and once the spotlight is taken off of her she will very quickly fade. I do believe the left runs to her constantly because the know she is going to say something they can use. Constant Palin bashing makes her more sympathetic to others
No egregious palin bashing makes her sympathetic like when kids flamed her daughter on facebook, Palin saying something stupid and idiotic is justified palin bashing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't say that this thread or forum was completely useless. I don't believe it is. But it most definitely is not a place for civil, productive political discourse. If that's what you're looking for, this is not only the wrong tree, it is the wrong forest.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Palin saying something stupid and idiotic is justified palin bashing
Much like the call for civility, I can see people gaining a lot of sympathy for Palin when she is referred to as stupid and idiotic
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think she is being made out to be more important than she truly is, and once the spotlight is taken off of her she will very quickly fade. I do believe the left runs to her constantly because the know she is going to say something they can use. Constant Palin bashing makes her more sympathetic to others
Your argument is that, if she stopped being so important not, she wouldn't be important, essentially.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Your argument is that, if she stopped being so important not, she wouldn't be important, essentially.
No, my arguement is that she is useful to both sides, but not important to either one. Neither side would suffer if she was not paid attention to anymore
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Palin saying something stupid and idiotic is justified palin bashing
Much like the call for civility, I can see people gaining a lot of sympathy for Palin when she is referred to as stupid and idiotic
If she didn't keep spouting ignorant statements...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Defining 'civility' can be harder than it appears. Was TD being civil when he asked his question? Arguements could be made either way. Personally, I have not come out for or against civility in our political discussions. Things were not particularly civil in politics at any point in history so why is it so crucial now?
Because, to stray close to the melodramatic, lives can be saved by being civil! Wars can be prevented, injustices avoided, legislation passed and stopped by being civil. The only thing incivility does is polarize us, split us apart, trust each other less, and then actively harm one another by lying, accusing, and in the worst scenarios actually hurting them.
This healthcare legislation is a prime example of this. The Democrats felt Republicans were merely stalling the bill with token revisions, while they simultaneously disseminated false information about the bill so as to cause support to flag. The Republicans felt the Democrats were going to use their majorities to ram through legislation and so they did what they could stop stall, if not stop the bill, because many of them earnestly believed it was the wrong solution to a problem.
The result? Democrats applied some legislative acrobatics while the Republicans screamed foul. Now we have to revisit this bill and both sides are itching for that. The Democrats so that the Republicans can look like the evil men who want you dead because you can't get healthcare, and the Republicans so they can scream about government spending and free market politics.
And all this time, the only real victims in all this is us, because we are going to suffer either way it goes, while none of them will even lose sleep over this because all of them are covered by federal health care, and many of them get hefty sums from healthcare providers to vote the way they do.
Civility is one of those things that will never toot its own horn, and so it will go on being ignored. Nobody will know what mistakes might have been avoided if we had been civil. What crimes might not have been committed if offense hadn't been given. What joint efforts might have been undertaken if we had just cast away our pride and talked to each other like both sides had something to offer.
Instead we get a paralyzed congress, that lets the federal government pick up the slack because, lets face it, the President isn't going to fight with him/herself, and all its members can do is try to apportion the maximum amount of blame to everybody else. And you, even you, expect that that is the way of the world, and we should all just accept that.
Bullocks to that, I do not believe in accepting that reality. Especially when it's so blindingly obvious that civility *is* something that is attainable. It's not the moon in 10 years, it's not the cure for cancer. Millions of people grow up to become perfectly civil and decent people. It's not magic, it's not even unusual. If you think about the sort of people who would want to run for congress, it becomes glaringly apparent why they are a bunch of primadonnas obcessed with stoking their egos. And yet, look how flimsy their positions are. A little populist rhetoric, and a bunch of senators and congressmen were turned out of office.
If you think we couldn't do the same thing to them if we wanted to by insisting that the idiots who spout off at the mouth get kicked out, you aren't placing nearly enough faith in the process.
[ January 20, 2011, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: *laugh* DK, I wasn't being sarcastic at all when I asked whether you were worried that Republicans would be disproportionately hurt by a conscious recommitment to civility. It seems to me like a very genuine concern you might have.
No, TD, it is not a concern at all to me. I believe that the Democratic party and many in the media would struggle far greater with controlling their own rhetoric.
HAH! My smile for the day, thank you.
You're right about the media of course. Especially the conservatives in the media. On that we agree completely.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Just because you in Washington and you who are so out of touch with life in the media, just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean nobody else does. We do. You know why you're confused by this show? It's because I believe in something. You don't.
Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
It sounds like violent rhetoric in our post-Tuscan mindset, so it works on an emotional level when shown in a 22 second clip.
But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
Of course, this 22 second clip is likely to push our attempts at civility back a few notches, but it was worth it, because it scores some points against Glenn Beck. (Note the sarcasm.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
That's mostly because trying to figure out what the hell he's saying is a lot harder when you're reading it. He switches his pronouns several times in that bit. Am I "you" or am I "them"?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
Of course, this 22 second clip is likely to push our attempts at civility back a few notches, but it was worth it, because it scores some points against Glenn Beck. (Note the sarcasm.)
I thought he was making some sort of reference to zombies.
Also, dude, seriously, at what point is it totally kosher to be spouting nonsense about shooting people in the head? I mean, my interpretation is possibly the most favorable for Glenn Beck, and even then- it's just more of him calling people zombies and masses of the great unwashed- it's like OSC calling people the "leftaliban," and all that other crap. Everybody knows it's an appeal to violent imagery because these are visceral images. It's easy. It's pathetic, but easy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
That's mostly because trying to figure out what the hell he's saying is a lot harder when you're reading it. He switches his pronouns several times in that bit. Am I "you" or am I "them"?
This is so typical of him- it's impossible often times for me to follow the thread of his rants because of the constant pronoun shifting. I think it's, if not deliberate, certainly effective at neutralizing the actual logical side of the argument in order to get at the raw emotional impact of the words. That's what he's about anyway- it hardly matters *whom* he is referring to. That's the same sort of breathless disregard for precision that Palin is known for, and it seriously bothers me when I listen to either of them. It often seems to me as if the sheer need to get at the impact of each sentence allows them to be rather free with how it actually gets formed- to point, for both of them really, that the sentence sometimes ends up making no sense at all.
And, come to think, it's an interesting feature because it establishes a purely "of-the-moment" emotional context for *everything* that Beck says. He can pretty much always claim to be taken out of context when he says inflammatory thigns (which is a bait and trap move pioneered long ago, and not by him), but for him, it's actually rather hard to establish context for *anything* he says, because nothing every really makes a whole hell of a lot of sense unless you are actually watching his show (and even when I've tried, the constant rhetorical shorthand and spiraling self-references repel me).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Expanding the clip into his entire rant doesn't abate the nature of his alarmist, paranoid rhetoric. It keeps it (or improves upon it, even!) as a perfect example of that stuff what conservatives should be ashamed of. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You know? I don't need the rhetoric to be "nice". I would like it to be non-violent. They can call us fools or saps if they need to, just not talk about shooting us.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So if in common political discourse we refer to "blowing" the opposition "out of the water," and then some office holder is literally blown out of the water by a bomb aboard their ship they are sailing in, we can no longer use that metaphor either--suddenly the metaphor has become too extreme to use.
Or suppose that some office holder is on vacation in the tropics, falls overboard and gets eaten by Barracudas. Would that mean then that Sarah Palin would have to apologize to the world for ever having had the nickname as a basketball player, "Sarah Barracuda?"
I think if we are not careful, we will wind up stripping all metaphors from our language, and we will be left with talking like milktoast doofuses, with no color in our language at all.
[ January 21, 2011, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
On a positive news note, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has left UMC and is being taken to the hospital in Houston where she will begin a lengthy rehab program. It was reported yesterday that she was able to stand, with assistance. She looked out the window. Surely she has shown she has considerable motor control.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just had an amusing thought. Suppose, as we hope, Rep. Giffords recovers sufficiently so that she can resume her seat in Congress, and then runs for re-election again in 2012. Who would dare to run against her? I think the GOP and anyone else should pretty much concede that seat.
By the way, did anyone notice that news report that the UMC trauma center was saved because of Rep. Giffords' recent efforts to preserve its funding? Had she not done that, she would not have survived. It was only because they could get her to the trauma center at UMC within a few minutes that doctors were able to resuscitate her in time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So if in common political discourse we refer to "blowing" the opposition "out of the water,"
I think it would be sufficient to just eliminate rhetoric invoking the predominant method of individual-on-individual violence and political assassination. Let's just stop using gun symbolism and see where we get.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I think it's a reference to the false equivalence created when people think that the predominant rhetoric of the right can be compared with isolated statements from the left. Of course *any* such language is counterproductive, but it really is coming predominantly from the right these days.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except of course when the Right complain that it's really the left who have a political monopoly on violent rhetoric...
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
That's actually not true.
When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left. (It would be like the fringe elements on the right, the Neo Nazis or KKK pieces of crap.) We're not talking regular, everyday liberal politicians.
Glenn Beck's TV show always comes off as disjointed and confusing, which is why I avoid it. If I want to get a real feel for what he's talking about, I listen to him on the radio.
Plus, I'm too cheap to pay for cable TV.
I don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says or believes, but I consider all attempts to paint his as someone who's trying to promote violence as unjust.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Geraine, if the conclusion you reach about what someone else is saying is actually in and of itself a straw man, perhaps you ought to consider whether or not you've looked at the most likely options for what it is they're saying.
That sounds like I shot, but it's not, because when I read your posts, while I often disagree with you, I very often think you're coming at a discussion in good faith. No, I'm not saying 'liberals are the only ones who can complain'. I'm saying that when liberals complain about Beck (big conservative mouthpiece) using his enormous pulpit to talk about capping people, I'd bet a blade of grass to a mountain of gold that there will be more than a few conservatives saying something that can be boiled down to, "But liberals...!"
Nothing in that remark in the slightest justifies liberal commentators, Geraine. All it does is express exasperation and contempt for the attitude 'they do it, so it's OK if we do it,' which you're indirectly exhibiting right now.
However, MattP is right: in terms of how much press such language is getting, who it's coming from, and how much credibility it has, no one can say with a straight face that the teeter totter is balanced right now. Show me your liberal-leaning commentators with the audience of your Becks and Limbaughs (I won't drop the P-bomb) who talk about shooting zombies in the head, for example, and do so so often.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
That's actually not true.
When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left. (It would be like the fringe elements on the right, the Neo Nazis or KKK pieces of crap.) We're not talking regular, everyday liberal politicians.
Glenn Beck's TV show always comes off as disjointed and confusing, which is why I avoid it. If I want to get a real feel for what he's talking about, I listen to him on the radio.
Plus, I'm too cheap to pay for cable TV.
I don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says or believes, but I consider all attempts to paint his as someone who's trying to promote violence as unjust.
A quick look at Conservapedia would disprove this notion.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Not finding the points you're referring to, Blayne. Which part is untrue? That Glenn Beck is not trying to promote violence? Or that Glenn Beck was not referring to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi when he used the statement "shoot them in the head?"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Specifically: "When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left."
Conservative pundists almost certainly are in fact referring to President Barack Obama and his administration as being Communist or Fascist etc etc.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Geraine, if the conclusion you reach about what someone else is saying is actually in and of itself a straw man, perhaps you ought to consider whether or not you've looked at the most likely options for what it is they're saying.
That sounds like I shot, but it's not, because when I read your posts, while I often disagree with you, I very often think you're coming at a discussion in good faith. No, I'm not saying 'liberals are the only ones who can complain'. I'm saying that when liberals complain about Beck (big conservative mouthpiece) using his enormous pulpit to talk about capping people, I'd bet a blade of grass to a mountain of gold that there will be more than a few conservatives saying something that can be boiled down to, "But liberals...!"
Nothing in that remark in the slightest justifies liberal commentators, Geraine. All it does is express exasperation and contempt for the attitude 'they do it, so it's OK if we do it,' which you're indirectly exhibiting right now.
However, MattP is right: in terms of how much press such language is getting, who it's coming from, and how much credibility it has, no one can say with a straight face that the teeter totter is balanced right now. Show me your liberal-leaning commentators with the audience of your Becks and Limbaughs (I won't drop the P-bomb) who talk about shooting zombies in the head, for example, and do so so often.
Fair enough. I misunderstood you and for that I apologize.
I would agree with you that there are no liberal commentators that have that have the audience that Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage have.
I think it is interesting that Liberal Commentators haven't done so well on radio or television. I don't know why that is. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, Beck, and Savage do really well on the Radio. Hannity, Beck, and O'Riley do well on Television. I can't stand to listen to any of them for a long period of time, though I do enjoy the history segments Beck sometimes has.
Why do you think these people do so well on TV and Radio? (That is not rhetorical question) I don't know the answer. It seems to me that liberal commentators do better on the internet and the blogosphere, while conservative commentators do better on TV and radio.
I almost never hear anything about Mike Malloy and some of the outrageous things he has said (Strangling Matt Drudge with entrails? Really?) but it makes sense that I haven't since he doesn't have a large audience.
At any rate, sorry for my accusatory tone in my last post.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think it's a reference to the false equivalence created when people think that the predominant rhetoric of the right can be compared with isolated statements from the left. Of course *any* such language is counterproductive, but it really is coming predominantly from the right these days.
So, MattP, do you really, deep down, believe that predominantly liberals are wimps and wusses, and only conservatives have spines?
I see no other way to explain the peek you give us into your worldview when you say that the "predominant" rhetoric of the right is violence-based and extremist, and that whenever liberals exhibit this kind of talk, it is just "isolated" statements.
That is probably the way you want to believe things are. But perhap what we need is an actual survey that gives us some actual numbers of how many conservatives use combat-related metaphors, and how many liberals engage in extremist talk like charging conservatives with being Nazis. The way you perceive it may not be the way it actually is. When I consider the 100% false and vicious attacks that all the liberally-biased media have made against Sarah Palin, for example--not to mention how they have always loved to savage Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.--I see a much greater expression of vicious and unrestrained hatred, than anything witnessed in the majority of conservative voices.
Anything that encourages hatred encourages violence, and invites the unstable to take justice into their own hands--not just in the voting booth, but on the streets. Nothing does this more than telling lies about the person being targeted.
Anyone who has any extreme negative feelings about Sarah Palin, has gotten them from lies that have been told about her. Rush Limbaugh is most commonly denounced by people who have never or hardly ever heard his show. Likewise Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc.
I believe that most people who have critized Glenn Beck have watched or listened to only a small segment, maybe not even half an hour total. They justify this by saying they couldn't stand to watch or listen any more. But it is really because what he says is so contrary to their pre-programmed worldview, that it causes them consternation and confusion. They ask themselves, "How can this guy be right, when all my teachers taught me something different?"
There is nothing illogical or hard to follow in any of Glenn Beck's discourses, except to those who cannot stand to have their own views contradicted. Glenn Beck is quite articulate in presenting the conservative view. For that alone he is hated by those who just plain refuse to consider the conservative view fairly.
Beck always backs up his statements with evidence. He always challenges his listeners to do their own research, and verify what he says for themselves. He always admonishes people not to believe anything just because he says it, but to find out for themselves--don't just be content with the world view you may have long been comfortable with. Beck is an excellent teacher. Only the best encourage their students to surpass their teacher.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Geraine:
Here's my guess on the audience share question. The issue with liberal commentators and mainstream conservative commentators is the degree of nuance and technicality in the way they present their subject matter. Liberal commentators are obsessed with empirics, they want clear demonstrations of fact and will selectively report on subjects that appeal to their liberal leanings. What ends up happening is a liberal commentary feels more like a lecture than anything else, and that doesn't lend itself well to visual and audio forms of entertainment. Mainstream conservative commentators are also selective on what they report on, but the means by which they discuss issues is in stark contrast to liberal commentary. Mainstream conservative pundits are able to use rhetoric that manipulates (or "plays with", if you want a term with less baggage) their listener's emotions. They are willing to use hyperbole and drastic metaphor to insight fear of changes from traditional values. They instill nationalist pride in their listeners. They are funny, they're frightening, they're just, quite simply, entertaining. And people like that. I mean, I'm a liberal, but I'll admit that while I feel dirty for listening to the shows, I do find conservative talk radio to be far more entertaining than their liberal counterparts.
But when you switch the medium to text, it's harder to do oratorical demagoguery. You're expected to cite sources. You can link to other subjects, articles, and studies. The liberal lectures are bolstered by text-media for this reason, and conservative commentary is hampered. (Though conservatives have far better utilized social networking, I consider social networks and the blogosphere as two separate universes.)
I would like to point out that I'm not saying that conservatism as an ideology is devoid of intellectualism, I'm just saying that the mainstream commentary refuses to go any deeper than emotive talking points. I think there are some great conservative commentators who you'll never see get their own syndicated show because they just aren't entertaining enough. Most of the ones I've seen are at bloggingheads.
In short: The grand majority of people want to be entertained and not lectured. Mainstream conservative commentary is entertaining and inspiring, not intellectually challenging. Liberals lecture in their commentary and it's harder to find a wide audience.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So Vadon, you dismiss conservatives as appealing to people just because they are more "entertaining," and appeal more to emotion. You too reveal your bias, because those things are not true. Conservatives are far better at producing evidence and citing sources than liberals, because nothing is as impressive as solid facts. Conservatives excell at encouraging people to study and investigate for themselves. This is what makes people who are willing to consider them fairly prefer the conservative voices--they are clearer and more convincing IN EVERY WAY. Because they are usually right, and most people can see it for themselves.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Despite the fact that despite being a Conservative you have been proven wrong in every topic of discussion since you've registered here or are you the exception that proves the rule?
I mean sure, conservatives love to cite sources, but its usually sources to THEMSELVES or to books written by THEMSELVES.
Like Jack Chick. He loves sources.
Like this famous one Here! Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Conservative pundists almost certainly are in fact referring to President Barack Obama and his administration as being Communist or Fascist etc etc.
But Glenn Beck, in this clip, is not referring to Barack Obama as a violent, communist revolutionary.
Vadon, I'd like to add that liberal commentary isn't really annoying because of the lecture nature of it, but--rather--because many liberal commentators come off as patronizing.
quote:I would like to point out that I'm not saying that conservatism as an ideology is devoid of intellectualism, I'm just saying that the mainstream commentary refuses to go any deeper than emotive talking points. I think there are some great conservative commentators who you'll never see get their own syndicated show because they just aren't entertaining enough. Most of the ones I've seen are at bloggingheads.
I don't disagree with this completely, but I've seen just as much cheap talk from liberal commentators. To see an actual, civil, well-thought-out debate between a well-versed conservative and liberal would be entertaining for me. And I honestly think most Americans are tired of political baby food.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Geraine:
One other thing that's a major oversight from my last post. There are also about twice as many self-identifying conservatives in the United States as self-identifying liberals. So I'd wager that another reason there's a larger audience share for conservative commentators stems from the fact that we have more folks who are openly conservative. (The source I posted earlier in this thread.)
Ron:
I'm not sure why you think I'm "dismissing" conservatives for being entertaining and appealing to emotion. I'm saying that it's an effective persuasion strategy when it comes to entertainment-media (radio and television) and their audience share is evidence of it. I'm not dismissing mainstream conservative commentators for being entertaining, I'm criticizing liberal commentators for being boring.
I do say that the flash without substance doesn't convert as well into text-mediums (internet and newspapers) but I'm still not saying that conservatives are without their intellectual champions. I provided a link to a site (bloggingheads) with some impressive conservatives that give me food for thought in their opposition. Kristin Soltis and Reihan Salam spring to mind.
Seriously, I think that it's good to be able to appeal to folks' emotions. I'm trying to keep my judgements on conservatism and liberalism separate from my analysis on what brings viewers. Of course I'm biased, I openly state in my previous post that I'm liberal. But that's not a reason to immediately dismiss or misinterpret my post or its intent.
FoolishTook:
quote:Vadon, I'd like to add that liberal commentary isn't really annoying because of the lecture nature of it, but--rather--because many liberal commentators come off as patronizing.
That's fair. I can certainly understand disliking it for being patronizing, because let's face it, the mainstream liberal pundits are very patronizing.
So I guess that means liberal commentators are both boring and patronizing. No wonder we're not winning the marketshare. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:So, MattP, do you really, deep down, believe that predominantly liberals are wimps and wusses, and only conservatives have spines?
It's telling that you, a self-proclaimed Christian, equate someone else talking about (supposedly) violent rhetoric as that rhetoric being the 'strong' talk, and other talk being spineless and wussy.
Much like the bizarre point you made with me wherein gun ownership showed strength, and which strangely you haven't returned to since. I'm sure you can, for example, point to lots of scriptural reference backing up such worldviews.
But anyway.
quote:I see no other way to explain the peek you give us into your worldview when you say that the "predominant" rhetoric of the right is violence-based and extremist, and that whenever liberals exhibit this kind of talk, it is just "isolated" statements.
This is a lie. That's not what Matt said. You can read it that way if you like, and of course you will, and refuse to entertain any other notions, but what was said was that when violence-laced rhetoric is encountered, it comes these days predominantly from the right.
quote:...how many liberals engage in extremist talk like charging conservatives with being Nazis.
The irony here is that even though the accusation itself was incredibly stupid to have made, you're actually living up to it here by making this claim. Rep. Cohen didn't say conservatives are Nazis.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Fair enough. I misunderstood you and for that I apologize. "
This.
I'm not terribly worried about violent metaphors. What bothers me is the constant reference to political opponents not as people with different opinions but as enemies of the state, traitors, anti-Americans who want to bring this country down. It is that nonstop demonization, coupled with violent rhetoric, that is the danger.
I don't want commentators overreacting if someone says "kill." I do want commentators who will attack arguments but not the person, who will seek the truth of a matter even if it doesn't match their party's chosen viewpoint, and, most of all, who can admit when they've made a mistake and own up to it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What bothers me is the constant reference to political opponents not as people with different opinions but as enemies of the state, traitors, anti-Americans who want to bring this country down.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."--Samuel Johnson.
Conservative commentators/politicians who beat the patriotism drum are best thought of in that light. IMHO. The same for any liberals who do the same.
It's one thing when Rush Limbaugh pulls that patriotism stuff. He has no direct power. It's another one ENTIRELY when politicians who have control over the world's most powerful military do, maybe.
I'm seriously considering responding to every beat of the patiotism drum on Hatrack with that Samuel Johnson quote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm seriously considering responding to every beat of the patiotism drum on Hatrack with that Samuel Johnson quote.
Yeah, responding to every stimulus in exactly the same way is usually a pretty bad idea too. But don't let that stop you from the pursuit of a pithy zinger.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
No, I think he's saying that liberals are the ones with the most right, on this score, to complain. They have more to complain about. It's entirely possible Geraine. Again, and as I have told you many times already, the breakdown is not either *exactly* even, or *totally* to one side. Nobody here has even once suggested that Liberals are the only ones who can complain. You keep projecting this as the argument against your false equivalencies because you don't want to accept the subtlety of conservatives just being more off base on this issue. Not the *only* ones, just *more.* Further, you are not willing to accept that this is being pointed out for more reason than simply keeping score or finger pointing.
quote: I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
I would like you to point out where anyone in this thread has vilified a conservative while dismissing the behavior of a liberal when the behavior was similar. You wrote "posting about," doubtless to save yourself from having to defend the implication that anyone has done this, because you don't actually think anyone has. But this way you get to make the suggestion without making the commitment. Hackey.
See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just to reinforce, there's two things going on here which are direly repetitive and need to end.
1. false equivalence arguments - no, both sides are not equally guilty. they never are.
2. responding to a claim that one side is more guilty, more culpable, or bears more responsibility for a negative thing by saying 'how dare you claim that one side has a monopoly/commits 100% of/is totally at fault for ...'
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
I think it's a little more simple than this. We talk about false equivalencies or who is more to blame, but I don't think any of that is at the core of the problem. I think the core of the problem is truth and who possesses it.
When Ron posted earlier, his post spoke to something greater, it spoke to what he had versus what his detractors possessed, because throughout that post his true claim was a claim that he possessed the truth and others were biased or hypocrites. There isn't a person in the world who likes to be told they are wrong, who likes to know that others are privy to a truth they are too biased or un-intelligent to understand, and that I think is the true nature of conservative versus liberal. Both sides claim that they are the arbiters of truth and if the other side would just listen or stop being dumb they would "get it", they would understand that the liberal or conservative view of the world is the correct one.
And in that, lies no false equivalency--both sides are the same. While conservatives may do it better, while they may be more entertaining and thus have more followers (which is where I agree with Vadon wholeheartedly), and while they may be higher up in the Republican food chain, the equivalency lies not in the potency of the message or the level of vitriol itself but in the nature of WHY each side fights as it does.
Each side claims to have truth and the other side hates them for it, and I think this thread is the perfect example.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ahah, a passionate plea for the false equivalence.
But no, in fact, the base claim is simply indefensible. Conservatives and liberals think differently. As such they do not approach each other in the same ways. You are right in demonstrating that the points of conflict can be seen as a contiguous border of mutual opposition, however, the fact that two opposing sides have a common "battlefield" of ideas, does not make them equals in the ways that they behave, nor in their motivations. While there is conflict however, that conflict is not "battle." Conflict is not limited in nature to a strict view of opposing forces on a common plain.
The problem with viewing politics as a "battlefield" is exactly that- on a battlefield victory is a zero sum condition, and everybody fights to win, and one side generally gains an objective, and the other side doesn't. A battlefield, very much *unlike* a political argument, is bereft of politics. Tactics matter, strengths and weaknesses matter, but beliefs, inner-motivations and feelings don't. Battle is destructive, but politics can be constructive, and political conflicts are carried out with the aim of leading one's opponent not to stop all action or to retreat, but to act in a way that favor's one's own agenda. And these machinations are occurring from all sides, in continuous interchange. It's not a battle. It's a process. You describe a sort of zombie warfare- where each side seeks to turn the other completely to their camp, eliminating all opposition. But in order for that to happen, these two camps would have to be in a state of total war. They simply are not in that state. That state would be characterized by people shooting at each other. It happened once.
And if you look at it as a process, then the motivations and intentions of one "opposing side" and those of the other are very important. If one is motivated to win, then one is likewise less motivated to pursue an agenda for any other more constructive reason. If one is motivated only to defeat opposition or to stall forward momentum, then one is also necessarily less willing to be led, less willing to contribute constructively, and will be therefore less able to contribute to the process.
I do believe that your view of it is a common one, and one that is easy to justify, but that doesn't make it the right one. That many conservatives and many liberals also see it this way is a certainty- many in politics see it this way. But again, that doesn't come close to making it so. Because how the situation is viewed, and how people actually act are very different- that's exactly why a political campaign is *one* thing, and the term of service is entirely another. Campaigning is about winning, but politics and government are still about progress.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think the value of using Ron Lambert as a representative of either or both sides has very little traction. Both sides may possess people like ron — wholly consumed by the Dunning–Kruger effect to the extent that they can't be rationally persuaded, only mitigated. That doesn't mean that both sides are like ron, or that he can be used as an example of something both sides are. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ahah, a passionate plea for the false equivalence.
But no, in fact, the base claim is simply indefensible. Conservatives and liberals think differently. As such they do not approach each other in the same ways. You are right in demonstrating that the points of conflict can be seen as a contiguous border of mutual opposition, however, the fact that two opposing sides have a common "battlefield" of ideas, does not make them equals in the ways that they behave, nor in their motivations. While there is conflict however, that conflict is not "battle." Conflict is not limited in nature to a strict view of opposing forces on a common plain.
The problem with viewing politics as a "battlefield" is exactly that- on a battlefield victory is a zero sum condition, and everybody fights to win, and one side generally gains an objective, and the other side doesn't. A battlefield, very much *unlike* a political argument, is bereft of politics. Tactics matter, strengths and weaknesses matter, but beliefs, inner-motivations and feelings don't. Battle is destructive, but politics can be constructive, and political conflicts are carried out with the aim of leading one's opponent not to stop all action or to retreat, but to act in a way that favor's one's own agenda. And these machinations are occurring from all sides, in continuous interchange. It's not a battle. It's a process. You describe a sort of zombie warfare- where each side seeks to turn the other completely to their camp, eliminating all opposition. But in order for that to happen, these two camps would have to be in a state of total war. They simply are not in that state. That state would be characterized by people shooting at each other. It happened once.
And if you look at it as a process, then the motivations and intentions of one "opposing side" and those of the other are very important. If one is motivated to win, then one is likewise less motivated to pursue an agenda for any other more constructive reason. If one is motivated only to defeat opposition or to stall forward momentum, then one is also necessarily less willing to be led, less willing to contribute constructively, and will be therefore less able to contribute to the process.
I do believe that your view of it is a common one, and one that is easy to justify, but that doesn't make it the right one. That many conservatives and many liberals also see it this way is a certainty- many in politics see it this way. But again, that doesn't come close to making it so. Because how the situation is viewed, and how people actually act are very different- that's exactly why a political campaign is *one* thing, and the term of service is entirely another. Campaigning is about winning, but politics and government are still about progress.
Well, I don't think it is a battlefield either, and I don't think that's what I argued but if it came off that way, then I certainly should have argued it differently. My apologies if my argument came off as something I did not intend.
You are correct that Conservatives and Liberals act and think differently, but my argument is not about how each group acts or whether one side is worse than the other (you may be correct that the vitriol from the right is much more intense but some democratic congressmen think republicans are Nazis and claim as such on the house floor so it's not exactly one sided) or whether one side's motivation is different from the other (which I think is true to an extent), it's about where it all begins and what it can be traced too.
For instance, take the debate over health care. One side of the aisle claimed that their truth was correct and that nothing else would be right, they claimed that they would vote against anyone who didn't see their view, and fought for a long time with passionate speeches to have the bill look as they wanted. To me, that was the liberal debate about the public option. Of course, the other side claimed their own truth and acted differently and was motivated differently, but in the end, both sides made compromise nearly impossible and claimed that their "truth" was the best. Was conservative vitriol worse? Maybe, but that's not the point.
When your truth is the only truth, when your opponents are nazi's or socialists or aren't born in this country or racists or hypocrites or biased or whatever, then you clearly cannot compromise with them and I find it difficult to believe that you could be civil. There is then, in my opinion, an equivalence on that level.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
You realize of course that what gets said on the floor of the senate is not the political process? Because, believe me please, the dems didn´t enter into that process without having had a decades long debate about what an HC system might look like. And a lot of that debate was not over what everyone believed would be the perfect system, but over what could concievably be successfully passed in congress. The public option is not, was not and has never been seen as the perfect solution by the dems. A single payer system has ita advocates, but with the long understanding that such a bill would likely fail, at least in the court of public opinion. That´s politics. The compromises happened a long time before the bill got to the floor, and they kept on happening. Your perception of the process is not complete in that regard. You need to understand that the reason the bill eventually did pass, and the reason that the key provisions will not now be repealed, is that most of the senate was at least dimly aware that they were actually vitally necessary reforms. The ´pledge to America´ makes that quite clear in actual fact. Both parties actually *always* agreed on a number of key provisions. Making a public fight over it was one thing, but the process was still another.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I think the value of using Ron Lambert as a representative of either or both sides has very little traction. Both sides may possess people like ron — wholly consumed by the Dunning–Kruger effect to the extent that they can't be rationally persuaded, only mitigated. That doesn't mean that both sides are like ron, or that he can be used as an example of something both sides are.
This is a bit too far in the direction of calling another poster "too stupid to realize they are stupid." Please try to stick to the point that Ron's views are not representative of a group at large, by demonstrating where his views diverge, or through some other means.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's just it though. This goes beyond any individual view; Ron's methodology and method of interpreting and interacting with issues in a debate like this are what leave him unrepresentative of either side. You can't use him as a good example. People rely on the same sort of false representation when they pick out an egregious character who represents themselves as part of a movement and try to use him as a cardinal example of how the movement, at its core, operates. And it can be completely detached from the way that movement, by and large, operates.
The dunning-kruger effect — something which Ron is manifestly an excellent and strong example of — is also not 'too stupid to realize they are stupid,' it's more like 'too irrational to self-identify when they are wrong, so they have an image of themselves free of doubt in how right they are.' I have no reservations saying that this is true of Ron, to the extent of making him an obvious outlier, which is why he can't really be used as a pertinent example of how 'both sides are.'
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, you only reveal the completely egregious falsity of the strawman you have built of me. So now you call me stupid and lazy. Are you kidding? Can you really deceive yourself so greatly as to believe that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In practically the same breath as talking about strawmen, you say I'm calling you stupid and lazy. Let's work hard to help you understand that if I'm calling you anything, it's greatly irrational.
And calling you irrational is pretty much the biggest gimme in the history of anyone in this forum.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
No, I think he's saying that liberals are the ones with the most right, on this score, to complain. They have more to complain about. It's entirely possible Geraine. Again, and as I have told you many times already, the breakdown is not either *exactly* even, or *totally* to one side. Nobody here has even once suggested that Liberals are the only ones who can complain. You keep projecting this as the argument against your false equivalencies because you don't want to accept the subtlety of conservatives just being more off base on this issue. Not the *only* ones, just *more.* Further, you are not willing to accept that this is being pointed out for more reason than simply keeping score or finger pointing.
Ok Orincoro, I'm confused. You've stated that Conservatives have been guilty of more violent rhetoric, then complain that I seem to be keeping score. Does the amount or extent of violent rhetoric matter or not? If it does, then I would agree with you that Conservatives are guilty of more. If the amount does not matter however, then I ask again where your condemnation of liberal commentators is?
You can't have it both ways. You complain that I am keeping score, yet you say "Well conservatives are probably more guilty." Which one is it?
Vadon, I would probably agree with you. I never really listen to liberal commentators, though there have been a few that I don't mind. Alan Combs was fairly enjoyable to listen to. A few years ago I enjoyed Hannity, but can't stand him anymore. He just repeats the same thing over and over. Limbaugh is too full of himself. Savage is just a moron that thinks he is God's gift to mankind. Beck's TV show is good for the episodes in which he talks about history.
I have started to listen more to local talk radio than the big guys. Most of the time it is local talk, though at times they bring up state or national issues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Ok Orincoro, I'm confused. You've stated that Conservatives have been guilty of more violent rhetoric, then complain that I seem to be keeping score
No, I did not complain that you seem to be keeping score. I complained that you seemed to think this was a game involving winners and losers. Not the same thing. Keeping score is important. Understanding the nature of the outcomes is also important. Not the same thing.
quote: Does the amount or extent of violent rhetoric matter or not? If it does, then I would agree with you that Conservatives are guilty of more. If the amount does not matter however, then I ask again where your condemnation of liberal commentators is?
The amount certainly matters. Please point out to me where I ever gave you the impression that the amount doesn't matter. I very clearly in the post you quoted talk about how it matters very much. I have absolutely no recollection of ever once saying it didn't matter which side was doing it more. I think it does matter. I suspect you are thinking of someone else's words, because that has never been a part of my argument. That is not what I believe. I cannot, cannot, cannot be more clear on this.
quote: You complain that I am keeping score, yet you say "Well conservatives are probably more guilty." Which one is it?
Ok, this is going to be a continuous issue for you I can see. First of all, it is true that "keeping score" in the sense of a game or another win/lose conflict is not productive. That is why I wrote so much about why politics is not like war, it's a process. There will be no winners, and thus the "score" is very much a subjective thing to begin with.
However, this does on no account excuse the fact that one party misbehaves exceedingly more than the other in the regard which we have been discussing. So, as clear as I have tried to be, yet again, I will try to make it even more crystal clear for you: Nobody here has ever, ever claimed that either side is 100% guilty of anything or to blame for everything. However, the claim that both sides of this particular coin are therefore 100% complicit, and 100% equal in sharing the responsibility and the blame for the current political environment is *ridiculous*. The fact that the democrats are complicit in a democratic system which has been bogged down and sullied by the rhetoric of the right does not make that sullying their fault, nor their responsibility. It remains their mission to fix it, but they did not cause this to happen in their intentions, nor their actions. The Republicans really pretty much did. Not all of it, just most of it. Not too complicated really. But like an environmental disaster caused by somebody else- it's now everybody's problem and responsibility to fix. And while I would delve into the fact that I very much wish liberals had been more effective at putting a stop to this a *very* long time ago- I do not believe that makes them responsible for other people's bad behavior. Liberals and liberal policies have been very much unfair victims to the rhetoric of the right. I don't believe blaming the victim of such unfair treatment is appropriate in this case.
Regarding you. You didn't answer my challenge. I can't see myself arguing with you anymore unless you're willing to do that, and not wait another 4 days until you hope I've forgotten you ever made the ridiculous claim in the first place.
Here she is:
quote:
quote: quote: I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
I would like you to point out where anyone in this thread has vilified a conservative while dismissing the behavior of a liberal when the behavior was similar. You wrote "posting about," doubtless to save yourself from having to defend the implication that anyone has done this, because you don't actually think anyone has. But this way you get to make the suggestion without making the commitment. Hackey.
See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
quote:
You never answered, and I think the reason is that you know it never happened.
[ January 25, 2011, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You know, I've never known a bank robber to get out of jail on account of somebody else robbed more banks than he did.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If you actually think that's relevant, I'll be surprised.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Orincoro, does your new found respect for civility mean you are going to apologize for all of the Bush comments? If McCain had won, and take a moment to honestly answer this, would you still be wanting this civility?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
DarkKnight- I think some of it depends on how it is used. I am not opposed to criticizing the opponent. I am opposed to saying kill those who disagree- even with a jk next it. Under Bush, I disagreed when Bush was booed while throwing out the first pitch at the world serious and I did defend McCain over using racist terms for those who tortured him. So, based on my past experiences, i think if McCain had won, i would still be wanting civility.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
scholarette, I haven't known you to engage in anywhere near the same level of political rhetoric that Orincoro has.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Orincoro, does your new found respect for civility mean you are going to apologize for all of the Bush comments? If McCain had won, and take a moment to honestly answer this, would you still be wanting this civility?
ooooohkay... One, where do you see me talking a whole lot about my respect for civility? When do you even see me advocating civility? I advocate *against* ridiculousness generally, but I pretty much keep my mouth shut when it comes to people being civil, because I'm not always that civil myself. So, who are you talking to? What newfound respect for civility do you think I've claimed? I realize it would be a wonderful blow to me if I had actually spouted long and loud about civility and its wonderful qualities- because that would make me look like a hypocrite. But you're just too lazy to actually account for my points, rather than the points you imagine for me in your own head- so I'm sure you feel you've scored some real points, calling me on my hypocrisy for saying things I haven't said. It's a good strategy, but I'll have to call you on your ridiculousness, as usual.
Two: "All the Bush comments?" From whom? Me? I wasn't extremely vocal about Bush- nor am I extremely vocal about Obama- nor have I ever been extremely vocal about McCain. Palin, now, everything I've said has been true, and none of it has been unfair in my estimation- I have been vocal on the fact that I think she's an idiot and an embarrassment.
Now, if you're asking me if I'm going to apologize for "all the Bush comments," made by Liberals? No. Mainly because a lot of them have merit, and do not require apologies- just as many comments about Obama have merit. But also because I am not personally responsible for what other people say- especially when I spend my time arguing against ridiculousness, as I frequently do with Liberals, much more in fact than with Conservatives. I would say that while I am not personally responsible, as in, me, myself, as a person with a brain, being culpable for someone else's words, I feel responsible to people of similar ideals and opinions to help them express themselves effectively and righteously, and to disuade them of their attachments to various pieces of nonsense. I am not apologetic when others on my political side of the fence screw up- but that is mainly because I spend a lot of my time talking reason. If you did the same, the world might be a better place.
quote: scholarette, I haven't known you to engage in anywhere near the same level of political rhetoric that Orincoro has.
Rhetoric is not bad, and Rhetoric is not good. You can persist in your small minded reductionism, or you can absorb that bit of wisdom right now. The kind of rhetoric, the aim, the motivation, the content- that all matters very much. But rhetoric is not valued in and of itself. It always exists. It is a function of language. So understand if you can, that when I say: "the rhetoric of the Right," I am talking about that rhetoric which I believe is generated with poor intentions, poor aims, a lack of wit or skill, and a disregard for truth. Were the rhetoric of the right something more positive- likely I would refer to it as such. I believe those terms characterize most of the current rhetoric of conservatives. 'Twas not always this way. It's just this way now. While rhetoric maintains a vaguely pejorative connotation, actually *using* rhetoric, actually being "rhetorical" is not in itself a failing. It's just that we refer most often to that "rhetoric" which is plainly obvious and therefore leaden and often destructive to communication.
You need to understand this point- and I think you need to demonstrate that you do understand it, or else we're not talking about *anything* except what you don't understand.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I can't really rush to the defense of Bush, since I voted against him in 2000. I changed my mind about him later, and it appears to me that democrats and other liberals held on to their mistaken views of him.
Orincoro, you do make some good points about "rhetoric." Some people are trying to make the term itself pejorative. I tried to be a little clearer when I spoke about "metaphors" being a natural part of our language that makes it more robust. But it was the same idea. Whenever some issue like this comes up in the wake of some tragedy, I always feel an instinctive wariness for the over-reaction of "PC" type demagogues trying to take away something from all of us.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It was great to learn that Rep. Giffords' condition has been upgraded from serious to good and she has been transferred to the Memorial Hermann TIRR facility to begin her rehabilitation. There had been some delay because of a buildup of fluid in her head.
Wasn't that actually a jump in several levels, going from serious to good? Where does "guarded" come into the picture (or do they use that normally)? What about "fair" condition?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: . Whenever some issue like this comes up in the wake of some tragedy, I always feel an instinctive wariness for the over-reaction of "PC" type demagogues trying to take away something from all of us.
Usually the the things "PC" people try to "take away" are the terms and phrases specifically infused with malice and defamation through association- malice and defamation that the users of these terms know full well that they themselves are accessing and employing, or else full well should know. "Political Correctness" is a misnomer, as far as what this process describes. Quite simply, it's the awareness, and the advocation of awareness, of those political and social terms which have been corrupted by history to the point that they cease to fulfill their original communicative functions, and now fulfill rather blunt rhetorical functions that have become ineffective at actual communication of the original subject. So thus, "cripple," once a more general term of a person with some disability, takes on the connotation through fashion of speech of weakness, lack of wholeness, invalidity, and sloth. So the term is relegated to the politically "incorrect," meaning, very plainly, that if you want to talk about disabled people in any neutral way, saying "cripple" doesn't accomplish that aim. It is technically "incorrect" for political usage. Get it?
And there is no unringing the bell here. A word gathers connotation like moss, and then it has to be changed. That's language. The word can still be used- but it will maintain its history and its connotations in the minds of those who hear and see the word. That can be effective in art, and complicating in politics. That's life. Moaning about it is pointless, and those who fight against it usually seem to do so because they don't enjoy having their rhetorically inflamed speech thrown back in their faces for the ignorance that it represents. The backlash against PC culture is one of insecurity, just as the rabid wing of PC culture itself is.
And I think it's important to consider whether "PC" vigilants "take away" these terms, or rather simply expose these terms for what they are, and actively shame those who continue to employ them into seeking new and more original forms of expression for themselves- disempowering non-constructive speech. That is not taking anything away- it is deflating rhetoric which is far too obvious and crude to be accepted on its face. I think that's an aspect of "PC" you may never have considered.
[ January 27, 2011, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This event has tied into all the things I've been talking about in a very unique way.
quote:While the seriously warped mind of Christina'ss Tucson murderer, Jared Lee Loughner, is a muddled mess, the motives of one of Brisenia's alleged killers-- a woman named Shawna Forde -- are pretty clear: She saw herself as the leader of an armed movement against undocumented immigrants, an idea that was energized by her exposure to the then-brand-new Tea Party Movement. But unlike the horrific spree that took Christina's life, the political murder of Brisenia and her dad (while Brisenia's mom survived only by pretending to be dead) has only received very sporadic coverage in the national media. That's a shame, because it's an important story that illustrates the potential for senseless violence when hateful rhetoric on the right -- in this case about undocumented immigrants -- falls on the ears of the unhinged.
This week, Forde is on trial on Tucson, and the details are horrific:
As her mother tells it, 9-year-old Brisenia Flores had begged the border vigilantes who had just broken into her house, "Please don't shoot me."
But they did — in the face at point-blank range, prosecutors allege, as Brisenia's father sat dead on the couch and her mother lay on the floor, pretending that she too had been killed in the gunfire.
Why did Forde, said to be the "mastermind," and the other alleged killer, Jason Bush, carry out this heinous crime? Prosecutors allege that Forde cooked up a scheme to rob and murder drug dealers, all to raise money for the fledgling, anti-immigrant border patrolling group called Minutemen American Defense, or MAD.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
WhaaaaaaaaaTF.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh. That is, no joke, reading like straight out of Machete, to the extent that I wonder if it will turn out to be partial or completely bogus, without having read more on my own yet.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: ooooohkay... One, where do you see me talking a whole lot about my respect for civility? When do you even see me advocating civility? I advocate *against* ridiculousness generally, but I pretty much keep my mouth shut when it comes to people being civil, because I'm not always that civil myself. So, who are you talking to? What newfound respect for civility do you think I've claimed? I realize it would be a wonderful blow to me if I had actually spouted long and loud about civility and its wonderful qualities- because that would make me look like a hypocrite. But you're just too lazy to actually account for my points, rather than the points you imagine for me in your own head- so I'm sure you feel you've scored some real points, calling me on my hypocrisy for saying things I haven't said. It's a good strategy, but I'll have to call you on your ridiculousness, as usual.
*laugh* *edit* Let me try to work so very hard for you and see if I can account for your points. Your point is that the immense volume of right wing hate speech, as opposed to the tiny sum of left wing unpleasant speech, is causing an increase in violence. That there is at least 3 times the amount of violent speech from conservatives as opposed to democrats. You do not want conservative pundits to be held guilty in a criminal sense for their overwhelming amount of violent/hate speech but they are responsible for the current violent politcal atmosphere. Additionally, democrats bear little, if any, responsibility for current political atmosphere. President Obama has done an extraordinary amount of appeasement to the hate filled conservatives while never stooping to using any violent/hateful speech of his own. You are baffled by anyone who does not agree that conservatives are producing the overwhelming, or at a minimum controlling, majority of violent/hate speech. Does that sum it up pretty well? Am I on the right, I mean correct, track?
quote: Two: "All the Bush comments?" From whom? Me? I wasn't extremely vocal about Bush- nor am I extremely vocal about Obama- nor have I ever been extremely vocal about McCain. Palin, now, everything I've said has been true, and none of it has been unfair in my estimation- I have been vocal on the fact that I think she's an idiot and an embarrassment.
So you had to have been *extremely* vocal for it to count. Got it. You can be vocal, but not extremely vocal.
quote: Now, if you're asking me if I'm going to apologize for "all the Bush comments," made by Liberals?
Nope. Just your own which, since you have not been extremely vocal, are given a complete pass.
quote: Rhetoric is not bad, and Rhetoric is not good. You can persist in your small minded reductionism, or you can absorb that bit of wisdom right now. The kind of rhetoric, the aim, the motivation, the content- that all matters very much. But rhetoric is not valued in and of itself. It always exists. It is a function of language. So understand if you can, that when I say: "the rhetoric of the Right," I am talking about that rhetoric which I believe is generated with poor intentions, poor aims, a lack of wit or skill, and a disregard for truth. Were the rhetoric of the right something more positive- likely I would refer to it as such. I believe those terms characterize most of the current rhetoric of conservatives. 'Twas not always this way. It's just this way now. While rhetoric maintains a vaguely pejorative connotation, actually *using* rhetoric, actually being "rhetorical" is not in itself a failing. It's just that we refer most often to that "rhetoric" which is plainly obvious and therefore leaden and often destructive to communication.
*Edit* I never gave a value judgement on the word or definition of "rhetoric" although you believe I did for some reason. And yes, I do understand with my small brain that your are speaking against the current, poorly intended, aimed, lacking wit and skill, intentionally false rhetoric of conservatives. Additionally, democrats are not, for the overwhelming majority of them, engaged in that type of rhetoric. * edit* I was saying in that specific post. Scholarette is much nicer than you.
quote: You need to understand this point- and I think you need to demonstrate that you do understand it, or else we're not talking about *anything* except what you don't understand.
*Edited*
[ January 28, 2011, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:*laugh* You are so gosh darn cute. Let me try to work so very hard for you and see if I can account for your points.
[promptly mangles all of Orincoro's points]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
DarkKnight: You need to dial it back a bit please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Huh. That is, no joke, reading like straight out of Machete, to the extent that I wonder if it will turn out to be partial or completely bogus, without having read more on my own yet.
The whole thing is going on as a trial right now. The woman is insane, and so are her supporters, to the extent that they're holding up the trial. One just tried to sneak into the trial in disguise.
She's a pitch-perfect example of, well, all the risks of the alarmist environment that we've been talking about. Her minutemen group is practically apocalyptic in their fear of immigrant takeover, and felt that there was only one real solution: to take matters into their own vigilante hands.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Samp,
quote: That there is at least 3 times the amount of violent speech from conservatives as opposed to democrats.
________________________________________ Wait a second, I'm confused here. How about BOTH sides use more common sense and restraint? ________________________________________ Orincoro: Yes. And then the democrats will still be using three times as much as the conservatives. Good idea.
quote: You do not want conservative pundits to be held guilty in a criminal sense for their overwhelming amount of violent/hate speech but they are responsible for the current violent politcal atmosphere. Additionally, democrats bear little, if any, responsibility for current political atmosphere.
Orincoro: I also specifically indicated that I believe that there is a difference between responsibility and guilt and that I believe conservative pundits are *responsible* for the things they say and their contributions to the atmosphere, but that they are not *guilty* of other people's actions. I cannot be more clear.
quote:President Obama has done an extraordinary amount of appeasement to the hate filled conservatives while never stooping to using any violent/hateful speech of his own.
"Obama has made comments." Orincoro: I'm sorry, I think you need to substantiate that. "I'll bet you never heard any outrage over Obama, Biden, or the Congressman's violent quotes." Orincoro: And this. Particularly the idea that their speech has been notably violent. Particularly that such violent speech was aimed at political opponents rather than, say, terrorists, criminals, enemies of freedom and democracy, etc etc.
quote: You are baffled by anyone who does not agree that conservatives are producing the overwhelming, or at a minimum controlling, majority of violent/hate speech.
Orincoro: It is a preponderance of violent rhetoric, certainly a controlling market share of violent rhetoric, a majority of violent rhetoric, but a monopoly on such a thing doesn't exist, and never could exist, and has never been suggested as having ever existed, by anyone here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
CIVIL DISCOURSE!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Your point is that the immense volume of right wing hate speech, as opposed to the tiny sum of left wing unpleasant speech, is causing an increase in violence.
No, I never made that claim, and I do not think it is likely to be true. Violent crime continues to decrease. I do believe however that this type of speech remains dangerous. It is dangerous, not actually immediately responsible for much violence that I am aware of. So no, you are absolutely wrong on my position.
quote: You are baffled by anyone who does not agree that conservatives are producing the overwhelming, or at a minimum controlling, majority of violent/hate speech.
I would love to understand what these people have been seeing and hearing to convince them otherwise. But specifically I think I said "violent" speech, and I don't know that I focused on "hate" speech. There's considerably more liberal "hate" speech than violent speech. I couldn't say who has an edge on that.
quote:So you had to have been *extremely* vocal for it to count. Got it. You can be vocal, but not extremely vocal.
I say "extremely" a lot when I apparently don't mean it. Perhaps I should have said: "markedly" or "notably" vocal. I am vocal on many topics. Those weren't really important ones for me- at least not to discuss here.
quote: Edit* I never gave a value judgement on the word or definition of "rhetoric" although you believe I did for some reason.
Because you're a weasel and you implied one very clearly. And being called out on your ignorance and your obviousness now, you demure about your own implications because they were cowardly and underhanded in the first place, and you were too slow witted to realize I would catch it immediately. Typical of you.
And what we come to at the end of all of this is that you are apparently letting go of your notion that I'm a hypocrite who mouths platitudes about civility. Because believe me, if one sarcastic remark counts as a "call to civility," then you really are completely lost in this discussion- the remark itself was hardly civil.
quote: Scholarette is much nicer than you.
That's true. And I am smarter than you. I can live with one out of two.
[ January 28, 2011, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro: And now you need to dial it back please. I don't really feel like doing this all day guys, please just calm down.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sorry, you know how it goes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, refraining from personal insults on a repeating basis is hard.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It can be if one feels offended. Still I really do appreciate it when posters listen to me when I ask them to do something as moderator.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, refraining from personal insults on a repeating basis is hard.
Almost as hard as kicking that constant needling sarcasm habit.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Usually the the things "PC" people try to "take away" are the terms and phrases specifically infused with malice and defamation through association- malice and defamation that the users of these terms know full well that they themselves are accessing and employing, or else full well should know....
Like the word "gay" has been taken away from us as a synonym for cheerful. Like we have to check every so often to make sure which are the approved and not approved ways of referring to African-Americans (aka negroes, aka blacks). Like the political label "liberal" has come to be resented by liberals because most people now see it as a pejorative term (and whose fault is that REALLY?) Like anything positive one might say about gun ownership is taken as being un-PC, including merely referring to the Second Amendment. There seems to me to be far too much attempt being made to hijack the English language to serve merely political ends.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Like we have to check every so often to make sure which are the approved and not approved ways of referring to African-Americans (aka negroes, aka blacks).
Wow, we only heard Malanthrop make about twenty different iterations of the same complaint.
Tell me: how many names used to describe that a person is black have become un-pc in the last ten years? Give me as many as you can think of.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, who cares? The point is made.
Here's another example. In the recent movie Superman Returns, Perry White reprises the old Superman motto, where he asks his staff of reporters, "Does he still stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" For some reason that seemed not to be quite PC, so the script writers had Perry White say, "Does he still stand for Truth, Justice--all that stuff?"
How many other people besides me cringed at that? More than cringed, I took offense. Why is it now PC to diss America and the American Way? I see nothing wrong with America being a little evangelical about the essential principles of its way of life. It is not a wrong or evil thing to seek to export democracy, and all the necessary practices and traditions that go with it (such as the value of each individual human life)!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Sam, who cares? The point is made"
The point that you should think for 2 seconds before being insulting to people? Yes, yes it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:Like the word "gay" has been taken away from us as a synonym for cheerful. Like we have to check every so often to make sure which are the approved and not approved ways of referring to African-Americans (aka negroes, aka blacks).
Language isn't static. This is a fact-do you want to dispute it? Words evolve, changing their meaning and what was innocuous in one generation will become irrelevant or even offensive two or three generations later. There's no conspiracy in it or even anything objectionable. No one has taken anything away from you, Ron, so your clinging to this mantle of victimhood is just strange.
For gay you've still got cheerful, happy, joyful, delighted, and that was without even straining my brain. One could say you're being silly.
For African-Americans, you don't actually have to check. It's not difficult to know which ones are objectionable and which ones aren't, and racism isn't much about terminology anyway.
quote:Like the political label "liberal" has come to be resented by liberals because most people now see it as a pejorative term (and whose fault is that REALLY?)
No, liberals don't resent the label liberal, liberals resent the meanings many conservatives such as yourselves inject the term liberal with. To answer your question, that would be the fault of conservatives such as yourself. We've even been over this before, with your straw-manning of liberals and what they believe about the siren-song of socialism, and being cowardly, and wanting all sorts of things you say they want, etc. etc. That is what liberals resent: having their portrait painted by you, because you do such a willfully malicious job of it. (You being far-right conservatives)
quote:Sam, who cares? The point is made.
Yes, let's not actually examine the language to see if the point is made, let's just insist that the point is made and move on. That's a very honest, courageous debating posture to take, Ron.
quote: How many other people besides me cringed at that? More than cringed, I took offense. Why is it now PC to diss America and the American Way? I see nothing wrong with America being a little evangelical about the essential principles of its way of life. It is not a wrong or evil thing to seek to export democracy, and all the necessary practices and traditions that go with it (such as the value of each individual human life)!
It's not a diss to America, calling Superman's ideals 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' is a diss to, wait for it, everyone else on the planet who is a good guy, Ron. Because remember the fact that Americans don't have a monopoly on those virtues that are enshrined under that term? Your brand of aggressive offense-seeking doesn't fit with the example you've used.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For some reason that seemed not to be quite PC, so the script writers had Perry White say, "Does he still stand for Truth, Justice--all that stuff?"
Superman Returns made about half its money overseas, in countries where "The American Way" is not necessarily associated with either Truth or Justice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And, quite aside from the notion that the American Way is somehow the prime way in which one can support all those good things, just how reasonable is it, really, to expect non-Americans to embrace that phrase?
It ain't. But let's just pretend these and other points weren't made, shall we?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, who cares? The point is made.
You don't even know what my point is. Answer the question.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Like we have to check every so often to make sure which are the approved and not approved ways of referring to African-Americans (aka negroes, aka blacks). Like the political label "liberal" has come to be resented by liberals because most people now see it as a pejorative term (and whose fault is that REALLY?) Like anything positive one might say about gun ownership is taken as being un-PC, including merely referring to the Second Amendment. There seems to me to be far too much attempt being made to hijack the English language to serve merely political ends.
The point is not, and has never been, to control language. Generally, what the aggrieved party wants is to stop being called anything when it's dripping with scorn or abuse.
"Hey, bigboy! Look at the bigboy! Stand back, he's gonna stomp all over you! Hide your daughters! Back off, bigboy, we don't want your kind around here. Hey, have you heard the one about the three bigboys and the goat?"
"Please stop calling us bigboys. Please, just call us tall people."
"Yeah, whatever, 'tall person.' God, I can't believe how many tall people we're seeing in town these days. I swear they just take over the area. Well, tall people breed like rabbits, you know. But it's OK, we'd never hire one. They're dirty, tall people are, and they have no respect for themselves. Just lazy, really. Tall person! Yeah, I'm talking to you! Get your tall ass out of town!"
"We'd rather not be called tall people any more."
"Wasn't it your idea, 'tall person'?"
"We'd prefer to be called Heightened-Americans."
"Oh, got your own little group now, huh? Got to be treated special? 'Heightened-Americans,' what a joke. You know they got a quota down at the office. Got to hire so many Heightened-Americans, no matter what. Heightened-Americans are taking all our jobs, and it's a damn shame. It's getting so real Americans can't... Hey! They're calling themselves b-words now! I heard a tall p... ooh, sorry, I mean, a (finger quotes) 'Heightened-American' calling himself a b-word! And they call each other that all the time, on the street and in their music! How come we can't call them that? It's just a word!"
When the word is condemned, the real request is not really, "Stop saying that word, it's insulting." The request is "Stop treating my entire race/group/whatever as outsiders to be reviled, feared and ridiculed." But that's difficult to get across. What the members of the group really want are to be accepted, treated as peers, and respected.
Like the political label "liberal" has come to be resented by liberals because most people now see it as a pejorative term (and whose fault is that REALLY?)
There are several candidates, most notably Limbaugh, who puts all the scornful hatred behind the word that other people put into "child molester." But I'd lay the blame on Newt Gingrich, who included the term in the list of words he sent out in the GOPAC tapes to give Republicans loaded phrases and make their speeches sound consistent and powerful:
Lol. It's like listening to my friend's dad mutter to himself.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Imagine you're in high school, and for some reason the bullies start calling you a derogatory nickname whenever they yell at you, laugh at you, taunt you, beat you up or otherwise harass you. When, whenever you tried to make a new friend or find something in school you enjoyed, they were there right away to laugh at you and call you that word and all sorts of mocking variations of it and make sure you and everyone else knew exactly how unaccepted and useless you were and always would be. Doesn't matter a bit how harmless the word would be out of context, and it could even have been a nickname you originally chose for yourself. In very short order you would come to hate that word in any context, permanently associating it with that horrible feeling of unworthiness and helplessness even if it was used by someone who didn't mean it that way. You could spend the rest of your life building a strong marriage, a good job and raising wonderful children, and then at a reunion 25 years later someone could call out that name and that terrible feeling could come right back to you.
But it's not the word. It's never the word.
[ January 30, 2011, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And what's more, the person who's calling you that knows the effect it has on you, intellectually at least, and *doesn't care*. And when confronted for using it, he lies, and pretends to be unaware of the harm it causes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Someone like ron should realize that much the same effect has been levied on the term 'fundamentalist' to the extent of birthing the derogatory 'fundie.' You could say that plenty have come to resent the usage of the word fundamentalist because now most people now see it as a derogatory term. And who's fault is that anyway?
Both use the unsourced and probably wrong assertion that 'most people now see it as a derogatory term' and both are insinuating that the group in question is at fault for other people making a word used to describe them a pejorative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And what's more, the person who's calling you that knows the effect it has on you, intellectually at least, and *doesn't care*. And when confronted for using it, he lies, and pretends to be unaware of the harm it causes.
In the example Chris gave, absolutely. I'm not prepared to say that fully transfers over to the discussion we're having about PC race/class/religious terms in every case - that someone using it knows, in all cases, what they're doing and when they claim ignorance they're lying.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think what folks like Ron want is for other people to just get over it, to understand that they (meaning people like Ron) don't mean wrong-sounding terms like that, and it's obvious (somehow it's supposed to be obvious), so just can't they drop their baggage already?
That's when they're not claiming that the opposition is lying, or traitors, or something, about the entire process-that is that they're conspiring to use language against conservatives to make the whole thing up. I'd forgotten about that little publication, Chris. I'd be interested to see Ron talk about that, but I suspect the silence will, as usual, be deafening on the subject.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sure, I just there are a lot of cases in which the person is not being honest in misunderstanding and or denying the effects of their choice of words. At best, they are being intellectually dishonest, and at worst, they are simply lying. For those who are simply ignorant- the solution would seem easy. You explain it, and they ought to understand.
Not understanding is one thing. A "when I was a child, I understood as a child," sort of thing. But "not understanding it" in terms of most of these discussions goes beyond not grasping the basic reasoning for changes in registers of speech throughout history, and in politics.
But since these arguments typically go: "I don't understand this," and then proceed from that basis, where the offending party continues to rebuff explanations as if they are false ideological justifications, I think "not understanding," stands in for simply not *liking it*. I think a lot of people who rail against PC culture simply want it to be acceptable for them to use inflammatory language. And how can you argue with someone about that? Their arguments make a lot more sense (to them), if they can maintain some level of incredulity at the very notion of the practice. Because if they access the part of their reasoning that should make this issue and its basic properties clear, they will have to accept that being PC is necessary. They accept this implicitly by not using the words (because they understand the effects and are also afraid of reproach), but their argument is actually against an ideology they imagine being based on being "PC," which is that it is not okay to criticize your opposition. Thus, you get people saying that "the truth" in the form of stereotypes they wish to perpetuate, is not "pc," when in fact a clear argument in favor of their position would be fruitless either because it is not true, or because it would demand an acknowledgement of subtlety and depth in the subject that they are not willing to allow. This is precisely because the stereotype or base assumption is the one they resonate with, rather than the more carefully expressed and qualified view. They actually don't have an interest in the truth, they have an interest in *their* truth.
quote: I think what folks like Ron want is for other people to just get over it, to understand that they (meaning people like Ron) don't mean wrong-sounding terms like that, and it's obvious (somehow it's supposed to be obvious), so just can't they drop their baggage already?
I think the trouble with Ron and a lot of people like him is that he wants to just keeping using the words, knows damn well what effect they have, and wishes he could get away with doing it anyhow. I think he's intellectually lazy, and using hate speech and loaded vocabulary is easier. A lot of other people are actually just run of the mill racists, and they want to be allowed to express their fear and hatred of the outside world and the people in it. Then you get those who like the words and the phrases for their power of forbidden-ness, and try to deconstruct their effects by using them in unexpected and disarming ways: Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, George Carlin, Jay-Z, et al. The reason why they "get to" use them is because they are using them with due consideration of their effects. They are not using them, and then denying that they in fact do have meaning- they are forcing the meaning to serve their message, rather than the original. There is nothing wrong with this.
Sometimes it's a little unclear where the line between incredulity, malice and ignorance lies. I recall something along the lines of Jimmy Carter, during the 2008 presidential campaign, referring to Barrack Obama with language typical of a bygone age for describing successful black people: "clean, well spoken," and etc. Carter meant well, but disapproving public reaction was fully justified. Today we do not speak of black people in this way generally, because it is a mode of speech which relies on negative stereotypes of the black community in general, and patronizes successful blacks by implicitly recognizing them for being more "white," in speech and appearance. And these are not accolades that are bestowed upon white people, which further reinforces the notion that "whiteness" is a naturally superior state. This means that calling a black person "well-spoken," especially as a general descriptor, in fact glorifies the superiority of white culture by admitting that a lesser or disadvantaged member of society emulates white speech, and gains success in so doing. The fact that it is actually true that success in society is connected to how one speaks is immaterial to this. The comment ignores and marginalizes the substantive successes of a person in favor of focusing on their more superficial characteristics- those with which it is easy to identify. It's easier for some people to think of a black person gaining success by refusing to *be* black, rather than by simply working hard or being very smart. Carter, again, meant no harm by this comment- but he really, as a former President of the US and renowned diplomat, ought to have understood the effect of his words far better. It was troubling that he did not.
(Edit: Or was that Biden himself? I really can't remember)
ETA: And I think it's important to note that the typical anti-PC crusader is, in fact, a member of a majority culture or race, or is otherwise specifically *not* the typical victim of negative stereotyping. Jamaican neighbors, old white men, little old Japanese ladies, and so on. As a member of a minority in my country of residence (though of a cultural minority, and not a disadvantaged one), I have often been the victim of stereotyping, even as I have been complimented or praised. I think experiencing the kind of assumptions that come with being called "x" when you yourself feel no allegiance to the term or the group being identified, or else to any of the assumptions inherent in the term, makes you a little more sensitive to the feelings of others when you employ terminology of your own. That I am an American, to many people here, means that I am personally unreliable or unaccountable for myself, lack an understanding of history, am wasteful, am rich, am a christian, am politically conservative, am unadventurous in my diet (a hilarious example considering the typical East European attitude to foreign foods), am potentially violent, and am uninterested in foreign languages or cultures generally. So, quite often, people compliment me for not living up to any one of these stereotypes in some way, and it's insulting. It's insulting to be told it's incredible that I can bring myself to enjoy unknown things, not be wasteful, be intellectually curious, be friendly, be politically moderate, or show myself to be reliable and trustworthy. These are things we should expect of everyone, and though there is typically some truth in any given stereotype- they are no less harmful for that.
[ January 30, 2011, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
[ February 25, 2011, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: See? That wasn't so hard, was it?
Added that missing comma for ya. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I may be missing it, but from what's written, it looks like the Congressman is blatantly lying about what he did. The report is that he answered the person asking the question, which he denies doing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I may be missing it, but from what's written, it looks like the Congressman is blatantly lying about what he did. The report is that he answered the person asking the question, which he denies doing.
I noticed that too. The article wasn't exactly clear on that point. But perhaps he just turned and pointed to another person and the initial reports placed that statement as the answer to the Georgia man's question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say from what we can see in the link all that's clear is that he's blatantly weaseling, unfortunately. On the one hand he says he blatantly condemns, and on the other hand we see a clear cut lack of prompt condemnation. He doesn't say when he condemns all statements that threaten the use of violence.
Though he should've stopped right there and said, "No, sir. That's an awful question, a treasonous question, and you should be a ashamed of yourself for asking it. And the same goes for everyone who laughed at it. It shows how much work we have to do to make this a better district that the question would be asked as a joke, and that it would get laughter." Or some variant.
(Cue conservative complaints of, "But liberals...!")
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
When McCain lost, I remember him telling his followers that they were going to have to come to terms with the new president and work with him.
I miss that very basic kind of civility. It really doesn't seem so much to ask. And yes, there are some people you're going to have to throw out of the "big tent" to do that, but it's absolutely necessary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: And yes, there are some people you're going to have to throw out of the "big tent" to do that, but it's absolutely necessary.
I don't think of it as absolutely necessary. If anything has been shown these past few years, it's that you can work the system and ensure you don't have to work with them at all, and force negotiation and cooperation to be strategically non-viable. First on your side, then on theirs.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)