PDA

View Full Version : Violent/hate rhetoric and imagery in American Politics...



perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:06 PM
07/13/2008
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”... Then Senator Obama, now POTUS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkUiMo5tZlg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA41P41lJH4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBKeB5tyigk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1agettypalin.jpg

perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:06 PM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1abortp.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o1zhXQXXAY

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bushgun.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/killbush.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dope.jpg

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 02:12 PM
Back at ya baby.

http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/?q=16

:p

perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhOE32ijkc



I have to agree with you there, Keith.... I haven't seen a single instance of that sort of the rhetoric from the left since the early 70's... but there's been all too much of it from the right. Yeah, it's a partisan point of view... so show me where I'm wrong.


Please show us examples of rhetoric encouraging violence from the left. I remember a lot of it 40 years ago. I haven't seen any at all lately. I think this is an example of false equivalence, i.e. "they all do it" when they really don't.

Exhale Derek, I'm goring other oxen today, including one who loves to use the term Sycophant :D

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1ahit.jpg

Then we have this "individual" decrying how all the violent rhetoric is from the right while a graphic on the Tucson Tragedy crosses the screen, but WATCH, THERE"S MORE !!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCP0HD3I_wM

Hmmmm.....

perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:36 PM
Back at ya baby.

http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/?q=16

:p

That's not fair Derek, you know that Canadians are naturally violent :D
Thomas Flanagan

former advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract or use a drone or something…. I wouldn’t feel happy, uh, unhappy, if Assange disappeared. "

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 02:43 PM
Oh noez! We're under attack!! Send in AGENT 33 !!!!11!!!!1!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://i.imgur.com/efV30.jpg

George Jung
01-16-2011, 02:45 PM
Perhaps it's difficult for partisans to recognize the vitriol emanating from their own camps; I wonder if, perhaps, it doesn't even register as such.

The sunday morning talk shows were interesting in that the tone was markedly subdued from what I've seen previously. Still some finger pointing - but much less than, say, even a few days ago. Christiana Amancopour (sp)'s show was interesting - at the end of it, they escorted the gentleman who had decompensated, telling an audience member 'you're dead' after the suggestion had been made to defer talking gun legislation until after the funerals. I could hear the comment made to that individual, though it was muted, and the host made no immediate comment. His other, increasingly bizarre comments were not included in the show. Other than this one, very troubled individual, all other individuals were well spoken, respectful, introspective. It was a welcome departure from what I've seen her shows devolve into, previously.

This is a bipartisan problem, regardless what anyone here, or elsewhere, might contend. I don't know how this will unfold. The only dialogue I can reliably modify is my own.

perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:46 PM
Not even Agent 33 could make up for the total lack of awareness recently demonstrated by the progressive crew here in the wake of the Tucson Tragedy. But nice try. I am sure that the principals won't do as well. Once again you have distinguished yourself in battle. You are to be granted an extra five seconds to wax poetic over the Haggis at the next Robert Burns supper. :D

perldog007
01-16-2011, 02:50 PM
Perhaps it's difficult for partisans to recognize the vitriol emanating from their own camps; I wonder if, perhaps, it doesn't even register as such.

The sunday morning talk shows were interesting in that the tone was markedly subdued from what I've seen previously. Still some finger pointing - but much less than, say, even a few days ago. Christiana Amancopour (sp)'s show was interesting - at the end of it, they escorted the gentleman who had decompensated, telling an audience member 'you're dead' after the suggestion had been made to defer talking gun legislation until after the funerals. I could hear the comment made to that individual, though it was muted, and the host made no immediate comment. His other, increasingly bizarre comments were not included in the show. Other than this one, very troubled individual, all other individuals were well spoken, respectful, introspective. It was a welcome departure from what I've seen her shows devolve into, previously.

This is a bipartisan problem, regardless what anyone here, or elsewhere, might contend. I don't know how this will unfold. The only dialogue I can reliably modify is my own.

Long ago, a friend convinced me to listen to Rush. That was the day he called Chelsea Clinton a dog, I was done with him right there. One day I heard Don Imus make an Aunt Jemimah reference concerning Stone Phillips' wife, I was done with him. Yet it does seem that so many are intolerably attached to a dogma that precludes seeing the chinks in the armour. It puzzles me.

I was convinced of the holiness of Jon Lott until I learned about Mary Rosh ( here in the bilge). I know I'm a hot head and opinionated. So it makes me wonder what's up with some other folks.....

The recent deluge of accusations that violent rhetoric only comes from the right have been beyond the pale, anyone remember this?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/killbush.jpg

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 03:00 PM
http://i.imgur.com/lGdpO.jpg

Bob V
01-16-2011, 03:02 PM
Long ago, a friend convinced me to listen to Rush. That was the day he called Chelsea Clinton a dog, I was done with him right there. One day I heard Don Imus make an Aunt Jemimah reference concerning Stone Phillips' wife, I was done with him. Yet it does seem that so many are intolerably attached to a dogma that precludes seeing the chinks in the armour. It puzzles me.

I was convinced of the holiness of Jon Lott until I learned about Mary Rosh ( here in the bilge). I know I'm a hot head and opinionated. So it makes me wonder what's up with some other folks.....

The recent deluge of accusations that violent rhetoric only comes from the right have been beyond the pale, anyone remember this?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/killbush.jpg

chinks in the armour indeed! I believe the prefer to be called Chinese these days. ;-)

perldog007
01-16-2011, 03:07 PM
Come on, lefties! nobody is going to defend the "all hate speech and violent rhetoric comes from the right" thing? A few facts are going to deter you folks? Only if it was always this easy......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPIP-i3sdVk

Somebody can surely discredit this vid as originating with FOX, right?

perldog007
01-16-2011, 03:16 PM
chinks in the armour indeed! I believe the prefer to be called Chinese these days. ;-)

Donn must be making tea - It's "they".

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-16-2011, 03:17 PM
Look, booger, if we dredge up every provacative thing anyone ever said about their political opponents we would doom ourselves to flounder argueing about every tee-shirt ever printed.
How about this? Make this about what was said or published by known individuals who have some skin in the game. Like sitting politicians, candidates, well known commentators and the official pronouncements of political parties. People we all know without having to resort to Google.
You have made your point with what Sen. Obama said in '08. But most of that other stuff is from who knows where and might be known to only those who have their noses buried in Youtube.
I admit I have often characterized Geo. Bush as a dope and I still believe he is but I don't wish him dead. What really scared me was not him but the people who could vote for him.

perldog007
01-16-2011, 03:25 PM
Look, booger, if we dredge up every provacative thing anyone ever said about their political opponents we would doom ourselves to flounder argueing about every tee-shirt ever printed.
How about this? Make this about what was said or published by known individuals who have some skin in the game. Like sitting politicians, candidates, well known commentators and the official pronouncements of political parties. People we all know without having to resort to Google.
You have made your point with what Sen. Obama said in '08. But most of that other stuff is from who knows where and might be known to only those who have their noses buried in Youtube.
I admit I have often characterized Geo. Bush as a dope and I still believe he is but I don't wish him dead. What really scared me was not him but the people who could vote for him.

Let's review, O.P. cites presidential candidate who won. Chris Matthews major commentator. Nina Totenberg known commentator, MSNBC, Joe Manchin former governor and new senator... You sure you want to do this?

Sherrif Dupnik, Madonna, Ted Rall? And you lead off with a personal insult at me? Then follow up with an attack at those whose ideas differ from yours calling them scary?

is this the best that the progressive crew who was maligning Palin for this:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20110108-045056.jpg

Can do?

Wish I could say I was surprised.

perldog007
01-16-2011, 03:35 PM
Crickets? Come on gang, nine days ago there was no shortage of profound thinkers expounding on the role of heated rhetoric from the right influencing crazy people to violence. I believe no less then the highly respected Norm ( known for his "intellectual chops") used the term "dog whistle". Where did they all go?

Paul Girouard
01-16-2011, 03:38 PM
Come on gang, nine days ago there was no shortage of profound thinkers expounding on the role of heated rhetoric from the right influencing crazy people to violence. I believe no less then the highly respected Norm ( known for his "intellectual chops") used the term "dog whistle".

Where did they all go?



Even good drugs wear off after a while.

perldog007
01-16-2011, 03:46 PM
Even good drugs wear off after a while.

Not so sure, you're dealing with a social liberal who graduated from HS in '79. From that perspective, it looked like a few of the ranters last weekend could have used a "medical holiday" to Oaksterdam :D

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 04:11 PM
Crickets? Come on gang, nine days ago there was no shortage of profound thinkers expounding on the role of heated rhetoric from the right influencing crazy people to violence. I believe no less then the highly respected Norm ( known for his "intellectual chops") used the term "dog whistle". Where did they all go?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5mdIPNB8t8&feature=youtu.be

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 04:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNYtTYb9V5g&feature=related

Even Milo felt compelled to apologise for his comments after this one.

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 04:19 PM
And, just for fun.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzg8dc_UGIs

:)

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-16-2011, 04:28 PM
Let's review, O.P. cites presidential candidate who won. Chris Matthews major commentator. Nina Totenberg known commentator, MSNBC, Joe Manchin former governor and new senator... You sure you want to do this?

Sherrif Dupnik, Madonna, Ted Rall? And you lead off with a personal insult at me? Then follow up with an attack at those whose ideas differ from yours calling them scary?

is this the best that the progressive crew who was maligning Palin for this:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20110108-045056.jpg

Can do?

Wish I could say I was surprised.

If you have quotes/images of all those people you must eschew sleep to accumulate it all.
Presidential candidate who won? Kind of a restrictive,no?
Nina Totenburg? Of NPR? Not exactly a big player. And Joe Manchin I am not familiar with. If he is newly elected he hasn't yet had a chance to take the lectern in the Senate.
And none of the last three deserve to be included. Particularly Sheriff Dupnik. He is a chief law officer who just had a mass murder, which included the assasination of a federal judge, on his watch and to me he looked heartbroken not like a man stumping for votes.
Whatever you are trying to gin up looks to be based on cheezie examples and kind of scattershot.

paul oman
01-16-2011, 06:01 PM
http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL816/152386/23408996/394638432.jpg

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 06:14 PM
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/00000/9000/700/109705/109705.strip.sunday.gif

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 07:24 PM
Ok, in a brief moment of conciliation, I'll give you this.....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLrNVg6UQs

McMike
01-16-2011, 07:33 PM
Ok, in a brief moment of conciliation, I'll give you this.....

Damn video made me clap, thanks Pug.

Pugwash
01-16-2011, 07:58 PM
Damn video made me clap, thanks Pug.

If more republicans were exposed to Dr.West I doubt they would have the negative opinions of "the left" that they have.

Unfortunately, or fortunately?, Cornelius West is not a media whore.

McMike
01-16-2011, 08:06 PM
They wouldn't be able to get past the hair never mind his skin color.

McMike
01-16-2011, 08:26 PM
I think he's my new hero. I'll have to read and hear more but he rocks.

McMike
01-16-2011, 08:50 PM
I have not. I'll have to check it out, Chris Rock = funny as hell.

oznabrag
01-16-2011, 09:38 PM
I'll flat out call you for what you are... a racist.

Making sweeping accusations that people who affiliate themselves with a conservative movement or the tea party can not accept someone with a different color skin is flat out libtarded.

And I'll flat out call you for what you are... an idiot.

Making sweeping accusations that people who make sweeping accusations that people who affiliate themselves with a conservative movement or the tea party can not accept someone with a different color skin is flat out repugnicant.

McMike
01-16-2011, 10:32 PM
I'll flat out call you for what you are... a racist.

Making sweeping accusations that people who affiliate themselves with a conservative movement or the tea party can not accept someone with a different color skin is flat out libtarded.

While I do tend to use generalities and I do acknowledge my fault to this point, I am no racist. But if it makes you feel better to call me one then so be it. Its been my experience that a significant amount of conservatives are having a hard time coming to terms with our presidents skin color. Not all or most but a sugnifigant portion.

BTW, what did you think of Dr. West and what he had to say?

perldog007
01-16-2011, 11:53 PM
They wouldn't be able to get past the hair never mind his skin color.

Incredibly bigoted Mike, the only republican I know well enough to show up at his home unannounced has very similar hair and his skin is a bit darker. That was over the line.

ETA - @ Derek, better get agent 33 back in here. I get Chuck railing on me for bringing up the speech of folks like Totenberg, Manchin, Rall, Madonna and he wants me to restrict it to "people with some skin in the game " ( ROFL all public figures...) then you respond with some videos of ordinary pinheads doing what ordinary pinheads do.... yeah Palin said Barack Obama started his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist. Bill Ayers.

Do you think Mr. Ayers was trying to fulfill a landscaping contract with those bombs? What Mr. Ayers did was a violent act and he is reported to have said he regretted not bombing more buildings. Whether or not that's true I don't know, but that's the story.

Nobody called McCain a terrorist? or Bush a war criminal? Politics is a tough game and that's the point. As stated, I have no problem with calling for a higher level of civility, what I have a problem with is the LIE that only the right has the problem. it's a problem shared by both sides.

The rush to judgement trying to lay the Tucson Tragedy at the feet of the conservatives was sickening, and every decent person everywhere should be offended by that just as much as we should take exception to Rushbo's latest round of bombthrowing. ( whatever that may be, I wrote that clown of years ago the first time I heard him....)

McMike
01-17-2011, 10:29 AM
Incredibly bigoted Mike,


Yup, if taken at face value I would agree. After talking with many Republicans and hearing many uninvited comments about Obama it's fair to hold the opinion that there is a huge problem with bigotry within the Republican ranks. I can see ASHDUMP's reaction and yours as a valid point though and should have acknowledged that many on the left would probably reject Dr. West for the same reasons, just not nearly as many as the right, IMHO.

FWIW, I didn't rush to judgment about the shootings and never blamed SP, I did however condemn her for her rhetoric as a potential candidate for president as she is rightfully subject to more intense scrutiny than any of the examples from the left that you cited.

Maybe I need to watch my generalities but I do hold the view that there are very strong and deep roots of racism within the Republican Party, not all, but a significant and notable portion are bigots, much more so than those on the left. If this subjective point of view, now clarified, makes me a bigot then so be it.

PD, you can throw all the stats and examples at me that you want, in the end your (all be it, well organized, thought out, and presented) argument is simply another point of view, not necessarily right or wrong but in most cases respectable.

oznabrag
01-17-2011, 12:06 PM
Yup, if taken at face value I would agree. After talking with many Republicans and hearing many uninvited comments about Obama it's fair to hold the opinion that there is a huge problem with bigotry within the Republican ranks....

Racism won the Presidency for Nixon.

You people can argue the Socratic method and bring up examples of individual Republicans who are incomparable, sterling citizens from now until Doomsday, and you will not, can not, change that fact.

The Republican Party will stop at ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep its grip on power and, as such, it is the antithesis of American democracy. Its prime directive is to crush dissent by any means necessary and to destroy the will of the People rather than to serve that will.

In my opinion, the Republican Party has earned the moniker Repugnican.

If some Repugnican hack-job idiot wants to whine about how he's so misunderstood and it's not him that needs to shut up with the vile, murderous vitriol he and his cronies spew out onto the People EVERY SINGLE DAY, then let him go back in time and silence Lee Atwater before that miserable spawn of Satan won the White House for the racists.

Gerarddm
01-17-2011, 12:08 PM
Over the top rhetoric has alas been a part of American politics since the Jefferson-Adams election.That said, I particularly decry the most extreme rhetoric coming from those left of the centerline. Shame on them.

I reject that considering Bush a dope or even Obama's generalized knife fight comment is in the same realm as some of the right wing vitriol.

Again, it seems the only political physical violence over the last several decades has come from the right.

S.V. Airlie
01-17-2011, 12:16 PM
All I notice about President Obama is he has Lincoln's ears....

perldog007
01-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Over the top rhetoric has alas been a part of American politics since the Jefferson-Adams election.That said, I particularly decry the most extreme rhetoric coming from those left of the centerline. Shame on them.

I reject that considering Bush a dope or even Obama's generalized knife fight comment is in the same realm as some of the right wing vitriol.

Again, it seems the only political physical violence over the last several decades has come from the right.

I can understand how people feel that way, we tend to listen to media and commentary that agrees with our own biases, and we all have them. As far of all the violence coming from the right, I disagree Link (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Physical+violence+from+the+left#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Left+wing+violence&cp=12&qe=TGVmdCB3aW5nIHZp&qesig=7n4BPN3RYRpSXlumBb7r-Q&pkc=AFgZ2tk5rfWo4-ROvlW3qWTj6DiELe1biSkG02ijYN8aUL7QWvmP1GdWtnyiCuDx ZJltCgGXdRyKIFb0kRpI2onjR3_H3CPAFA&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=Left+wing+vi&pbx=1&fp=7a70cc52a8f46eb0)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSc45QBcJo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7naTR5QCxo


My personal belief and opinion, is that neither party, or end of the spectrum has a monopoly on chuckleheads. Now if all you read is certain favorite source for one of our c&p'ers like this (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018561.php) a well reasoned and other wise sane person may indeed believe that political violence is the near exclusive domain of the right wing.

Conversely, if your value system favors a source like Newsbusters as opposed to MediaMatters you might come across a nugget like this
Glaringly obvious in this latest round of reports is that there are no specific examples of alleged threats of violence cited. I can only find one specific threat that caused the FBI to swoop in and ask a speaker to wear a bullet-proof vest on the tip that the speaker would be gunned down by an assassin. But that speaker was Glenn Beck.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2010/03/24/medias-myth-right-wing-violence#ixzz1BJWp0vrT and arrive at the conclusion that right wing violence is a myth and the left is the true source of violence.

I prefer the view that human beings naturally have violent and even homicidal impulses, that in a healthy functioning person will be suppressed and or expressed in a non hurtful perhaps even constructive manner. Since political parties and movements are made up of human beings, it's irrational to assume that one group of humans will have human flaws and the other won't.

But we sure see plenty of that kind of thinking here, especially in the wake of the recent tragedy. Just sayin'

perldog007
01-17-2011, 12:30 PM
Yup, if taken at face value I would agree. After talking with many Republicans and hearing many uninvited comments about Obama it's fair to hold the opinion that there is a huge problem with bigotry within the Republican ranks. I can see ASHDUMP's reaction and yours as a valid point though and should have acknowledged that many on the left would probably reject Dr. West for the same reasons, just not nearly as many as the right, IMHO.

FWIW, I didn't rush to judgment about the shootings and never blamed SP, I did however condemn her for her rhetoric as a potential candidate for president as she is rightfully subject to more intense scrutiny than any of the examples from the left that you cited.

Maybe I need to watch my generalities but I do hold the view that there are very strong and deep roots of racism within the Republican Party, not all, but a significant and notable portion are bigots, much more so than those on the left. If this subjective point of view, now clarified, makes me a bigot then so be it.

PD, you can throw all the stats and examples at me that you want, in the end your (all be it, well organized, thought out, and presented) argument is simply another point of view, not necessarily right or wrong but in most cases respectable.

I would agree that some opposition to Obama is racially tinged. As i posted on another thread, I heard a violent threat against him when he was a candidate, and the notion that if Hillary won the primary "they would riot in the streets". Both speakers were registered Democrats, one a "power player" in the local Democrat Club, and that statement was made at a dinner meeting with no one condemning that kind of rhetoric.. To imply that only republicans can be racists, or that most of them are is just not something that I can't go along with.

ETA - I would agree that much of Palin's rhetoric was less than well reasoned. In the same breath, feel compelled to point out that if she said anything about looking for an @$$ to kick, or channeling Sean Connery vis a vis bringing a gun if "they" bring a knife we bring a gun I missed that. Please provide a link.


As for John's position that repugnicans will do anything to stay in power, I agree. I don't agree that democrats won't do the same. That unfortunately is what our political system has become. Spend millions getting elected so you can steal billions. Sad but true. Power = loot, and it seems like there's no shortage of Pirates on either the port or starboard watch. That's how it looks to me anywho, obviously there are plenty who disagree with me.

McMike
01-17-2011, 01:52 PM
I would agree that some opposition to Obama is racially tinged. As i posted on another thread, I heard a violent threat against him when he was a candidate, and the notion that if Hillary won the primary "they would riot in the streets". Both speakers were registered Democrats, one a "power player" in the local Democrat Club, and that statement was made at a dinner meeting with no one condemning that kind of rhetoric.. To imply that only republicans can be racists, or that most of them are is just not something that I can't go along with.

ETA - I would agree that much of Palin's rhetoric was less than well reasoned. In the same breath, feel compelled to point out that if she said anything about looking for an @$$ to kick, or channeling Sean Connery vis a vis bringing a gun if "they" bring a knife we bring a gun I missed that. Please provide a link.


As for John's position that repugnicans will do anything to stay in power, I agree. I don't agree that democrats won't do the same. That unfortunately is what our political system has become. Spend millions getting elected so you can steal billions. Sad but true. Power = loot, and it seems like there's no shortage of Pirates on either the port or starboard watch. That's how it looks to me anywho, obviously there are plenty who disagree with me.

We can sit and argue about what Obama said that could be considered violent rhetoric vs. what SP said, I don't think they're are the same in scale nor do I think the innuendo Obama was trying to project was nearly as disturbing as SP's statements symbols and platforms as taken as a whole message. We aren't going to agree. What I do agree with the jump to demonize conservatives by liberals without reflecting on their own sides short comings is in bad form but the conservatives have painted quite a large target IMO.

I would be very critical of either person for continuing any commentary that involves such violent innuendo now and in the future given the fact that I do believe it's dangerous and therefore highly irresponsible.

FWIW, I agree with Dr. West, both sids serve the same boss and it's not the people.

perldog007
01-17-2011, 02:08 PM
We can sit and argue about what Obama said that could be considered violent rhetoric vs. what SP said, I don't think they're are the same in scale nor do I think the innuendo Obama was trying to project was nearly as disturbing as SP's statements symbols and platforms as taken as a whole message. We aren't going to agree. What I do agree with the jump to demonize conservatives by liberals without reflecting on their own sides short comings is in bad form but the conservatives have painted quite a large target IMO.



I would be very critical of either person for continuing any commentary that involves such violent innuendo now and in the future given the fact that I do believe it's dangerous and therefore highly irresponsible.

FWIW, I agree with Dr. West, both sids serve the same boss and it's not the people.

I have to call you on that, how is using a crosshair on a map ( similar to this (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin-target-graphic-in-perspective/)? ) and saying don't retreat reload so much worse than saying things like the knife and gun thing and talking about a brawl, shooting a high powered rifle at a piece of legislation and talking about "mixing it up" talking about knowing whose @$$ to kick, etc? The democratic graphic with target symbols even mentioned "enemy lines" See anything like that on Palin's graphic?


My point is that when you are forwarding the position that only side does it, the debate is over because there can be no honest exchange of ideas.

Do we really need thought police and "less lethal rhetoric" or simply some honesty in our national discussion?

George Jung
01-17-2011, 02:15 PM
My point is that when you are forwarding the position that only side does it, the debate is over because there can be no honest exchange of ideas.

Do we really need thought police and "less lethal rhetoric" or simply some honesty in our national discussion?


Good point, legitimately made (for maybe the 100th time!).... but I don't think it's going to take.

Partisans want a certain outcome, and show not the least interest in what's real, true, or honest.

perldog007
01-17-2011, 02:18 PM
Good point, legitimately made (for maybe the 100th time!).... but I don't think it's going to take.

Partisans want a certain outcome, and show not the least interest in what's real, true, or honest.

If the first 100 don't succeed, try a thousand million more :)

McMike
01-17-2011, 02:18 PM
I have to call you on that, how is using a crosshair on a map ( similar to this (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin-target-graphic-in-perspective/)? ) and saying don't retreat reload so much worse than saying things like the knife and gun thing and talking about a brawl, shooting a high powered rifle at a piece of legislation and talking about "mixing it up" talking about knowing whose @$$ to kick, etc? The democratic graphic with target symbols even mentioned "enemy lines" See anything like that on Palin's graphic?


My point is that when you are forwarding the position that only side does it, the debate is over because there can be no honest exchange of ideas.

Do we really need thought police and "less lethal rhetoric" or simply some honesty in our national discussion?


The pictures you posted didn't come out.

Really, in the end it's the tone and over all presentation of SP that makes me feel as if she really means or wants people to believe she means to be threatening. I'm not blind or stupid, I have read your arguments and seen your examples, maybe I'm biased but I don't buy the equivalency argument. I will restate that I don't blame SP for the shooting, I do think she is really bad for this country and her rhetoric can lead to violence, as opposed to Obama's rhetoric which seems relatively harmless to me. I'm being honest. There are dogs that growl for effect and dogs that growl because they mean to bit you, my dog growls when she's playing (boxer), I can tell the difference.

perldog007
01-17-2011, 02:26 PM
The pictures you posted didn't come out.

Really, in the end it's the tone and over all presentation of SP that makes me feel as if she really means or wants people to believe she means to be threatening. I'm not blind or stupid, I have read your arguments and seen your examples, maybe I'm biased but I don't buy the equivalency argument. I will restate that I don't blame SP for the shooting, I do think she is really bad for this country and her rhetoric can lead to violence, as opposed to Obama's rhetoric which seems relatively harmless to me. I'm being honest. There are dogs that growl for effect and dogs that growl because they mean to bit you, my dog growls when she's playing (boxer), I can tell the difference.

I understand that analogy (metaphor? I gots no college ) and would take it a step further, when your dog growls you know the difference. When it's somebody else's dog, or a dog that you don't like, perhaps not so much.
ETA, replaced the pics to a link with the article showing other "target" graphics....

oznabrag
01-17-2011, 02:27 PM
...

My point is that when you are forwarding the position that only side does it, the debate is over because there can be no honest exchange of ideas.

Do we really need thought police and "less lethal rhetoric" or simply some honesty in our national discussion?

Certainly we need more honesty in our national discussion.

We can start by acknowledging that the R party uses the politics of fear and loathing to win elections to seats of power where they can spread their message of fear and loathing.

The R party attracts people like Beck and Limbaugh who have raised Goebbel's teachings to a high art.

The D party, on the other hand still stupidly muddles about trying to win elections by appealing to people's better instincts.

Further, it is true that politics is a struggle, a 'fight', if you will, and the language in question can not and should not be eliminated.

Further still, it is not individual Republicans that I have a problem with it is the Republican Party. It has abandoned any pretense at ability to govern, and stakes its claims to legitimacy on its ability to destroy our government.

I loathe it in all its racist, anti-American, filthy wretchedness.

Luckily, it's on its way to self-immolation, and it can't happen soon enough to please me.

Sam F
01-17-2011, 02:30 PM
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” [Republican Rick Scott] “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.” former Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski

Now that's not nice.
But this is worse - that is if you think hypocrisy is a bad thing:
"We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." former Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11Kanjorski.html?_r=1

johnw
01-17-2011, 02:43 PM
My personal belief and opinion, is that neither party, or end of the spectrum has a monopoly on chuckleheads.You got that right, dog. Now all you need to make the equivalence is some examples of liberals showing up at Republican campaign events with guns.

I'm not at all sold on the idea that Palin's map with crosshairs had any relevance to the matter, though after the shooting she should have taken it down and explained that she felt it was now in bad taste.

Far more harmful has been fanciful statements that feed paranoia -- Obama wants to subject grandma to 'death panels,' Obama is a socialist/fascist who wants to take over the healthcare industry, that sort of thing.

I've heard liberal conspiracy theories about Bush, but none of them got a lot of traction in Democratic circles. 911 truthers, for example, don't have the same relationship to the Democratic party the Birthers appear to have to the Republican party.

George Jung
01-17-2011, 02:43 PM
Certainly we need more honesty in our national discussion.

We can start by acknowledging that the R party uses the politics of fear and loathing to win elections to seats of power where they can spread their message of fear and loathing.

The R party attracts people like Beck and Limbaugh who have raised Goebbel's teachings to a high art.

The D party, on the other hand still stupidly muddles about trying to win elections by appealing to people's better instincts.

Further, it is true that politics is a struggle, a 'fight', if you will, and the language in question can not and should not be eliminated.

Further still, it is not individual Republicans that I have a problem with it is the Republican Party. It has abandoned any pretense at ability to govern, and stakes its claims to legitimacy on its ability to destroy our government.

I loathe it in all its racist, anti-American, filthy wretchedness.

Luckily, it's on its way to self-immolation, and it can't happen soon enough to please me.

Now, it could just be me, but if pushed, I'd offer this lil' tidbit as Exhibit A on a thread talking about Partisanship and why it is a problem.

oznabrag
01-17-2011, 04:52 PM
You could make an argument that 'appealing to people's better instincts' may not necessarily be as effective as one would wish... but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'stupid'.

Perhaps you would if you were engaging in sarcasm.

oznabrag
01-17-2011, 05:04 PM
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” [Republican Rick Scott] “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.” former Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11Kanjorski.html?_r=1

Thank you for posting this perfect example!

Congressman Kajorski is definitely part of the problem, here.

No person truly qualified to run for political office has any business responding to such an accusation, so Kajorski took a very cheap shot.

His motivation is clearly political and his goal is to contribute to an effort to deny Scott political power.

If he were fit to serve, he would have spent his time seeing to it that Scott were prosecuted rather than accepting that "we don’t prosecute big crooks.”

In fact, if he were to substitute the word 'arrest' for the word 'shoot', and strike that mewling, defeatist, anti-American garbage about how this 'damned crook' is above the law, I'd have no problem with it.

Osborne Russell
01-17-2011, 08:13 PM
You who brought Shock And Awe to Baghdad, draped in lies, will not now be heard to complain of violence, or much of anything at all, really.

Same for the Democrats who brought napalm to Indochina; draped in lies.

Or San Juan Hill, or Manila, or Wounded Knee, or the Alamo.

With us, violence draped in lies isn't just culture, it's policy.

There's a long way to go and we're going nowhere until we admit it. In fact we're retrogressing if not de-evolving.

Chimp Squad, your predecessors aren't around to atone, only you are.

George Jung
01-17-2011, 09:56 PM
Wow.

Didn't see this one coming....

perldog007
01-17-2011, 11:35 PM
You got that right, dog. Now all you need to make the equivalence is some examples of liberals showing up at Republican campaign events with guns.

I'm not at all sold on the idea that Palin's map with crosshairs had any relevance to the matter, though after the shooting she should have taken it down and explained that she felt it was now in bad taste.

Far more harmful has been fanciful statements that feed paranoia -- Obama wants to subject grandma to 'death panels,' Obama is a socialist/fascist who wants to take over the healthcare industry, that sort of thing.

I've heard liberal conspiracy theories about Bush, but none of them got a lot of traction in Democratic circles. 911 truthers, for example, don't have the same relationship to the Democratic party the Birthers appear to have to the Republican party.

Well Loughner came to a Democratic event with a gun, so I guess that doesn't count. I am accepting of the notion that his politics didn't have anything to do with his atrocious actions, but all reports are that he was left leaning, a truther, described by his peers as "pretty liberal" and a "dope smoking leftist".

I have posted videos of violence towards tea party members protesting, posted a link to the report of the code pink member biting a man's finger off. The incident of SEIU "thugs" beating a black conservative man is well documented and there is video for those who would take ten seconds to google.

Now did the fact that those guys were SEIU members make them beat that man down? Hell no! I know all kinds of union members who would have intervened on behalf of the victim.

There are plenty of example of violent behavior from both sides at the others events. Liberals carrying guns to a Republican? Haven't heard of that one. Liberals smashing windows at a conservative event? Already posted the video.

FWIW, I don't think it's a good idea to go packin' to an event like those boneheads in AZ did, but I don't put the act of doing something legal on the same plane as assualt, vandalism, etc.

David W Pratt
01-18-2011, 10:46 AM
The major source of "violent rhetoric" seems to me to be the analysts, not the politicians themselves.
But I may have missed something.

Osborne Russell
01-18-2011, 03:53 PM
Wow.

Didn't see this one coming....

Americans must perpetually affect to be taken by surprise by history. Funny to be surprised at things that already happened, but hey.

George Jung
01-18-2011, 04:00 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of your rhetoric.

Being kind, there.

And still - wow.

pefjr
01-18-2011, 04:13 PM
Americans must perpetually affect to be taken by surprise by history. Funny to be surprised at things that already happened, but hey.Or currently happening. As in droning in key to the drones in Afghan/Pakistan. Eh? Blind as a peace prize Nobel committee.

johnw
01-18-2011, 05:51 PM
Well Loughner came to a Democratic event with a gun, so I guess that doesn't count. I am accepting of the notion that his politics didn't have anything to do with his atrocious actions, but all reports are that he was left leaning, a truther, described by his peers as "pretty liberal" and a "dope smoking leftist".

I have posted videos of violence towards tea party members protesting, posted a link to the report of the code pink member biting a man's finger off. The incident of SEIU "thugs" beating a black conservative man is well documented and there is video for those who would take ten seconds to google.

Now did the fact that those guys were SEIU members make them beat that man down? Hell no! I know all kinds of union members who would have intervened on behalf of the victim.

There are plenty of example of violent behavior from both sides at the others events. Liberals carrying guns to a Republican? Haven't heard of that one. Liberals smashing windows at a conservative event? Already posted the video.

FWIW, I don't think it's a good idea to go packin' to an event like those boneheads in AZ did, but I don't put the act of doing something legal on the same plane as assualt, vandalism, etc.
I certainly take your point, but then, it's legal to wear underwear on your head, and they didn't do that. Bringing guns had a meaning.

I agree that there are people on both sides who engage in violent rhetoric and violent acts. But gun violence seems to be more of a right-wing matter, and it's far more likely to kill people. The problem is, the more of this happens, the more the extremists of any political persuasion are likely to engage in it. Menacing rhetoric and menacing acts like showing up with a gun at a campaign event tend to legitimize reciprocal acts by the other side.

The books never balance when their kept in blood. It's a conclusion I came to while covering a feud between a couple Hispanic families in Texas, and it seems to apply across the board. That's why it is important for the party leaders to condemn such acts.

Osborne Russell
01-18-2011, 06:04 PM
As in droning in key to the drones in Afghan/Pakistan. Eh? Blind as a peace prize Nobel committee.

Good points, well made.

Osborne Russell
01-18-2011, 06:07 PM
But gun violence seems to be more of a right-wing matte . . .

Check out the mini-series/movie about Carlos the Jackal. That was the heyday of the nimnod leftist play soldiers. We may hope that the left learned a lesson from those days, and that the lesson will stick, for a while anyway.

Osborne Russell
01-18-2011, 06:19 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of your rhetoric.

Being kind, there.

And still - wow.

Reds like to pretend they can't understand how their bigot and gun talk could incite violence.

They like to pretend they can't imagine a justification for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor. They like to pretend they can't imagine a justification for 9/11.
Or that the Indians didn't want to be civilized.

That's a heap o' pretending, kimo sabe.

Phillip Allen
01-18-2011, 06:21 PM
Reds like to pretend they can't understand how their bigot and gun talk could incite violence.

They like to pretend they can't imagine a justification for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor. They like to pretend they can't imagine a justification for 9/11.
Or that the Indians didn't want to be civilized.

That's a heap o' pretending, kimo sabe.
how do the lefty's feel?

Osborne Russell
01-18-2011, 06:26 PM
how do the lefty's feel?

They think rap has been unfairly maligned, though they don't listen to it. They want to bring polo shirts to the world and then kick back with some Christopher Cross.

Phillip Allen
01-18-2011, 06:49 PM
They think rap has been unfairly maligned, though they don't listen to it. They want to bring polo shirts to the world and then kick back with some Christopher Cross.

what kind of an answer is that?

pefjr
01-18-2011, 06:55 PM
We may hope that the left learned a lesson from those days, and that the lesson will stick, for a while anyway.Not a chance, when we can hire the Mossad.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_XjxZQd4MRvc/TTYn_ZKsN5I/AAAAAAAACPM/mh7QOfGuEXk/mossad-seal1.jpg



Add a Caption



(http://picasaweb.google.com/pefjr1/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCJSswdvQprnVtwE&pli=1&gsessionid=fQ8mkJuVYj56wpB_5dRipQ#5563678359703795 602)

Tom Montgomery
01-18-2011, 06:56 PM
Crickets? Come on gang, nine days ago there was no shortage of profound thinkers expounding on the role of heated rhetoric from the right influencing crazy people to violence. I believe no less then the highly respected Norm ( known for his "intellectual chops") used the term "dog whistle". Where did they all go?
I suspect some of them have wised up and are no longer interested in taking the bait.

I suspect others can simply no longer read anything you post.

perldog007
01-18-2011, 07:09 PM
I certainly take your point, but then, it's legal to wear underwear on your head, and they didn't do that. Bringing guns had a meaning.

I agree that there are people on both sides who engage in violent rhetoric and violent acts. But gun violence seems to be more of a right-wing matter, and it's far more likely to kill people. The problem is, the more of this happens, the more the extremists of any political persuasion are likely to engage in it. Menacing rhetoric and menacing acts like showing up with a gun at a campaign event tend to legitimize reciprocal acts by the other side.

The books never balance when their kept in blood. It's a conclusion I came to while covering a feud between a couple Hispanic families in Texas, and it seems to apply across the board. That's why it is important for the party leaders to condemn such acts.emphasis added*

But Loughner, from all available reports, appears far from right wing. Yet there are sectors of the media still trying to link right wing rhetoric to this tragedy while ignoring rhetoric and violence from the left. The usual suspects here of course parroted what was said on MSNBC on 01/08.... "there hasn't been any violent rhetoric from the left in the last 40 years..." Even the make believe Keebler Elves all up in that imaginary Hollow tree know better.

Yet we have folks here who appear intelligent and claim to be educated ignoring the hate/violent speech on their favored news media. One person who is decrying "right wing rhetoric" even went so far as to say that when powerful figures on the left do it they don't really mean it.....

Really?

Yes, Bringing guns did have a meaning. Unlike the left leaning protesters who shut down Tancredo's speech at UNC the armed folks wrought no violence. So the meaning obviously was "Even though we have guns, we are not dangerous like those on the extreme left keep saying". Whereas the meaning conveyed by the left wing protesters at the Tancredo event must have been "We will resort to violence". Because they did.

Or any number of other ways those events can be spun.... ( that was spin, by the way) .

BTW, it is illegal to vandalize property, assualt people, bite off a man's finger, beat down an elderly man who is handing out handbills, folks from the left have done all that. BUT! by all means, let's talk instead about folks who exercised their right to be armed and broke no laws..... Those left wingers engaging in violence certainly weren't trying to convey anything whereas the right wing protesters ( who broke no laws ) had sinister intentions. Seriously?

Me, I would rather have a guy wearing a gun on his hip standing next to me ( not uncommon in Arizona according to some reports ) than to get my finger bitten off by a code pink member because I have a different opinion.

We will always have with us the poor, and not just in monetary stature. With or without talk radio, guns, whatever there will always be disturbed and violent beings. Focusing on a red herring for political advantage in the wake of a tragedy like the one we just witnessed is counterproductive, and reprehensible.

Surprise, surprise! After the "problem" was identified, the solution to stifle free speech was lauded as a solution. Representative Clyburn's ( leading the charge for the "fairness" doctrine ) own family disagrees. ( the family member at the FCC.....)

Gentle people, please take a hint, All of the voices clamoring for the blood of talk radio and fox news have an agenda. They just lost their grip on the power to force legislation through. If they can trample over the dead and wounded to make a false link between their political counterparts and the tragedy in order to silence them, they will. The ends justify the means.

Fortunately for all of us ( even those who like the idea...) it ain't gonna work. Guard jealously the power to speak freely. Right now you might want a ban on voices you don't agree with. Bans have a funny way of multiplying until something you treasure falls under the banhammer.

When they came for the conservative talking heads I did not stand up..... and you know the rest.

perldog007
01-18-2011, 07:11 PM
I suspect some of them have wised up and are no longer interested in taking the bait.

I suspect others can simply no longer read anything you post.

There are a large number of folks with me on ignore, guess it's easier than trying to defend emotion against logic....

perldog007
01-18-2011, 07:13 PM
what kind of an answer is that?

For O.R. that was actually pretty good :D

johnw
01-18-2011, 07:20 PM
Me, I would rather have a guy wearing a gun on his hip standing next to me ( not uncommon in Arizona according to some reports ) than to get my finger bitten off by a code pink member because I have a different opinion.

Don't worry, you can have both. And by the way, I haven't argued that Loughner is right-wing. I think he wanted to kill somebody who would get him in the news. The heated campaign ties into this not because of his political views, but because it made him think killing her would be viewed as significant.

I notice you still haven't dealt with the fact that not only do people on the right bring guns, the actual gun violence we've seen recently is more a right-wing affair. This as not always been so. 40 years ago there were plenty of deadly people on the left. The fact that it's mainly a right wing matter now is something you don't want to deal with.

The more this stuff happens from either side, the more of it you can expect from the other side. That's why it's time to dial it back.

Oh, and I haven't heard of people clamoring for the blood of talk radio and Fox News, that's terrible. Who was threatened, and what sort of violence was threatened?

pefjr
01-18-2011, 07:32 PM
There are a large number of folks with me on ignore, guess it's easier than trying to defend emotion against logic....Ignore my @$$, peek, pretend, and throw a rock little child pay attention to me tantrum.

perldog007
01-18-2011, 08:05 PM
Ignore my @$$, peek, pretend, and throw a rock little child pay attention to me tantrum.

Bud, I hereby solemnly swear ( or affirm for the easily offended ) that should the opportunity to take a peek EVER arise, I will indeed ignore your @$$. Bank on it. :D Kim Bassinger, I may at least peek. Just sayin' But seriously, there are those who just don't like my ideas and rather than debate they simply trip the switch. Dan ( Husjein ) comes to mind. No peeking, no rock throwing, that cat just passes me by. I still like his Duckworks stuff. No grudge on my end.

pefjr
01-18-2011, 08:34 PM
Bud, I hereby solemnly swear ( or affirm for the easily offended ) that should the opportunity to take a peek EVER arise, I will indeed ignore your @$$. Bank on it. :D Kim Bassinger, I may at least peek. Just sayin' But seriously, there are those who just don't like my ideas and rather than debate they simply trip the switch. Dan ( Husjein ) comes to mind. No peeking, no rock throwing, that cat just passes me by. I still like his Duckworks stuff. No grudge on my end. He is busy reading The Globe, the Farmers Almanac, and besides Ish is back and he is probably pouting some. He'll post his long peek list soon enough, hope I still qualify.

SamSam
01-18-2011, 08:51 PM
There are a large number of folks with me on ignore, guess it's easier than trying to defend emotion against logic....
You rightwingers seem to think the world quits turning when you go to sleep. Your actual problem maybe that folks just think you are stupid and not worth the effort.

Phillip Allen
01-18-2011, 08:53 PM
You rightwingers seem to think the world quits turning when you go to sleep. Your actual problem maybe that folks just think you are stupid and not worth the effort.

well, THAT was well reasoned...

perldog007
01-18-2011, 09:48 PM
Don't worry, you can have both. And by the way, I haven't argued that Loughner is right-wing. I think he wanted to kill somebody who would get him in the news. The heated campaign ties into this not because of his political views, but because it made him think killing her would be viewed as significant.

I notice you still haven't dealt with the fact that not only do people on the right bring guns, the actual gun violence we've seen recently is more a right-wing affair. This as not always been so. 40 years ago there were plenty of deadly people on the left. The fact that it's mainly a right wing matter now is something you don't want to deal with.

The more this stuff happens from either side, the more of it you can expect from the other side. That's why it's time to dial it back.

Oh, and I haven't heard of people clamoring for the blood of talk radio and Fox News, that's terrible. Who was threatened, and what sort of violence was threatened?

We do have both. Armed conservatives who don't break laws AND left wing folks who assault those with whom they disagree:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7vcgQjkDQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfolr4fLGmg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSc45QBcJo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr_4ZWEFOjQ

And we have left wing media types pontificating about how all the violent rhetoric is coming from the right.... when the same puddinhead's ( MSNBC ) just aired a call for a violent socialist revolution. Hmmmm.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCP0HD3I_wM



The FBi actually did ask Glenn Beck to wear a ballistic vest in response to what they saw as a credible threat of violence. if you haven't heard anybody wishing violence on Rush, you haven't been watching Chris Matthews, Have you forgotten David Axelrod and POTUS slamming Fox? The White house war on FOX? Calls for the return of the "fairness doctrine" to deal with the "problem" of right wing media?

As for folks trying to lay the tragedy on "violent rhetoric" here is one possible google..
(http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Fox+Palin+Tucson#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Right+wing+rehtoric+tucson&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7a70cc52a8f46eb0).

Glenn Beck has constant threats against his life. One article. (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/glenn-beck-threats-fox/2011/01/17/id/383054).

Let's look at some gun violence. Nidal Hassan? Not right wing. Jared Loughner? Not right wing... Do we get violence from right wing nuts? Yes. Do we get violence from left wing nuts? Yes. Are some nuts violent regardless of politics? Yes.

D.C. sniper(s)? Not right wing. But anybody remember all the speculation on what kind of folks were doing that before the arrests?

Lately the meme that violence mostly comes from the right has been making the rounds, but that's what it is, a meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme).






Did you miss the adult on child bullying of Palin's 16 year old daughter? Look it up and tell me about the leanings of the person making the threats against the child.

The guy who shot up the holocaust museum was branded as "right wing" by many sources... (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-10/justice/museum.shooting_1_holocaust-museum-von-brunn-security-guard?_s=PM:CRIME) but upon further review :
The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.
The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.
For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.
James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

Maybe you/your favorite media is focused on right wing violence/gun violence. Violent acts are not the domain of any particular ideology. They are human failings, and like it or not, both parties are made up of hujmans.

Since the rise of the tea party, there has been a concerted effort to brand the entire movement as violent racists. Parroted by many here, including some who like to throw around the terms sycophant, or the modern corruption synchophant. Ironic?

It's an effort to stifle debate and marginalize political opponents. I hasn't worked, it won't work. it might play with partisans, but the folks who actually decide elections - not so much.....

ccmanuals
01-18-2011, 11:08 PM
You forgot this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDla_Ax40k

perldog007
01-18-2011, 11:23 PM
You forgot this one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDla_Ax40k

Nope, i saw that video. The man is like the rest of the peanut gallery, pretending that the problem is the domain of the right. But don't you like the way he is heeding President Obama's advice?

This kind of thing is the point of this thread. Despite all reports indicating that Loughner was left leaning, including interviews with his friends, this "individual" is trying as hard as he can to pin this ( the Tucson Tragedy ) on the right.

Glenn Beck may be a fruitcake, but he constantly calls for peace and tells people not to take his word for anything, but to research it themselves. I haven't seen those two things in the media matters videos decrying his hate mongering and lies. Perhaps one of you media matters fans could provide me a link to the videos which show Beck calling for peace and directing his audience to not take his word for anything?

Brock is implying that right wing rhetoric inspired this liberal and dope smoking leftist ( as his own friends have described him, also a "truther" ) to violence and Beck is the fear monger? Really?

perldog007
01-19-2011, 12:06 AM
You rightwingers seem to think the world quits turning when you go to sleep. Your actual problem maybe that folks just think you are stupid and not worth the effort.

Is that the best you can do? Lacking the facts on your side attack personally? Your parents must be proud.

oznabrag
01-19-2011, 12:07 AM
how do the lefty's feel?


They think rap has been unfairly maligned, though they don't listen to it. They want to bring polo shirts to the world and then kick back with some Christopher Cross.


what kind of an answer is that?


For O.R. that was actually pretty good :D

Wasn't it?

I swear, Osborne can do that lawyer thing like the cat's pajamas!

perldog007
01-19-2011, 12:08 AM
You could make an argument that 'appealing to people's better instincts' may not necessarily be as effective as one would wish... but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'stupid'.


So when Eugene Robinson goes on MSNBC and tells the lie that the violent rhetoric is almost exclusively from the right, and you repeat it here ( while throwing around the word sycophant at those with whom you disagree {Irony?} ) that's appealing to people's better instincts?

perldog007
01-19-2011, 12:11 AM
Wasn't it?

I swear, Osbourne can do that lawyer thing like the cat's pajamas!

Actually, it put my mind more to the last conversation I had with Judge Lee, republican candidate for Gov here in the first state who routinely gets trounced ( even by a clerk with a G.E.D., former Governor Minner ) every election. ( _ducks_for_cover_after_taking_cheap_shot_) But I guess Judge Lee is also a lawyer.....

Osborne Russell
01-19-2011, 01:20 PM
what kind of an answer is that?

What kind of question was it? Here I come with meaty history and clear assertions and what do you come with but your Grandma-itis, tsk tsk, no one's perfect my dear.

A dodge, a feint, a distraction, evasion and retreat. So what do I give you? People in polo shirts to whom you can, in all the comfort of lifelong habit, point and say, see, they aren't perfect either, but no, that's not enough for you either. I ain't gonna come over and mow your lawn.

Osborne Russell
01-19-2011, 01:25 PM
Wasn't it?

I swear, Osborne can do that lawyer thing like the cat's pajamas!

This lawyer thing, qu'est-ce que c'est?

oznabrag
01-19-2011, 01:54 PM
This lawyer thing, qu'est-ce que c'est?

C'est comme pyjama du chat.

perldog007
01-19-2011, 02:01 PM
This lawyer thing, qu'est-ce que c'est?

C'est une tragique.

johnw
01-19-2011, 03:13 PM
We do have both. Armed conservatives who don't break laws AND left wing folks who assault those with whom they disagree:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ7vcgQjkDQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfolr4fLGmg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSc45QBcJo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr_4ZWEFOjQ

And we have left wing media types pontificating about how all the violent rhetoric is coming from the right.... when the same puddinhead's ( MSNBC ) just aired a call for a violent socialist revolution. Hmmmm.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCP0HD3I_wM

The FBi actually did ask Glenn Beck to wear a ballistic vest in response to what they saw as a credible threat of violence. if you haven't heard anybody wishing violence on Rush, you haven't been watching Chris Matthews, Have you forgotten David Axelrod and POTUS slamming Fox? The White house war on FOX? Calls for the return of the "fairness doctrine" to deal with the "problem" of right wing media?

As for folks trying to lay the tragedy on "violent rhetoric" here is one possible google..
(http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Fox+Palin+Tucson#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Right+wing+rehtoric+tucson&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7a70cc52a8f46eb0).

Glenn Beck has constant threats against his life. One article. (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/glenn-beck-threats-fox/2011/01/17/id/383054).

Let's look at some gun violence. Nidal Hassan? Not right wing. Jared Loughner? Not right wing... Do we get violence from right wing nuts? Yes. Do we get violence from left wing nuts? Yes. Are some nuts violent regardless of politics? Yes.

D.C. sniper(s)? Not right wing. But anybody remember all the speculation on what kind of folks were doing that before the arrests?

Lately the meme that violence mostly comes from the right has been making the rounds, but that's what it is, a meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme).






Did you miss the adult on child bullying of Palin's 16 year old daughter? Look it up and tell me about the leanings of the person making the threats against the child.

The guy who shot up the holocaust museum was branded as "right wing" by many sources... (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-10/justice/museum.shooting_1_holocaust-museum-von-brunn-security-guard?_s=PM:CRIME) but upon further review :

Maybe you/your favorite media is focused on right wing violence/gun violence. Violent acts are not the domain of any particular ideology. They are human failings, and like it or not, both parties are made up of hujmans.

Since the rise of the tea party, there has been a concerted effort to brand the entire movement as violent racists. Parroted by many here, including some who like to throw around the terms sycophant, or the modern corruption synchophant. Ironic?

It's an effort to stifle debate and marginalize political opponents. I hasn't worked, it won't work. it might play with partisans, but the folks who actually decide elections - not so much.....
Nidal Hassan? Most of the Muslim terrorists are fundamentalists. I think you're playing with the definition of conservative here. And I don't recall the speculation about what kind of person the sniper was, the victims seemed so random nobody I heard talk about it thought it was political at all.

What did anyone say in the White House about Fox that qualifies as violent/hate speech?

I don't doubt Beck attracts nuts. He feeds their paranoia. What evidence do you have that they are liberals? He doesn't say that in the story you linked to, and I doubt Newsmax would hide such a thing. Most likely they are nuts.

I know you keep trying to portray Loughner as left-wing, but there's not much evidence for that. One of his friends said something like that, but then one of them said he's Jewish, and that's not true either.

I asked you for evidence of left-wing gun violence on the current scene, and you give me a bunch of "not right wing" instances because you haven't actually found any left wingers. You've found non-ideological gun violence, you've found conservative Muslim gun violence, but where's the liberal gun violence? Keep digging, you'll find something eventually, but it's nothing like a prevalent.

Nobody wants to stifle debate. You can debate anything you want, but why not dial back the violent rhetoric? You think people can't make their point without it? Conservatives want to play the victim, but nobody is going to shut them up, and asking them to dial back the violent/hate rhetoric is not some kind of attack on their freedom of speech, it's a request for decency. If you can't make your point without the hate, that just shows your point is the hate, doesn't it?

I'll say it again, if one side engages in this style of speech and action, it will get the same back from the other side. I have no idea why you object to dialing back the hate, so why don't you tell me why it's necessary? You and I are debating without violent/hate speech, do you feel this debate is stifled?

By the way, I can't watch videos on my computer, could you just say what's in them?

Phillip Allen
01-19-2011, 04:07 PM
John...there are individuals on this forum who want to stifle debate...you might consider re-writing your post

perldog007
01-19-2011, 04:52 PM
Nidal Hassan? Most of the Muslim terrorists are fundamentalists. I think you're playing with the definition of conservative here. And I don't recall the speculation about what kind of person the sniper was, the victims seemed so random nobody I heard talk about it thought it was political at all.

Not right wing means just that, Islamic fundamentalists are not affiliated with the American Right Wing political movement.

Interesting that you don't recall the speculation on the ethnic identity and political leanings of the D.C. sniper, it was hard to miss then, and easy to find with a google now.


So how is Loughner tied to the right wing because Olbermann and POTOK ( no bias there, right?) cherry pick some key phrases from videos and tie them to extreme right wing groups? HE' S NOT!!

How is Sarah Palin's map responsible for contributing to the climate but the post from Jan. 06 on the daily Kos not? IT AIN"T!




What did anyone say in the White House about Fox that qualifies as violent/hate speech? exactly where did I say violent or hate speech, I referred to what has been called a "war on Fox" by many in the media, probably coined by Fox in the wake of the efforts of Axelrod, Dunn, and others to defame them. We have three major networks that lean left, we can't tolerate one who leans right on cable? Really? So much for honest and open debate, and save me the wailing over "FOX LIES" quoted directly from media matters. You can read and view the same tripe about Olbermann, MSNBC, CNN, ad infinitum from right wing funded places like newsbusters.





I don't doubt Beck attracts nuts. He feeds their paranoia. What evidence do you have that they are liberals? He doesn't say that in the story you linked to, and I doubt Newsmax would hide such a thing. Most likely they are nuts. Again, your zeal to make blanket statements without research is telling. Your mind appears to be already made up on this issue.

Not to mention your dismissal of Beck's audience and Beck himself. He has a viewpoint. I think he's off base in places, completely wrong in others, and worth contemplating on some stances. But on those rare occasions when I listen to his show ( around once a month ) I listen to his show, instead of relying on second hand opinions from partisan bloggers, or mediamatters video clips.

Tell me all about the conservative roots of this commentator:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXQpdB4xpk

perldog007
01-19-2011, 04:53 PM
Many many more examples of violent/hate speech against Beck from the left are as easy as typing and hitting ente (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Left+wing+hate+speech+against+Glenn+Beck)r.




I know you keep trying to portray Loughner as left-wing, but there's not much evidence for that. One of his friends said something like that, but then one of them said he's Jewish, and that's not true either.


Loughner’s leftwing high school friend, Caitie Parker, remembers him as a “political radical”: “He was left wing,” she wrote; “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal.”

FOX News has reported that the shooter’s favorite books are the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Loughner is also reportedly an atheist. There’s an anti-bible quote in one of his videos: “Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests. Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix. Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.”


Loughner also has a creepy “music video” up on YouTube, in which he is dressed as a terrorist and burns an American flag. FOX News has confirmed that the hooded figure in the video is indeed Loughner.


Also, Congresswoman Giffords is a major Blue Dog Democrat — almost so right wing that she would be considered a conservative in certain areas. She was on almost every important issue essentially a Republican. Her only major left position was support of Obamacare.

But on immigration, she is a blue dog. She supports Second Amendment gun rights and opposed the ban on guns in Washington, D.C. She is also a very strong supporter of border control. Compiled by right wing blogger Pam Geller.

How many right wingers list Marx and Mein Kampf in their favorite reading on their YouTube pages, and truther movies as favorite viewing.?

Sure this guy is by all indications crazy. Saying that there's not much evidence that he was a left leaning whack job is simply not accurate.

Every puddin'head in cyberspace ( that's a lot of puddin'heads BTW ) was linking this guy to the right because of the Olbermann, Potok interview where they assigned him to the "far right" with razor thin speculation and innuendo.



I asked you for evidence of left-wing gun violence on the current scene, and you give me a bunch of "not right wing" instances because you haven't actually found any left wingers. You've found non-ideological gun violence, you've found conservative Muslim gun violence, but where's the liberal gun violence? Keep digging, you'll find something eventually, but it's nothing like a prevalent.

You said it was coming mostly from the right. I never said that gun violence was coming from the left. What I said, and am saying is that the notion that all or most of the violent rhetoric coming from the right is a fallacy. An inconvenient truth, and a big f*****g deal, is that plenty of evidence ties Loughner to the left. That is not to say that all lefties are crazed and violent, but it appears that this one was.




Nobody wants to stifle debate. You can debate anything you want, but why not dial back the violent rhetoric? You think people can't make their point without it? Conservatives want to play the victim, but nobody is going to shut them up, and asking them to dial back the violent/hate rhetoric is not some kind of attack on their freedom of speech, it's a request for decency. If you can't make your point without the hate, that just shows your point is the hate, doesn't it? I disagree that nobody wants to stifle debate, the White house campaign against FOX, ( aka WAR ON FOX ) the democrats calling for a solution to the "problem" of talk radio, former speaker Pelosi and Rep Conyers trying to paint the tea party protesters as violent racists, ( funny how none of the video cameras a the cannon bldg or the capitol picked up those racial slurs, no?) a pattern emerges.

I do agree with your second point, which is why I think it's imperative that we don't discuss the level of rhetoric, and violence, as if it's the sole domain of one side of the spectrum.

Again, regrettable behaviors are things that humans do. Both sides are groups of humans, ergo.... to posit otherwise is irrational. When one side seeks to dehumanize the other, that's when it gets really ugly. That's where the Sheriff in Pima County, OlberMann, the mouthpiece from WaPo, Potok, Krugman, et. al.. have done us all a great disservice.




I'll say it again, if one side engages in this style of speech and action, it will get the same back from the other side. I have no idea why you object to dialing back the hate, so why don't you tell me why it's necessary? You and I are debating without violent/hate speech, do you feel this debate is stifled?

I don't object to dialing back the hate, I object to the pretense, sophistry, LIE, that it only/mostly comes from the right, and the implication that the Tucson tragedy lies at the feet of the right wing. That kind of dishonesty simply does not work. We have a tough enough time getting control of the party back from the progressives, don't need this hassle too.

Not to mention that such a sophistry is morally repugnant.



Nidal Hassan? Most of the Muslim terrorists are fundamentalists. I think you're playing with the definition of conservative here. And I don't recall the speculation about what kind of person the sniper was, the victims seemed so random nobody I heard talk about it thought it was political at all. Not right wing means just that, Islamic fundamentalists are not affiliated with the American Right Wing political movement. Refresh my memory, which presidential candidate did Hamas endorse in '08?

Interesting that you don't recall the speculation on the ethnic identity and political leanings of the D.C. sniper, it was hard to miss then, and easy to find with a google now.




What did anyone say in the White House about Fox that qualifies as violent/hate speech? exactly where did I say violent or hate speech, I referred to what has been called a "war on Fox" by many in the media, probably coined by Fox in the wake of the efforts of Axelrod, Dunn, and others to defame them. We have three major networks that lean left, we can't tolerate one who leans right on cable? Really? So much for honest and open debate, and save me the wailing over "FOX LIES" quoted directly from media matters. You can read and view the same tripe about Olbermann, MSNBC, CNN, ad infinitum from right wing funded places like newsbusters.





I don't doubt Beck attracts nuts. He feeds their paranoia. What evidence do you have that they are liberals? He doesn't say that in the story you linked to, and I doubt Newsmax would hide such a thing. Most likely they are nuts. Again, your zeal to make blanket statements without research is telling. Your mind appears to be already made up on this issue.

Not to mention your dismissal of Beck's audience and Beck himself. He has a viewpoint. I think he's off base in places, completely wrong in others, and worth contemplating on some stances. But on those rare occasions when I listen to his show ( around once a month ) I listen to his show, instead of relying on second hand opinions from partisan bloggers, or mediamatters video clips.

Tell me all about the conservative roots of this commentator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXQpdB4xpk

Many many more examples of violent/hate speech against Beck from the left are as easy as typing and hitting ente (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Left+wing+hate+speech+against+Glenn+Beck)r.

perldog007
01-19-2011, 04:54 PM
I know you keep trying to portray Loughner as left-wing, but there's not much evidence for that. One of his friends said something like that, but then one of them said he's Jewish, and that's not true either.


Loughner’s leftwing high school friend, Caitie Parker, remembers him as a “political radical”: “He was left wing,” she wrote; “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal.”

FOX News has reported that the shooter’s favorite books are the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Loughner is also reportedly an atheist. There’s an anti-bible quote in one of his videos: “Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests. Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix. Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.”


Loughner also has a creepy “music video” up on YouTube, in which he is dressed as a terrorist and burns an American flag. FOX News has confirmed that the hooded figure in the video is indeed Loughner.


Also, Congresswoman Giffords is a major Blue Dog Democrat — almost so right wing that she would be considered a conservative in certain areas. She was on almost every important issue essentially a Republican. Her only major left position was support of Obamacare.

But on immigration, she is a blue dog. She supports Second Amendment gun rights and opposed the ban on guns in Washington, D.C. She is also a very strong supporter of border control. Compiled by right wing blogger Pam Geller.

How many right wingers list Marx and Mein Kampf in their favorite reading on their YouTube pages, and truther movies as favorite viewing.?

Sure this guy is by all indications crazy. Saying that there's not much evidence that he was a left leaning whack job is simply not accurate.

Every puddin'head in cyberspace ( that's a lot of puddin'heads BTW ) was linking this guy to the right because of the Olbermann, Potok interview where they assigned him to the "far right" with razor thin speculation and innuendo.



I asked you for evidence of left-wing gun violence on the current scene, and you give me a bunch of "not right wing" instances because you haven't actually found any left wingers. You've found non-ideological gun violence, you've found conservative Muslim gun violence, but where's the liberal gun violence? Keep digging, you'll find something eventually, but it's nothing like a prevalent.

You said it was coming mostly from the right. I never said that gun violence was coming from the left. What I said, and am saying is that the notion that all or most of the violent rhetoric coming from the right is a fallacy. An inconvenient truth, and a big f*****g deal, is that plenty of evidence ties Loughner to the left. That is not to say that all lefties are crazed and violent, but it appears that this one was.




Nobody wants to stifle debate. You can debate anything you want, but why not dial back the violent rhetoric? You think people can't make their point without it? Conservatives want to play the victim, but nobody is going to shut them up, and asking them to dial back the violent/hate rhetoric is not some kind of attack on their freedom of speech, it's a request for decency. If you can't make your point without the hate, that just shows your point is the hate, doesn't it? I disagree that nobody wants to stifle debate, the White house campaign against FOX, ( aka WAR ON FOX ) the democrats calling for a solution to the "problem" of talk radio, former speaker Pelosi and Rep Conyers trying to paint the tea party protesters as violent racists, ( funny how none of the video cameras a the cannon bldg or the capitol picked up those racial slurs, no?).

I do agree with your second point, which is why I think it's imperative that we don't discuss the level of rhetoric, and violence, as if it's the sole domain of one side of the spectrum.

Again, regrettable behaviors are things that humans do. Both sides are groups of humans, ergo.... to posit otherwise is irrational. When one side seeks to dehumanize the other, that's when it gets really ugly. That's where the Sheriff in Pima County, OlberMann, the mouthpiece from WaPo, Potok, Krugman, et. al.. have done us all a great disservice.

Do I think the world would be a better place without Rush being such a bombastic partisan? YES!! is he the only one? NO. Does the left have a few mea culpas to work through? Without doubt. That's my fight. That's my issue.




By the way, I can't watch videos on my computer, could you just say what's in them?

That could be a reason to cut you some slack. Right now I have to save the world by indulging in my second adolescence and go work at Subway for a few hours. ( Doctor wanted me to join a gym, yeah right! ) But I'll try to put something together after work or on my next day off.

Phillip Allen
01-19-2011, 05:02 PM
the trouble with the left trying to blame violence on the right is that they truly believe it and never question their own beliefs (the same can be said for other partisans)...this can't be out argued, it just is and we all must seek enlightenment on our own

they do not want to believe it and will writhe around like worms in hot ashes to avoid believing it

Osborne Russell
01-19-2011, 06:52 PM
Glenn Beck, pale little toad. Oldest game in the book, provoke and blame it on your victim; diddle the rabble. Red as it gets.



We have seen government used by the enemies of liberty
and freedom here in America, God's chosen place.

Every time I increase the hatred of those who oppose
me, those on the other side who support me are even
more willing to lay down their lives.

James Watt, Ronald Reagan's Secretary Of The Interior
Time Magazine, May 23, 1982.

johnw
01-19-2011, 08:33 PM
exactly where did I say violent or hate speech

Read the thread title, it's on top of each post. And while I'm sure Fox would like to play the victim, nobody's silencing them. They've got the big megaphone and they use it for all its worth. The "war on Fox" you're talking about is people criticizing that network in much the same way that the right has for years criticized the other networks. It didn't stifle them, why should it stifle Fox?

Well, you've certainly demolished a bunch of arguments I haven't made. Loughner got his weird ideas from left and right. As for what his "friend" said, it's pretty obvious that a bunch of camera moths are getting face time on TV by claiming to know about him, but like the "friend" who said Loughner was Jewish, he might not actually know the guy very well.

Here's the argument you're answering, just to help you focus.




" My personal belief and opinion, is that neither party, or end of the spectrum has a monopoly on chuckleheads. "

You got that right, dog. Now all you need to make the equivalence is some examples of liberals showing up at Republican campaign events with guns.

I'm not at all sold on the idea that Palin's map with crosshairs had any relevance to the matter, though after the shooting she should have taken it down and explained that she felt it was now in bad taste.

Far more harmful has been fanciful statements that feed paranoia -- Obama wants to subject grandma to 'death panels,' Obama is a socialist/fascist who wants to take over the healthcare industry, that sort of thing.

I've heard liberal conspiracy theories about Bush, but none of them got a lot of traction in Democratic circles. 911 truthers, for example, don't have the same relationship to the Democratic party the Birthers appear to have to the Republican party.
Now, you've said a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but this is what you're supposed to be responding to. I was broadly agreeing with you, but pointing out a couple things were we differ. Mostly you've just changed the subject. I'm blessed if I know what Nidal Hassan has to do with providing evidence of liberals showing up at Republican campaign events with guns, it just looks like you've lost track of what you're answering.

Take a break, breathe, and remember, I'm not the enemy.

George Jung
01-19-2011, 11:00 PM
Anyone catch the quotes from Representative Cohen (D) Tennessee? Anderson Cooper/CNN was calling him to task over comments Cohen made, comparing the Republicans to the Nazis' Goebbels. Cohen denied he was calling the Rips 'Nazis', tap danced around that saying both were just master liars.

Just goes to show - the rhetoric isn't confined to one party; every individual brings their own bag of pathology to the party.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-19-2011, 11:15 PM
Anyone catch the quotes from Representative Cohen (D) Tennessee? Anderson Cooper/CNN was calling him to task over comments Cohen made, comparing the Republicans to the Nazis' Goebbels. Cohen denied he was calling the Rips 'Nazis', tap danced around that saying both were just master liars.

Just goes to show - the rhetoric isn't confined to one party; every individual brings their own bag of pathology to the party.

I think I can help Cohen out.
Goebbels was a Nazi but he was also a masterful propagandist. Maybe one of the greatest. That is not necessarily concomitant with being a Nazi.
Your "tap dancing" characterization is yours and yours alone. It might not be anyone elses. So without knowing Cohen's exact statement we can't know if he did brand the Republicans as Nazis. Got a link to the Congressional Record?

George Jung
01-19-2011, 11:18 PM
You'd make a good propagandist, Chuck.

Nice try.

No cigar.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 12:07 AM
Read the thread title, it's on top of each post. And while I'm sure Fox would like to play the victim, nobody's silencing them. They've got the big megaphone and they use it for all its worth. The "war on Fox" you're talking about is people criticizing that network in much the same way that the right has for years criticized the other networks. It didn't stifle them, why should it stifle Fox?

Well, you've certainly demolished a bunch of arguments I haven't made. Loughner got his weird ideas from left and right. As for what his "friend" said, it's pretty obvious that a bunch of camera moths are getting face time on TV by claiming to know about him, but like the "friend" who said Loughner was Jewish, he might not actually know the guy very well.

Here's the argument you're answering, just to help you focus.



Now, you've said a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but this is what you're supposed to be responding to. I was broadly agreeing with you, but pointing out a couple things were we differ. Mostly you've just changed the subject. I'm blessed if I know what Nidal Hassan has to do with providing evidence of liberals showing up at Republican campaign events with guns, it just looks like you've lost track of what you're answering.

Take a break, breathe, and remember, I'm not the enemy.

No, I think you're one of the more reasonable thinkers here. The folks who are flat out parrots are leaving this one alone. To be direct, I don't know of any reported events where liberals showed up at republican events armed. i can ( and have ) cited violence by opponents of the tea party and republican party at organized events.

We will have to agree to disagree that people showing up armed is more menacing than people actually committing violence. Certainly there have been signs at tea party events that indicate a lack of intellect and tolerance, but I don't think this paints the entire movement. Never seen any of that here on this little patch of dirt, but the tea party candidates drew a surprising number of votes in this blue state.

As far as liberals coming to republican events armed with guns, nope. Black panthers standing in front of polling places with nightsticks, yep, got that o youtube. Obama supporter attacking tea party protesters, yep, got that one on video. Code pink member biting finger off of man she was arguing with - that one's in the books. Windows being smashed by liberal protesters at Tancredo's event, yep that one's in the thread.

The only "evidence" that I know of pointing to Loughner getting any violent ideas from the right came from the Olbermann/Potok interview. if you have something else i would love to check it out. I put evidence in quotes because MSNBC took the ball and ran with it in a rush to blame "violent right wing rhetoric" for creating a climate of hate, while forwarding the position that the left does not engage in violence or heated rhetoric and has not for the last forty years... while flashing graphics related to the Tucson Tragedy. Classy, no?

perldog007
01-20-2011, 12:08 AM
I think I can help Cohen out.
Goebbels was a Nazi but he was also a masterful propagandist. Maybe one of the greatest. That is not necessarily concomitant with being a Nazi.
Your "tap dancing" characterization is yours and yours alone. It might not be anyone elses. So without knowing Cohen's exact statement we can't know if he did brand the Republicans as Nazis. Got a link to the Congressional Record?

Yeah, it's called CSPAN. Cohen also made a reference to the holocaust.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 12:26 AM
I kain't sleep...you guys are making too much noise (and my legs hurt just enough to keep me from going to sleep)

perldog007
01-20-2011, 12:27 AM
I kain't sleep...you guys are making too much noise
my bad

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 12:28 AM
the trouble with the left trying to blame violence on the right is that they truly believe it and never question their own beliefs (the same can be said for other partisans)...this can't be out argued, it just is and we all must seek enlightenment on our own

they do not want to believe it and will writhe around like worms in hot ashes to avoid believing it

repeating...

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 12:45 AM
You know, Perldog, I have to laugh at you for this. I remember you challenging me to a fight because i called you a RWDB.

I also remember you chickening out like the mommas-boy coward you are when I took you up on your offer.

Yep, I went there. You're a hypocrite and a coward and you're old and fat with a bum knee. You're in no shape to set yourself up as the arbiter of anything besides talking smack and hiding behind internet anonymity.

GFY.

you sound like JOe now...

perldog007
01-20-2011, 12:48 AM
You know, Perldog, I have to laugh at you for this. I remember you challenging me to a fight because i called you a RWDB.

I also remember you chickening out like the mommas-boy coward you are when I took you up on your offer.

Yep, I went there. You're a hypocrite and a coward and you're old and fat with a bum knee. You're in no shape to set yourself up as the arbiter of anything besides talking smack and hiding behind internet anonymity.

GFY.

Actually, I suggested that we meet and discuss our differences as you seemed to have a personal problem with me. All I said was time and place, nobody threatened you or challenged you to anything, still have the P.M. and you went spastic. I do the same thing for a job that you do, bum knee and all. I'm not an arbiter of anything, just pointing out that we can't have an honest discussion without acknowledging hotheads on both sides of the spectrum.

Thanks for proving my point that the right is not the sole source of heated rhetoric and threats. But I would rather discuss ways to solve our problems and reach a common ground where folks can discuss their differences. Obviously you come here for something else.

no pain, no strain I'll keep doing my thing and you'll keep doing yours.

BTW, the name is Doug. I use perldog007 because it has been my nic since the last century... but that's another story.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 12:52 AM
it seems to me that some of us have waxed a bit more reasonable of late...goody

perldog007
01-20-2011, 01:10 AM
Oh well if you're going to be like THAT then I will just have to agree with you, and what I disagree with I shall keep to myownself.


I'm happy to hear your thoughts, and debate. OTOH, if lashing out at me from behind your screen is keeping some fat, old, RWDB with a bum knee near you from being bullied in person then I'm happy to be the object of your desire ( we won't talk about the whole spanking thing just yet, even my son the jarhead found that disturbing.... ).

Alternatively, if focusing on me keeps you from confronting some one near you IRC who has spent enough time training to know that finding a sensei who is willing to let her school be used for a grudge match between two people she does not know ....( or even two of her own students, ever hear of liability insurance ? ) then I might be saving your bacon.


Lay on MacBlight, and damn him who first cries "hold enough" !.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 01:14 AM
I'm happy to hear your thoughts, and debate. OTOH, if lashing out at me from behind your screen is keeping some fat, old, RWDB with a bum knee near you from being bullied in person then I'm happy to be the object of your desire ( we won't talk about the whole spanking thing just yet, even my son the jarhead found that disturbing.... ).

Alternatively, if focusing on me keeps you from confronting some one near you IRC who has spent enough time training to know that finding a sensei who is willing to let her school be used for a grudge match between two people she does not know ( or even two of her own students, ever hear of liability insurance ? ) then I might be saving your bacon.


Lay on MacBlight, and damn him who first cries "hold enough" !.

HOLD...ENOUGH! I'll accept being damned because it's too late for me anyway

perldog007
01-20-2011, 01:15 AM
HOLD...ENOUGH! I'll accept being damned because it's too late for me anyway
damn you PA, but I'm trying to do it quietly so's as not to keep you from sleeping :D

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 01:21 AM
damn you PA, but I'm trying to do it quietly so's as not to keep you from sleeping :D

I'm about to quit this shindig...the aspirin seems to be working now

perldog007
01-20-2011, 01:53 AM
Oh well if you're going to be like THAT then I will just have to agree with you, and what I disagree with I shall keep to myownself.

If you didn't expect a fight, why did you agree to one? I didn't save the pm BUT I sure remember discussing details over a series of messages. If you're going to tell the truth, tell the WHOLE truth.

I still have them all backed up in different places. What i said to you is that if you were expecting a "'fair fight' when you bully folks you should probably pass" , and that I thought it was a long shot finding a "dojo where a sensei would keep it even so I ( meaning you, these are your words ) don't get blindsided by your homies when i have you over my knee spanking your bare @$$.." but indicated that I would be happy to see you in Annapolis since you thought it was a good idea.

All of which was true, I would have happily met you in Annapolis, there are no dojos there where out of towners are welcome to hold grudge matches ( much less man on man spanking scenes, but that's prolly another thread ) , and my homies would have blindsided you if anything other than a handshake and cup of coffee was on your mind.

Actually, most likely just one homey. Well, maybe two old timers with skills and means would have been nearby just to keep it civil in case you actually were imbalanced enough to get violent and impervious to O.C. spray, reason, and honest intentions to reduce hostility and have a conversation. Word.

I'm sorry we didn't actually get to meet. You probably wouldn't hate me as much in person. Affectionate as I am, the spanking is off the menu just to make things clear :D
But I do know where to get good coffee in Annapolis, so it kind of makes up for the no spanking thing.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 02:14 AM
Huh. Looks like you've got your story all lined up. I probably don't need to say anything at all.

you could point out that downtown Annapolis is a giant wifi hotspot so we could resort to insults via netbooks at close range if the coffee thing didn't work out ;)

bobbys
01-20-2011, 02:29 AM
You know, Perldog, I have to laugh at you for this. I remember you challenging me to a fight because i called you a RWDB.

I also remember you chickening out like the mommas-boy coward you are when I took you up on your offer.

Yep, I went there. You're a hypocrite and a coward and you're old and fat with a bum knee. You're in no shape to set yourself up as the arbiter of anything besides talking smack and hiding behind internet anonymity.

GFY..

So the older and fatter and the worse a knee is The more courage you summon up?

oznabrag
01-20-2011, 09:17 AM
I think I can help Cohen out.
Goebbels was a Nazi but he was also a masterful propagandist. Maybe one of the greatest. That is not necessarily concomitant with being a Nazi.
Your "tap dancing" characterization is yours and yours alone. It might not be anyone elses. So without knowing Cohen's exact statement we can't know if he did brand the Republicans as Nazis. Got a link to the Congressional Record?

Goebbels may be legitimately called the Father of Modern Propaganda. He's the one who first fully exploited electronic media (radio), and he was also joyfully amoral about his lies and spew.

I'm thinking of moving to Tennessee just so I can vote for this Cohen! He may be the only honest one left. Let ME talk to Cooper, and I'll be telling him that Lee Atwater was Goebbels' altar boy, which he was, and that the modern day Republican Party is every bit as joyfully amoral in the dissemination of their lies and mindless hatred as Goebbels ever was.

Y Bar Ranch
01-20-2011, 09:29 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Crossfire.png

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 09:31 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Crossfire.png

is that real?...really?...did someone forget?...did they lie?...do they even know themselves?

Y Bar Ranch
01-20-2011, 09:34 AM
Some more weaponized rhetoric.


BRIAN WILLIAMS (Nightly News, October 29, 2008): On our broadcast here tonight, the air war. With just six days to go now, Obama takes to the airwaves tonight in a multimillion-dollar blitz, as McCain keeps swinging, determined to land a punch.

DIANE SAWYER (20/20, October 3, 2008): "Like Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama has also been in the political crosshairs. That comment she made in two stump speeches in Wisconsin one day...."

CHRIS CUOMO (GMA, March 20, 2008): "If we go to a convention, do you think that there's some merit to this idea that the Clinton ground war is too strong and could overwhelm at the convention?"

CHRIS CUOMO (GMA, November 2, 2006): "Senator John Kerry is keeping a low profile after apologizing for remarks that put him in the political crosshairs of both political parties and the President...."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/01/09/stones-glass-houses-etc-documenting-liberal-medias-use-violent-rheto#ixzz1BaOMgFGT

leikec
01-20-2011, 09:39 AM
I can very easily envision Y Bar having rotator cuff problems with all of the excessive reaching....

Jeff C

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 09:41 AM
I can very easily envision Y Bar having rotator cuff problems with all of the excessive reaching....

Jeff C

he certainly doesn't have to reach very far

the question remains: are conservative cross hairs still more violent then liberal crosshairs

pefjr
01-20-2011, 09:59 AM
you could point out that downtown Annapolis is a giant wifi hotspot so we could resort to insults via netbooks at close range if the coffee thing didn't work out ;)Funny , I went through the same thing with the courageous internet bully. Now, he has smartened up/dumbed down and uses the peek list.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 10:01 AM
Funny , I went through the same thing with the courageous internet bully. Now, he has smartened up/dumbed down and uses the peek list.

let me guess...

Y Bar Ranch
01-20-2011, 10:02 AM
I can very easily envision Y Bar having rotator cuff problems with all of the excessive reaching....

Jeff C
Stuff just lands in my lap, actually. People have been using "weaponized" rhetoric for since ever. But now we get to watch people trip all over themselves every time they start to use phraseology that we've been using since Paul Revere dumped all that tea in the Potomac, just because liberals tried to accuse Palin of being responsible for killing all those people with her plot with crosshairs on it. The horror of the stupidity.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 10:04 AM
Stuff just lands in my lap, actually. People have been using "weaponized" rhetoric for since ever. But now we get to watch people trip all over themselves every time they start to use phraseology that we've been using since Paul Revere dumped all that tea in the Potomac, just because liberals tried to accuse Palin of being responsible for killing all those people with her plot with crosshairs on it. The horror of the stupidity.

a salient point which will be lost of certain partisans...

(most of the clear thinkers knew intuitively before all these posts anyway...foolish people are in a rush to look foolish

Y Bar Ranch
01-20-2011, 10:09 AM
Some more baby seal-clubbing rhetoric.


"Palin's moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she's square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin," reported A.J. Hammer of CNN's Headline News on December 8.

"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks," said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.

"Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate," Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.

"He's in their crosshairs," said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.

"This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA," business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.

"The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs," CNN's Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.

"We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again," CNN's Joe Johns reported on January 3.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/banning-crosshairs-cnn-used-it-refer-palin-bachmann#ixzz1BaWn92Tk

TomF
01-20-2011, 10:12 AM
Baby seal clubbing?

You're either a couple of months early for your metaphor, or those crazy Europeans have introduced baby seals to techno and silly drugs.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 10:45 AM
Baby seal clubbing?

You're either a couple of months early for your metaphor, or those crazy Europeans have introduced baby seals to techno and silly drugs.

Reprehensible! Everyone knows that it's the Canadians who lure baby seals in with techno and silly drugs to make sporrans for the crazy Euro types to wear with their kilts. Duh!

Y Bar Ranch
01-20-2011, 10:50 AM
Baby seal clubbing?

You're either a couple of months early for your metaphor, or those crazy Europeans have introduced baby seals to techno and silly drugs.

A baby seal walks into a club and up to the bartender. Looking the fellow square in the eye, he asks, "Hey, uh, you got any fish here?"

"No," the bartender replies. "This is a club. We do not sell fish. If you want something to drink, I can help you. Otherwise, scram." The baby seal wriggles away, muttering to himself.

The next day the baby seal returns, bellies up to the club bar, and asks the bartender, "Say, um...you got any fish?"

"No, no, a thousand times no!" cries the bartender. "Look, I told you yesterday—we don't have any fish. If you ask me one more time, I'm going to nail your stupid little head to the bar. Got it?"

"Yeah, yeah, I got it, I got it, mister," the baby seal mumbles, slides off his barstool and wriggles into the night.

The very next day the baby seal is back. "Er, mister?" he begins.

"Yes?" replies the bartender with a menacing look in his eye.

"Do you...do you have any nails?" the baby seal asks.

The bartender frowns. "No. This is a nightclub. I have no nails."

"Well, uh...you got any fish?"

TomF
01-20-2011, 11:09 AM
Very good.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 11:53 AM
a salient point which will be lost of certain partisans...

(most of the clear thinkers knew intuitively before all these posts anyway...foolish people are in a rush to look foolish



This is one event where Glenn Beck is absolutely spot on.( May G-d have mercy on us all....) Beck said that the seemingly co-ordinated rush to judgement by left wing media in an effort to lay this tragedy at the feet of right wing media was like an obituary for an old celebrity. It's all ready written, ready to go. They know the aging celebrity is going to die ( aren't we all?) so the obituary is "in the can" beforehand, and as soon as they pass on it's already ready.

We, unfortunately, know that we have unstable and violent folk amongst the rest of the species. We know that sooner or later they are going to do something horrible.

The effort to paint the opposition to the progressive movement as racist and violent has been a meme for some time now, really gaining momentum after Conyers and company heard the famous unrecordable "N-word" yelled at them along with the recorded chant of "Kill the Bill". For some reason all the video cameras present at the Cannon bldg that day and the capitol, and the zillions along the route all failed to record the racial slurs or verify the allegations of the mob "rushing" the lawmakers.

That didn't stop certain sectors of the media and the usual suspects here ( who are likened to a DVR, if you miss a "special comment" you can just read their posts the next day...) from picking up this sophistry and running with it. Right here, right now, on this board, page one you can find the faithful positing that the opposition party is inherently racist, with no hue and cry forthcoming from those who call themselves "liberal".

In truth these liberals have little to do with the definition of the word, just because I am a male and danced at my young friends wedding, have a profession does not make me a professional male dancer. Just because people align with the progressive movement does not mean that they are free from the baggage of bigotry, or accepting of the ideals of others. Yet I digress.

Back to the issue at hand, Krugman had this piece quickly and admitted that he was ready for an event like this, basically confirming what Beck said. Serendipity? Kismet? Dumb luck? or was Beck right?

Krugman seems to be the recent coiner of "all violent rhetoric comes from the right" and even went so far as to say that O'reilly and Beck joke about beheading journalists and shooting politicians, but not on MSNBC. Hmmmm.... I heard Chris Matthews talk about blowing Rush's head up with a c02 cartgridge, and Ted Rall talk about violent revolution against the government on MSNBC... I call Bravo Sierra.

But that didn't stop the "lamestream" from running with this meme, and Keith and Norman discussing the "truth" of the assertion that virtually all of the violent rhetoric comes from the right on the very thread announcing the tragedy. Are Beck and Palin both right this time? ( scary thought there eh?) Was this script already to go and is the mainstream media simply what the White House accuses Fox of being? A mouthpiece?

One incident is not probative, but certainly suggestive. Krugman is mistaken or lying, as was Eugene Roberts of the Washington Post as he repeated the meme of "virtually all violent rhetoric comes from the right" while graphics flashed across the screen giving factual details of the Tucson Tragedy. With the speed that only modern technology allows, sycophants were repeating the meme here in the bilge, complete with graphics and regurgitated pronouncements.

Conveniently forgotten were all the violent images and speech from the left. When they were posted and pointed out, only two reasoned voices remained to debate. I will agree to disagree with McMike that it's sinister when Palin does it but it's just to make a point when POTUS does it, but that's his honest opinion and I respect him for making the case without vitriol.

I will agree to disagree with johnw that legally going armed is on the same level as illegal violence, but again respect him for making his case and honestly stating his opinions. Disagreeing is not a bad thing, for those who think it is I would recommend some light reading "The Leadership Secrets of Attilla the Hun" ( an excellent primer on management )

Of course the faithful that jumped in to the thread about the tragedy early and often have been silent or restricted to ad hominem attacks here.

Dissension is diversity of thought, it's invaluable for progress. Ironically, the progressive tactic seems to be stifling dissension.

In response to the post of PA that I quoted, Are those who are so impassioned that they could not respond without insults or even join this thread to defend their statements on the board fools? I hesitate to make that call. It might be foolish to be so invested in a point of view that reason is the collateral damage, but who among us can really cast the first stone at that public assembly?

Wish I could say that deeply held beliefs had never resulted in my own departure from reason.

Does one look foolish when they repeat nearly word for word the comments of a talking head on television then decide not to even try and defend it? Probably. Does it make the offense more dignified when the term sycophant is a favorite barb for ideological counterparts? Maybe not.

Is there any value in the media and political manipulation of the Tucson Tragedy? Depends on what you value, if you value freedom - probably not. There are obviously no shortage of "ends justify the means" thinkers extant, and they have shown themselves. Unfortunately for them, Loughner's only ties to the right are in the minds of Olbermann and Potok and their sycophants. His ties to the left are more substantial. Serendipity?

Or maybe it's just a wake up call. Reminding us that we need to heed the advice of President Obama, start trying to use words that heal.

I report, you decide.

David W Pratt
01-20-2011, 12:05 PM
It clearly started with the right wing, Wm. F. Buckley Jr. hosted Firing Line from 1966-1999.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 12:29 PM
It clearly started with the right wing, Wm. F. Buckley Jr. hosted Firing Line from 1966-1999.

And this caused Loughner to shoot Giffords and others because..... Or is more violent than the CNN crossfire graphic, or democratic strategy maps with bull's eyes and pop ups that show "targeted republicans" because..... and this was the first use of "violent" rehtoric when the "GUN METAPHOR [OMG!!!} Lock, stock and barrel dates back to the days of the brown bess musket....

I hope that post was intended in jest. If not I'm going to have to call Jason and Grant to take the short ride over to your place and see if they can investigate this paranormal activity :D

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-20-2011, 12:42 PM
You'd make a good propagandist, Chuck.

Nice try.

No cigar.

Joseph Goebbels was only five feet tall, a legendary fornicator who fathered six legitmate children that he and his wife killed in Hitlers bunker.
If you can parse out any propaganda in the above let's see it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-20-2011, 12:51 PM
Some more weaponized rhetoric.

Why Y?
Ain't you ever heard of CONTEXT? Ain't you ever heard of IDIOMS? Brian Williams was not trying to demonize John McCain. He was using a FIGURE OF SPEECH. None of your other examples are apropos either.
There will be a pop quizz on Friday. Bring a #2 pencil.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 12:53 PM
Joseph Goebbels was only five feet tall, a legendary fornicator who fathered six legitmate children that he and his wife killed in Hitlers bunker.
If you can parse out any propaganda in the above let's see it.

not in the bunker...and I thought it was seven...just as well as it would have been Stalin who had them...think about that!

perldog007
01-20-2011, 01:04 PM
Joseph Goebbels was only five feet tall, a legendary fornicator who fathered six legitmate children that he and his wife killed in Hitlers bunker.
If you can parse out any propaganda in the above let's see it.
The sexual proclivities, number of offspring, or the circumstances of their demise are completely irrelevant to the fact that Cohen did compare republicans to Nazis, even invoking the holocaust.


World English Dictionary
propaganda (ˌprɒpəˈɡćndə)

— n
1. the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc, to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc
2. such information, allegations, etc


I think I can help Cohen out.
Goebbels was a Nazi but he was also a masterful propagandist. Maybe one of the greatest. That is not necessarily concomitant with being a Nazi.
Your "tap dancing" characterization is yours and yours alone. It might not be anyone elses. So without knowing Cohen's exact statement we can't know if he did brand the Republicans as Nazis. Got a link to the Congressional Record?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhha3Gwx8z0

We do know Cohen's exact statement, your statement then arguably qualifies as propoganda by the definition above.


Helpful hint, download google chrome. Just type the thing you want to search for in the address bar and hit enter, no loss of sleep required or burying your nose in youtube. Automation can be your friend too. :D

perldog007
01-20-2011, 01:06 PM
Why Y?
Ain't you ever heard of CONTEXT? Ain't you ever heard of IDIOMS? Brian Williams was not trying to demonize John McCain. He was using a FIGURE OF SPEECH. None of your other examples are apropos either.
There will be a pop quizz on Friday. Bring a #2 pencil.

The same statement would apply to Krugman, Olbermann, Potok, Robinson, et. al. who tried to tie the Tucson Tragedy to the right.....

johnw
01-20-2011, 03:05 PM
No, I think you're one of the more reasonable thinkers here. The folks who are flat out parrots are leaving this one alone. To be direct, I don't know of any reported events where liberals showed up at republican events armed. i can ( and have ) cited violence by opponents of the tea party and republican party at organized events.

We will have to agree to disagree that people showing up armed is more menacing than people actually committing violence. Certainly there have been signs at tea party events that indicate a lack of intellect and tolerance, but I don't think this paints the entire movement. Never seen any of that here on this little patch of dirt, but the tea party candidates drew a surprising number of votes in this blue state.

As far as liberals coming to republican events armed with guns, nope. Black panthers standing in front of polling places with nightsticks, yep, got that o youtube. Obama supporter attacking tea party protesters, yep, got that one on video. Code pink member biting finger off of man she was arguing with - that one's in the books. Windows being smashed by liberal protesters at Tancredo's event, yep that one's in the thread.

The only "evidence" that I know of pointing to Loughner getting any violent ideas from the right came from the Olbermann/Potok interview. if you have something else i would love to check it out. I put evidence in quotes because MSNBC took the ball and ran with it in a rush to blame "violent right wing rhetoric" for creating a climate of hate, while forwarding the position that the left does not engage in violence or heated rhetoric and has not for the last forty years... while flashing graphics related to the Tucson Tragedy. Classy, no?

Thing about guns, they let you make a decision in an instant that lasts all eternity. They matter because somebody can end a lot more lives with a gun than he can by biting their fingers.

As for Loughner, the gold-bug rhetoric in his case seems to have come from the sovereign citizens movement, an outgrowth of the Posse Comitatis. Also associated with that movement is a right-wing guru named David Wynn Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller) who teaches the sort of nonsense about grammar that Loughner was spouting. That doesn't make Loughner a right-winger, it just means he was picking up stuff from the fringes, much in keeping with naming the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf among his favorite books. I've mentioned this on the first Giffords thread, perhaps you missed the post.

I haven't seen or read about the Olberman interview. Even if I had cable, I doubt I'd watch the guy, he's not to my taste.

By the way, did Blighty just get banned? Looks like his post are gone, maybe it's just a shot across the bow. That boy needs to learn to keep calm.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 03:16 PM
I think that my good friend and colleague from Minnesota may indeed be in time out. The ties to the right seem to have arisen out of the interview with Olbermann and Potok, of SPLC fame. This of course was after the initial rush to judgement. The "linkage" seems to be similar ideas according to Potok's analysis. Nothing from his friends, no smoking gun (oops!) from internet forensics, no substantive evidence just the grammar thing and some phrases. Certainly nothing to validate the assertion of Olbermann that this guy was tied to the far right, and the interview conspicuously eschewed any of the indications that he had influences from the left.

At the end of the day, nuts are just nuts. I certainly don't associate POTUS with the D.C. sniper, even though the former was endorsed by the Nation of Islam and the latter was a member. Apparently the standards on MSNBC are somewhat more relaxed when dealing with one side of the spectrum.

I agree with you about the lethality of guns. They are effective self defense tools because of their effectiveness at disabling or killing humans. I don't agree that exercising a right like open carry is a sinister act. Depends on the context. I posted the video of the man with the semi-automatic rifle at the Arizona rally. His demeanor was anything but menacing, even when he was being confronted by folks trying to lay some sinister intent at his feet.

Conversely, folks who show up to do violence and carry out that intention are of more concern to me than law abiding folks openly wearing guns. We will have to agree to disagree on this point, but I understand where you are coming from. I was raised and used to be vehemently anti-gun. You are pretty mellow on the subject vis a vis the twenty year old me.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-20-2011, 04:16 PM
Conversely, folks who show up to do violence and carry out that intention are of more concern to me than law abiding folks openly wearing guns.

Has your ability to descern which is which been scientifically validated? If you have such powers your success is assured.

pefjr
01-20-2011, 04:27 PM
Has your ability to descern which is which been scientifically validated? If you have such powers your success is assured.Well I be danged, CC has gained a point against you PD. First one in many days. You are human after all.:d

johnw
01-20-2011, 04:37 PM
Conversely, folks who show up to do violence and carry out that intention are of more concern to me than law abiding folks openly wearing guns. We will have to agree to disagree on this point, but I understand where you are coming from. I was raised and used to be vehemently anti-gun. You are pretty mellow on the subject vis a vis the twenty year old me.

I'm not anti-gun, dog. I don't own one because I don't need one, but shooting seems like a fine sport. On the other hand, showing up at a political event with a gun is in itself menacing. You don't know what the person is going to do with the gun until/unless they do it; you don't know who's posturing, and who's a nut. Yes, people can be violent without guns, but would Loughner have managed to kill six people by biting their fingers?

perldog007
01-20-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm not anti-gun, dog. I don't own one because I don't need one, but shooting seems like a fine sport. On the other hand, showing up at a political event with a gun is in itself menacing. You don't know what the person is going to do with the gun until/unless they do it; you don't know who's posturing, and who's a nut. Yes, people can be violent without guns, but would Loughner have managed to kill six people by biting their fingers?

I get it, I'm just not automatically scared by somebody with a gun on their hip/over their shoulder. No, biting fingers off would not likely kill six people. Using an airplane or three as a weapon, a quart of gasoline molotov, a truckload of explosives, more than six. In today's political climate don't know that I would go armed to a political event to make a statement. A bunch of members at a range I belonged to had an "open carry" revolt to protest a ban on concealed carry in restaurants that served alcohol, I opted out, they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....

I understand why some folks participate in these displays. They want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent. Just not a form of demonstration that I'm into. Judging by the interview of the famous "assault rifle guy" that I posted, have to say he doesn't appear to be going for "menacing".

To me, FWIW, if you consider merely carrying a gun as menacing behavior - that's pretty anti-self defense.

perldog007
01-20-2011, 05:42 PM
Has your ability to descern which is which been scientifically validated? If you have such powers your success is assured.

it's not that hard after the fact. They way you tell is to count the acts of violence committed by those folks that MSNBC was making wee wee over, that would be zero, then you count up the acts of violence committed by the protesters who and anti-protesters who showed up and committed violence....... You see the qualifier law abiding should have been a clue, if you can't discern that then your success is in doubt. Not lost, but certainly cut off and surrounded.

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 05:48 PM
I get it, I'm just not automatically scared by somebody with a gun on their hip/over their shoulder. No, biting fingers off would not likely kill six people. Using an airplane or three as a weapon, a quart of gasoline molotov, a truckload of explosives, more than six. In today's political climate don't know that I would go armed to a political event to make a statement. A bunch of members at a range I belonged to had an "open carry" revolt to protest a ban on concealed carry in restaurants that served alcohol, I opted out, they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....

I understand why some folks participate in these displays. They want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent. Just not a form of demonstration that I'm into. Judging by the interview of the famous "assault rifle guy" that I posted, have to say he doesn't appear to be going for "menacing".

To me, FWIW, if you consider merely carrying a gun as menacing behavior - that's pretty anti-self defense.

wasn't that the guy some news program insisted was white?

leikec
01-20-2011, 06:13 PM
I get it, I'm just not automatically scared by somebody with a gun on their hip/over their shoulder. No, biting fingers off would not likely kill six people. Using an airplane or three as a weapon, a quart of gasoline molotov, a truckload of explosives, more than six. In today's political climate don't know that I would go armed to a political event to make a statement. A bunch of members at a range I belonged to had an "open carry" revolt to protest a ban on concealed carry in restaurants that served alcohol, I opted out, they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....




I understand why some folks participate in these displays. They want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent. Just not a form of demonstration that I'm into. Judging by the interview of the famous "assault rifle guy" that I posted, have to say he doesn't appear to be going for "menacing".

To me, FWIW, if you consider merely carrying a gun as menacing behavior - that's pretty anti-self defense.



Clear as mud. Your friends "want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent", but "they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....", presumably because they were carrying weapons?

Great.

Your friends want to intimidate people (and if that isn't the case, then why insert the anecdote about Fuddruckers?), but they just can't understand why anyone would have a problem with "open carry".

This "I'm a bad ass because I have a weapon" mentality is my biggest problem with the pro gun crowd.


Jeff C

Phillip Allen
01-20-2011, 06:56 PM
Clear as mud. Your friends "want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent", but "they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....", presumably because they were carrying weapons?

Great.

Your friends want to intimidate people (and if that isn't the case, then why insert the anecdote about Fuddruckers?), but they just can't understand why anyone would have a problem with "open carry".

This "I'm a bad ass because I have a weapon" mentality is my biggest problem with the pro gun crowd.


Jeff C

shallow and ill-considered...

perldog007
01-21-2011, 12:00 AM
Clear as mud. Your friends "want to demonstrate that armed doesn't equal violent", but "they said the service at Fudruckers was excellent that night....", presumably because they were carrying weapons?

Great.

Your friends want to intimidate people (and if that isn't the case, then why insert the anecdote about Fuddruckers?), but they just can't understand why anyone would have a problem with "open carry".

This "I'm a bad ass because I have a weapon" mentality is my biggest problem with the pro gun crowd.


Jeff C

1. They were people at a range I belonged to. I was there because I carried a gun for a living in and around Washington D.C. and felt like I had an obligation to be as skilled as I could in it's use. There were a variety of folks there for a variety of reasons. I never said they were my friends, in point of fact I didn't socialize with any members there. Not hostile to them, just not my crowd outside of there.

2. I tend to agree that their intention in going out as a group was to make a statement. No doubt some of them were into intimidating hoplophobes and that was a major reason I didn't participate in their protest. I also believed that some of them were sincere about demonstrating that armed folks don't equal violent. I am not convinced that showing up as a group at a restaurant is the best way to convey this. Not sure that it's accurate to cast blanket assertions like you are doing, but it's typical of modern discourse.

3. i think they do understand why people are uncomfortable around guns, it might be worth stating that a huge number of people from several clubs and ranges were asked to come, about thirty showed up.

4. When I worked in security, I often went armed into restaurants after work ( in Virginia, frowned upon for Special Police Officers in D.C.... ). I would explain to the greeter/cashier/whatever that I had just gotten off of work, didn't want to leave my service weapon in my car. Never had a problem and they treated me the same as any other time.

5. I would agree that some people do subscribe to the "I have a gun so I'm a badass" based on spending the last thirty years or so around "the pro-gun crowd" would have to say it's a minority, but like any group the squeaky wheels get the grease. These things are the same with any group.

Edited to add, Massad Ayoob is one of the foremost authorities in the officer survival movement and one of the most sought after instructors for armed civilians also. You might find his books or internet postings interesting. He has a lot to say about the mindset you object to.

leikec
01-21-2011, 02:09 AM
1. They were people at a range I belonged to. I was there because I carried a gun for a living in and around Washington D.C. and felt like I had an obligation to be as skilled as I could in it's use. There were a variety of folks there for a variety of reasons. I never said they were my friends, in point of fact I didn't socialize with any members there. Not hostile to them, just not my crowd outside of there.

2. I tend to agree that their intention in going out as a group was to make a statement. No doubt some of them were into intimidating hoplophobes and that was a major reason I didn't participate in their protest. I also believed that some of them were sincere about demonstrating that armed folks don't equal violent. I am not convinced that showing up as a group at a restaurant is the best way to convey this. Not sure that it's accurate to cast blanket assertions like you are doing, but it's typical of modern discourse.

3. i think they do understand why people are uncomfortable around guns, it might be worth stating that a huge number of people from several clubs and ranges were asked to come, about thirty showed up.

4. When I worked in security, I often went armed into restaurants after work ( in Virginia, frowned upon for Special Police Officers in D.C.... ). I would explain to the greeter/cashier/whatever that I had just gotten off of work, didn't want to leave my service weapon in my car. Never had a problem and they treated me the same as any other time.

5. I would agree that some people do subscribe to the "I have a gun so I'm a badass" based on spending the last thirty years or so around "the pro-gun crowd" would have to say it's a minority, but like any group the squeaky wheels get the grease. These things are the same with any group.

Edited to add, Massad Ayoob is one of the foremost authorities in the officer survival movement and one of the most sought after instructors for armed civilians also. You might find his books or internet postings interesting. He has a lot to say about the mindset you object to.


Thanks for your candid reply. I carried a weapon for many years as a job requirement, so I'm quite familiar with the mindset mentioned in my post--and what you perceive to be my "blanket assertion" is based on my professional (and obviously also my personal) experience.

And it isn't really a blanket assertion; I have known many firearms dealers, and owners/collectors of firearms who played by the rules and did everything possible to be responsible law abiding citizens.


Jeff C

johnw
01-21-2011, 06:05 PM
hoplophobes? I mean, if it's a real phobia, that's just cruel. I've had ailuraphobes in my bookstore, and it's just heart-rending to see someone terrified of a tiny cat and begging you to restrain it until they can get out.

And if it's not a real phobia, it's not an irrational fear. Intimidating someone who has a rational fear of guns doesn't strike me as particularly admirable either. My father, a career Air Force officer, hated having guns around the house. He'd had too many friends shot. Had he been a farmer like his father, I suspect he'd have been more comfortable with guns. People who did a full tour in heavy bombers during WW II had something like a 70% chance of being killed or MIA (usually in a prison camp.) The day he arrived in Italy during WW II, every plane that had left for a mission the previous day had failed to come back. I'd say his attitude toward guns was completely rational, especially when you consider that when he was flying into places like Khe Sahn he was in transports and couldn't shoot back.

ETA, The thing is, sometimes people have a rational fear of guns. I suspect Rep. Giffords might acquire one, and it would certainly be bad form to show up with a gun at her future events.

perldog007
01-22-2011, 12:29 AM
All points well taken. A person with no fear of a person wearing a gun, especially if they appear to be "legal" won't see the act of wearing a gun as menacing. Also, we are assigning malice to people who might do something and comparing it to people who do break the law, attack others, and damage property. We will have to agree to disagree that the two are comparable.

Do some people who are "gun nuts" get a certain satisfaction out of provoking a visceral response from those with a fear of guns and/or closely held beliefs on the moral superiority of the defenseless? Unfortunately yes, there is no denying it.

Is that the same thing as committing violence and breaking laws? Not to me, YMMV.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 07:06 AM
hoplophobes? I mean, if it's a real phobia, that's just cruel. I've had ailuraphobes in my bookstore, and it's just heart-rending to see someone terrified of a tiny cat and begging you to restrain it until they can get out.

And if it's not a real phobia, it's not an irrational fear. Intimidating someone who has a rational fear of guns doesn't strike me as particularly admirable either. My father, a career Air Force officer, hated having guns around the house. He'd had too many friends shot. Had he been a farmer like his father, I suspect he'd have been more comfortable with guns. People who did a full tour in heavy bombers during WW II had something like a 70% chance of being killed or MIA (usually in a prison camp.) The day he arrived in Italy during WW II, every plane that had left for a mission the previous day had failed to come back. I'd say his attitude toward guns was completely rational, especially when you consider that when he was flying into places like Khe Sahn he was in transports and couldn't shoot back.

ETA, The thing is, sometimes people have a rational fear of guns. I suspect Rep. Giffords might acquire one, and it would certainly be bad form to show up with a gun at her future events.

you may argue semantics I suppose but "a rational fear of guns" is an oxymoron ("rational fear of land mines" makes more sense)

perldog007
01-22-2011, 12:16 PM
you may argue semantics I suppose but "a rational fear of guns" is an oxymoron ("rational fear of land mines" makes more sense)

Look boyo!, I set this trap and I'll decide when to tighten the snare! Got it? Go find your own quarry :D You and Donn sure do like to hit that trap door early don't you? Relax, let them dig a nice deep hole... Hoplophobia is the direct product of propaganda in all but a tiny percentage of cases. I was going to let a few more get their "licks" in before hitting that switch, but as usual somebody let the cat out of the bag.

The notion that all gun owners are this or that or that any person who legally wears a gun is trying to be menacing is in itself bigotry, no different than any other kind. The big difference is of course that to keep and bear ( that means own and carry, look it up) is a right, whereas actually committing unlawful violence is not.

Other than the recently fired Olbermann and his ideological sycophant Potok, there is no indication that Loughner was anything but left leaning while there is speculation tenuous at best, no evidence. But by all means let's cast dispersions on peaceful protesters because they are legally armed, and do so to take attention away from real acts of violence by the left, not isolated incidents, but frequent and commonplace acts by individuals and small groups and larger groups acting in concert.

Of course disturbed people with right wing leanings do horrible things to, that shooter that said he was inspired by Glenn Beck comes to mind.

Let's all watch MSNBC where the fallacy about violence and heated rhetoric only coming from one side of the debate is spewn, ( I made that word up because I think it's cool ) then let's all repeat it here without so much as a google to verify it.

Let's not. Let's recognize that violent and even homicidal impulses occur in all humans, sadly in some they can't be dealt with appropriately and this results in events we could all live without. Pretending that only one group does this is dangerous propaganda, with dire consequences.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 02:20 PM
sorry...
(oznabrag actually tried to shut me up...I guess I've run outa patients with some of the stupidities posted here)

perldog007
01-22-2011, 02:43 PM
sorry...
(oznabrag actually tried to shut me up...I guess I've run outa patients with some of the stupidities posted here)

Well here's the thing, we have this crew here that while decrying FOX ( which is a good thing, we should be very suspicious of any purveyors of advertising who portend to "inform" us ) seem to worship at the feet of MSNBC, particularly Olbermann whom we won't have to kick around until he re-emerges.

So Keith says something like this
“If Glenn Beck, who obsesses nearly as strangely as Mr. Loughner did about gold and debt and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O'Reilly, who blithely repeated ‘Tiller the Killer’ until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death-fantasies and the dreams of bloodlust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers, and by all politicians, and by sponsors, and by the networks that employ them.” Well... first we have the attempt to tie Beck to Loughner, but we know that was manufactured, Keith had access to the same YouTube profile I provided a link to, the guy was not right wing in any way shape or form..... but let's put that aside.

Notice no outrage at Chris Matthews for verbalizing a fantasy of "somebody" shoving a c02 cartridge in Rush's mouth and making his head explode. Hmmmm....... Keith did say "right, left, and center" but then he only took umbrage with statements from the right, and boy did that theme play here among the faithful, check the first two pages of the thread Arizona Congresswoman Giffords Shot Today (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?124933-Arizona-Congresswoman-Giffords-Shot-Today), There gentle folk is your hate speech.

Looks like Olbermann is the one getting repudiated. Like Norman said,
I suspect it's because, unlike the major networks, whose biases are subtle (when they exist at all), Fox News bias is so incredibly blatant, pretty much anyone can see it. I imagine Jon Stewart may have even contributed to the trend, since each obvious case of blatant bias is like raw meat, to his show.

Partisan bias can build a network's base of viewers... but it can't grow outside the bounds of that base.

He was talking about FOX, serendepity? Not so sure what was so subtle about Olbermann's bias, but it does directly go to the point that folks on the fringes only see the opposition as a problem.

We need to continue open, robust, honest debate. The recent attempt of the progressive left to silence the right by claiming that only right wing rhetoric is heated or violent is nothing more than an attempt to stifle debate. Choose carefully how to make the bed that your children and grandchildren will lay in.

I choose folks speaking freely so we know where they are coming from. YMMV

johnw
01-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Also, we are assigning malice to people who might do something and comparing it to people who do break the law, attack others, and damage property. We will have to agree to disagree that the two are comparable.


I don't think we need to disagree. I haven't said people with guns are comparable to those who break the law, I've merely pointed out that those who break the law with guns are more destructive than those who bite people's fingers. In addition, we must look at how useful a tool is. A person might show up at a political rally wearing teeth because they are (if real) painful to remove, and useful for eating and making ones' speech easier to comprehend. I see no comparable usefulness for a gun at such an event. A gun is a tool, and given what it is used for, we must ask, why bring one into a political context?

perldog007
01-22-2011, 05:19 PM
I don't think we need to disagree. I haven't said people with guns are comparable to those who break the law, I've merely pointed out that those who break the law with guns are more destructive than those who bite people's fingers. In addition, we must look at how useful a tool is. A person might show up at a political rally wearing teeth because they are (if real) painful to remove, and useful for eating and making ones' speech easier to comprehend. I see no comparable usefulness for a gun at such an event. A gun is a tool, and given what it is used for, we must ask, why bring one into a political context?

There are as many answers as questions, the obvious is that if Gifford's supporters been so equipped it would not have been necessary to wait for the madman to run out of ammo and attempt a reload. A gun worn openly in that jurisdiction is perfectly legal, and socially acceptable in Arizona for some time now as others have posted. Why raise it as a red herring to distract from the point that the left media is lying about all of the violence and heated rhetoric coming from the right? It comes from both sides.

Simply wearing a gun is not an offense or a problem, except in the minds of those who want to avoid talking about the real problems. People have the right to keep and bear arms, to varying degrees based on State Laws, some of which have been stricken down of late. This is a problem for the progressive movement so we see these kinds of arguments being raised. "BUT THEY HAVE GUNS!!" oh well, they are allowed to do that, and arguably encouraged by our Constitution.

As the tragedy has shown us, madmen and criminals won't leave their guns behind, so why should the law abiding?

We know now that this guy was disturbed, laying blame for his outrage on anyone's rhetoric is irresponsible. Yes, he used a gun, the three biggest mass murders in U.S. History involved airplanes, fertilizer and fuel oil, and gasoline. Why not ban all of those? or decry people who drive cars containing gasoline to events instead of riding bicycles or taking public transportation?

A gun in this context is a self defense tool, and recent events indicate that such may be needed anywhere, anytime. In fact Americans do carry guns all the time, nearly everywhere it is legal to do so ( talking about the law abiding here ). Because the tool is something which is better to have and not need, than it is to need and not have.

Compare the tragedy to other events where armed citizens have stopped disturbed individuals from harming others. There's you answer. If you say you don't know of any, there's your problem. Google is your pal too.

Let me put it to you this way, you are at a gatheing, a Loughner type character shows up and starts blasting. Who do you want to be standing next to? A guy with a "ban all guns now" t-shirt, or somebody like the guy with the AR15 that MSNBC cropped?

johnw
01-22-2011, 05:49 PM
Actually, someone with a gun tried to help, and nearly shot the guy who wrestled the gun away from Loughner. Fortunately, he took the time to be sure he was going to shoot the right guy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027487.php

I haven't suggested banning guns, so why are you talking about banning fertilizer? You keep pretending this is a simple matter, but I don't think it is.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 07:46 PM
I don't think we need to disagree. I haven't said people with guns are comparable to those who break the law, I've merely pointed out that those who break the law with guns are more destructive than those who bite people's fingers. In addition, we must look at how useful a tool is. A person might show up at a political rally wearing teeth because they are (if real) painful to remove, and useful for eating and making ones' speech easier to comprehend. I see no comparable usefulness for a gun at such an event. A gun is a tool, and given what it is used for, we must ask, why bring one into a political context?

how many brought guns? the guy everyone keeps talking about wasn't at the event, he was shopping

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 07:52 PM
Actually, someone with a gun tried to help, and nearly shot the guy who wrestled the gun away from Loughner. Fortunately, he took the time to be sure he was going to shoot the right guy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027487.php

I haven't suggested banning guns, so why are you talking about banning fertilizer? You keep pretending this is a simple matter, but I don't think it is.

"fortunately"...to me suggests you think that withholding of fire was an accident not attributable to the citizen who DID'NT shoot? (just making sure...)

Chris Coose
01-22-2011, 09:08 PM
With that new Arizona profiling law they should have seen this guy coming from a mile away.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 09:10 PM
what law is that, Chris?... or am I missing a joke

Chris Coose
01-22-2011, 09:16 PM
Google arizona profiling law and you get 741,000 hits

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 09:33 PM
Google arizona profiling law and you get 741,000 hits
The Arizona Bill would make it a crime for legal immigrants not to carry their alien registration papers, and would allow police to arrest those unable to produce them — potentially upending the presumption of innocence underpinning US law and the principle that its enforcement should be colour-blind.


this it?

johnw
01-22-2011, 11:26 PM
"fortunately"...to me suggests you think that withholding of fire was an accident not attributable to the citizen who DID'NT shoot? (just making sure...)
That makes no sense at all.

Look, if everyone in a room has a gun, you rely on the good judgment of everyone in the room to exercise good judgment to avoid unnecessary deaths. If no one in the room has a gun, how many must exercise good judgment to avoid unnecessary deaths?

I think the math is fairly simple.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 11:28 PM
That makes no sense at all.

Look, if everyone in a room has a gun, you rely on the good judgment of everyone in the room to exercise good judgment to avoid unnecessary deaths. If no one in the room has a gun, how many must exercise good judgment to avoid unnecessary deaths?

I think the math is fairly simple.

that makes a bunch of assumptions...a bunch

johnw
01-22-2011, 11:47 PM
I went to high school for a year in Lakewood, Wash., one if five schools from which I have high school credit. In Nov. 2009, four armed police officers were gunned down by a criminal out on bail, name of Maurice Clemmons.

No matter how many armed people you have on the scene, even if they are well trained, some nut can kill people. More guns = more safety? Give me a break. The people who stopped Loughner were unarmed.

The problem I'm having here is the idea that after this painful incident in Tucson, we should learn nothing, change nothing, keep up the violent/hate rhetoric and people should keep showing up at campaign events with guns.

Yeah, right.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 11:50 PM
I went to high school for a year in Lakewood, Wash., one if five schools from which I have high school credit. In Nov. 2009, four armed police officers were gunned down by a criminal out on bail, name of Maurice Clemmons.

No matter how many armed people you have on the scene, even if they are well trained, some nut can kill people. More guns = more safety? Give me a break. The people who stopped Loughner were unarmed.

The problem I'm having here is the idea that after this painful incident in Tucson, we should learn nothing, change nothing, keep up the violent/hate rhetoric and people should keep showing up at campaign events with guns.

Yeah, right.

who are you accusing of bringing guns to campaign events anyway?

perldog007
01-23-2011, 12:14 AM
Actually, someone with a gun tried to help, and nearly shot the guy who wrestled the gun away from Loughner. Fortunately, he took the time to be sure he was going to shoot the right guy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027487.php

I haven't suggested banning guns, so why are you talking about banning fertilizer? You keep pretending this is a simple matter, but I don't think it is.

Actually, with all due respect to the Washington Monthly, Mr. Zamudio said in a televised interview that he never drew his pistol as he saw the slide locked back and knew the pistol was empty, so he grabbed the man's wrist and told him to drop the gun. When bystanders started yelling "No, he's not the shooter" ( or words to that effect ) Mr. Zamudio instructed the man to put the gun on the ground and stand on it, very possible preventing another tragedy when LEOs' arrived on the scene. How that amounts to "almost shooting the wrong guy" escapes the rational mind, and can only be regarded as anti-self defense spin.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwT3v5OpSFQ

It may be interesting to consider that police are more likely to shoot the wrong person than armed civilians by a large margin. As in five times more likely. This comes from FBI crime statistics, armed civilians misidentify perpetrators in about 2 percent of self defense shootings, police 11 percent. One source, LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf)

johnw
01-23-2011, 01:29 AM
Actually, with all due respect to the Washington Monthly, Mr. Zamudio said in a televised interview that he never drew his pistol as he saw the slide locked back and knew the pistol was empty, so he grabbed the man's wrist and told him to drop the gun. When bystanders started yelling "No, he's not the shooter" ( or words to that effect ) Mr. Zamudio instructed the man to put the gun on the ground and stand on it, very possible preventing another tragedy when LEOs' arrived on the scene. How that amounts to "almost shooting the wrong guy" escapes the rational mind, and can only be regarded as anti-self defense spin.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwT3v5OpSFQ

It may be interesting to consider that police are more likely to shoot the wrong person than armed civilians by a large margin. As in five times more likely. This comes from FBI crime statistics, armed civilians misidentify perpetrators in about 2 percent of self defense shootings, police 11 percent. One source, LINK (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf)
Well, the police are more likely to be armed.

Is this supposed to make me feel better?

johnw
01-23-2011, 01:29 AM
who are you accusing of bringing guns to campaign events anyway?
Don't worry, I got nothing on you.

Phillip Allen
01-23-2011, 08:44 AM
Well, the police are more likely to be armed.

Is this supposed to make me feel better?

maybe not feel better but it might make you think better

perldog007
01-23-2011, 11:28 AM
Well, the police are more likely to be armed.

Is this supposed to make me feel better?


We are talking about events where the sample is comprised of armed citizens responding to a perceived threat of lethal force and police doing the same, your response makes no sense. That statistic was submitted to the thread in response to your statement questioning why people should carry self defense tools, it was mean't to provoke thought as opposed to inducing euphoria. Apparently an unsuccessful attempt.in either light. :)

As per normal, the thread has become an exercise in deflection and distraction. The point is that violent rhetoric, imagery and even violence itself comes from both sides of the spectrum, yet in the wake of Tucson a predictable chorus of sycophants ( it would be more direct yet less elegant to simply write something along the lines of "apple polishers" ) have been spreading the propaganda based notion that the problem comes from the right.

So when we try and discuss this and bring honesty to the discussion, first we have progressives saying "Well that guy doesn't count, he's not a VP candidate". So we point out the remarks from POTUS, response, "Well, he's not being menacing in spite of much more violent rhetoric that Palin, we can tell the difference and know that she's sinister, reckless, irresponsible and he's not". Finally it becomes "Yeah but the right brings GUNS to rallies!!" In spite of the fact that a Communist Manifesto reader who had publicly declared as a favorite movie a truther flick was the one who perpetrated the tragedy under discussion... along with a body of other clues tying him to the left, but Olbermann { How's his show doing, by the way?} tried to tie him to the right and lay the blame for the rhetoric with Palin, Beck, O'reilly.

So far nobody can account for the rush to judgement started by the local sheriff and run with by the progressive media. Or the lies told by MSNBC that only the right has a problem. But the diversions have been exactly as expected, and transparent. I guess we just don't discuss media lies on this board unless they come from FOX? But we ridicule them for claiming to be fair and balanced? Irony?

Phillip Allen
01-23-2011, 02:25 PM
you kain't make them think what they don't want to think...

David G
01-23-2011, 03:17 PM
Another take - again from today's Oregonian:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/01/the_persistent_myth_of_the_her.html

perldog007
01-23-2011, 05:08 PM
Another take - again from today's Oregonian:



Nope, this is not a take on why there was a rush to judgement in the wake of Tucson based on the false position that it's only the right wing that uses heated rhetoric, violent imagery and violence, but since getting the progressives of WBF to stay on topic is like herding cats when real facts meet propaganda, let's go ahead and kick this one around.


PHOENIX -- To many gun owners, the question of whether to arm even more people in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns is as calcified as a Sonoran Desert petroglyph. It's written in stone, among the fiercest of firearms advocates, that more guns equals fewer deaths.

But before the Tucson tragedy fades into tired talking points, it's worth dissecting the crime scene once more to see how this idea fared in actual battle.


Timothy Egan
First, one bit of throat-clearing: I'm a third-generation Westerner, and grew up around guns, hunters of all possible fauna, and Second Amendment enthusiasts who wore camouflage nine months out of the year. Generally, I don't have a problem with any of that.

Back to Tucson. On the day of the shooting, a young man named Joseph Zamudio was leaving a drugstore when he saw the chaos at the Safeway parking lot. Zamudio was armed, carrying his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Heroically, he rushed to the scene, fingering his weapon, ready to fire. Doing well so far.....


Now, in the view of the more-guns proponents, Zamudio might have been able to prevent any carnage, or maybe even gotten off a shot before someone was killed. Stink-O-meter beginning to rise in response to distinct olfactory representations of bravo sierra, Zamudio clearly said the shooting was over before he could draw his gun, he was at the counter of Walgren's trying to buy a pack of smokes when the rapid fire started....



"When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim," said Arizona state Rep. Jack Harper, after a gunman had claimed 19 victims. hypothesis only, we don't know in this case. While most mass murderers seem to pick unarmed crowds and venues, there was one case where a man tried to shoot up a police station in D.C. a few years back that immediately comes to mind.


"I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson," said an Arizona congressman, Rep. Trent Franks, implying like Harper that if only someone had been armed at the scene, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to unload his rapid-fire Glock on innocent people.

In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person -- one of those trying to control Loughner.

Here we have solidly departed from journalism and flown right past opinion into the territory of progaganda and lies. Who was armed at the scene besides Zamudio and Loughner? and Zamudio didn't even get there until Loughner had been disarmed.

Zamudio never even drew his weapon, how is that almost harming the wrong person?

Those brave citizens attacked Loughner as soon as his weapon ran dry, why are we to believe that somebody would not have shot Loughner had they been armed and PRESENT when the shooting started, which Zamudio was not. This reporter is apparently lying, plain and simple. Several google searches have not turned up all those other armed people on scene when the shooting occured. It will be my pleasure to beg forgiveness if proven wrong.



He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. "I kind of assumed he was the shooter," said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, "everyone said, 'no, no -- it's this guy,'" said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? "I was very lucky," Zamudio said. Yes, he was very lucky. Joe ran to the sound of trouble and managed to help without getting hurt or hurting the wrong person. That's very lucky even for a trained professional. As posted earlier, armed civilians are statistically five times less likely to shoot the wrong person that the police are.




It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.


First things first the average citizen with a gun was at the Walgren's buying smokes when the shooting started, and it was over before he got to the scene, a matter of seconds. Is the average citizen trained to tackle and disarm madmen? Well then, those at the scene were very irresponsible, no? NO THEY WEREN"T!!

What is the typical gun hobbyist? In many states civilians have to be trained and demonstrate proficiency ( such as it is ) same as police officers do. This is simply more half truths. Typically people who own and shoot guns because they believe it is the right thing to do are more proficient than cops. The person who buys a box of "bullets" and a gun and throws it in the sock drawer is another matter.

Even such a couch potato likely knows the basics, aim for center mass and stop when the threat is no longer a threat. Since you would likely learn that much from the couch watching police shows and action movies.....

Many police officers only shoot their weapons once or twice a year, not so with your "typical" gun hobbyist.




I don't think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That's never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress. Yes, Congress. The Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has proposed a bill to allow fellow members to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.

Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work. By his reasoning, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons. At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault -- just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer. data compiled from FBI crime statistics contradicts these findings, not resisting or using logic, or any other weapon in the face of an attack is much more dangerous than defending one's self with a gun. The data above is cherry picked, using only those who have been shot. It does not consider the question of who is more likely to be attacked in the first place.. like interviewing only people in the drunk tank to arrive at statistics for drunk driving.




Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest. Arizona, where people can carry guns into bars and almost anyone can get a concealed weapons permit, is one of the top 10 states for gun ownership and death rates by firearms. And in the wake of the shootings, some lawmakers want to flood public areas with even more lethal weapons yes, yes they do. In states that have gone from prohibitive carry laws to liberal carry laws violent crime drops. So while state A may be different from State B in baseline statistics, experience with states that have liberalized carry permit laws tends to indicate that there is a drop in violent crime when criminals are not longer assured a safe working environment by fiat.




Tuesday of last week was the first day of classes at Arizona State University, and William Jenkins, who teaches photography at the school, did not bring his weapon to campus. For the moment, it's still illegal ...

But that may soon change. Arizona legislators have been pushing a plan to allow college faculty and students to carry concealed weapons at school.

"That's insane," Jenkins told me. "On Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I can't imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem."

He's right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Jenkins is a mistaken or worse. His paranoid fantasies don't allow for reality. Please ask the good professor with all the common sense to elaborate on the significance of the following names in this discussion{

Peter Odighizuwa

Mikael Gross

Tracy Bridges

Luke Woodham

Joel Myrick

Matter of fact, can any of the people who have referenced this article on this forum in the wake of the Tucson Tragedy tell me the story behind any of those names and their relevance to this discussion without a google?

Timothy is more than welcome to log in here and defend his propaganda. I am sure that I speak for all the "bullet heads" when I say we would be more than pleased to have an honest debate. Don't look for it to happen, propagandists don't like debate....

Phillip Allen
01-23-2011, 05:20 PM
that's too long a post...our emotional "thinkers" have a very short attention span

johnw
01-23-2011, 06:45 PM
We are talking about events where the sample is comprised of armed citizens responding to a perceived threat of lethal force and police doing the same, your response makes no sense. That statistic was submitted to the thread in response to your statement questioning why people should carry self defense tools, it was mean't to provoke thought as opposed to inducing euphoria. Apparently an unsuccessful attempt.in either light. :)

As per normal, the thread has become an exercise in deflection and distraction. The point is that violent rhetoric, imagery and even violence itself comes from both sides of the spectrum, yet in the wake of Tucson a predictable chorus of sycophants ( it would be more direct yet less elegant to simply write something along the lines of "apple polishers" ) have been spreading the propaganda based notion that the problem comes from the right.

So when we try and discuss this and bring honesty to the discussion, first we have progressives saying "Well that guy doesn't count, he's not a VP candidate". So we point out the remarks from POTUS, response, "Well, he's not being menacing in spite of much more violent rhetoric that Palin, we can tell the difference and know that she's sinister, reckless, irresponsible and he's not". Finally it becomes "Yeah but the right brings GUNS to rallies!!" In spite of the fact that a Communist Manifesto reader who had publicly declared as a favorite movie a truther flick was the one who perpetrated the tragedy under discussion... along with a body of other clues tying him to the left, but Olbermann { How's his show doing, by the way?} tried to tie him to the right and lay the blame for the rhetoric with Palin, Beck, O'reilly.

So far nobody can account for the rush to judgement started by the local sheriff and run with by the progressive media. Or the lies told by MSNBC that only the right has a problem. But the diversions have been exactly as expected, and transparent. I guess we just don't discuss media lies on this board unless they come from FOX? But we ridicule them for claiming to be fair and balanced? Irony?
So people who disagree with your defense that "everybody does it" and your insistence that we can learn nothing from this incident are sycophants?

That's the least logical thing you've said on this thread, and I'm including your attempt to make an equivalence between someone getting shot in the head and someone getting their finger bit.

Even if we were to accept your "everybody does it" excuse, how does that show hateful speech or violent actions are not a problem? I can certainly understand why people on the right would say absurd things, like the fact that Loughner named Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books showing he's a man of the left, they are trying as hard as they can to shift blame. Why do you buy it?

You keep claiming Olberman is to blame for any links between Loughner and the right, but I have no idea what he said and I was able to make the connection from things Loughner said. To me that proves the nut got his ideas from the fringes of the right and the left, but to you, the connections to the right must be ignored.

I know you can think for yourself, so why the party-line rants? Take off the blinders.

perldog007
01-24-2011, 12:58 AM
So people who disagree with your defense that "everybody does it" and your insistence that we can learn nothing from this incident are sycophants? It's a charge, not a defense. The Sheriff of Pima County, Olbermann, Potok, Eugene Robinson, and the left side of the blogosphere were quick to point fingers at the right, Krugman even admitted he was expecting it and ready... There was no evidence, yet the hue and cry went up, and was repeated by sycophants even on this board. We can and should learn plenty from this tragedy, I would counter that accepting lies and misdirection as truth will prove to be less than profitable in lessons learned. Google "Sarah Palin Tucson (http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Sarah+Palin+Tucson)" for instance... what exactly did Palin have to do with this horrible act?

Sycophant:
Synonyms: apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lickspittle, suck-up, toady

People who repeated this propaganda without considering the evidence deserve no better label for that behavior on that matter. While I am sure that we are talking about human beings with plenty of redeeming qualities, on this matter those who jumped in to the thread on the tragedy mindlessly repeating drivel are apparently ignorant of history and current political discourse, perhaps deliberately. Again, asked and answered.


That's the least logical thing you've said on this thread, and I'm including your attempt to make an equivalence between someone getting shot in the head and someone getting their finger bit. The equivalence other than both being illegal acts of violence is that both were committed by those whose world views leaned to the left. Does that mean the right does not produce their own share of disturbed individuals who are prone to and will commit violence? Of course not, right wing terror/attacks/violence/threats is also a problem because these unfortunate proclivities are HUMAN problems and both groups, right and left are comprised of humans.

Now is the Daily Kos culpable because of the Jan 6 posting regarding wishing Giffords dead by some left wing lunatic? Nope. Glenn Beck isn't responsible for the actions of that madman who went on a shooting spree and then claimed that he was distraught by what Beck said either.

if I pay you money, or exert some kind of control over you and impel you to commit a crime, then I bear responsibility. If I make a colorful statement, spin a metaphor and some dunce decides it's a sacred order from wherever and acts on it, NOT MY BAD!!!

A threat encompasses means, intent, and ability. Other than that it's just noise, constitutionally protected noise at that.




Even if we were to accept your "everybody does it" excuse, how does that show hateful speech or violent actions are not a problem? I can certainly understand why people on the right would say absurd things, like the fact that Loughner named Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books showing he's a man of the left, they are trying as hard as they can to shift blame. Why do you buy it? John, if that's all they had I would not. But either you missed what was posted or are being obtuse. His MySpace profile is well reported, as were interviews and tweets from those who know him, this if from his Youtube Channel which is still up, it's more than one book, look for yourself.
About Me:

My name is Jared Lee Loughner!
Hometown:Tucson
Country:United States
Schools:I attended school: Thornydale elementary,Tortolita Middle School, Mountain View Highschool, Northwest Aztec Middle College, and Pima Community College.
Interests:My favorite interest was reading, and I studied grammar. Conscience dreams were a great study in college!
Movies:(*My idiom: I could coin the moment!*)
Music:Pass me the strings!
Books:I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

If violent rhetoric is the problem, then Palin ain't. But that's what the left was insisting, posting her target graphic and decrying her call to her supporters to keep fighting, don't retreat reload. Pugwash even said it was reckless, inflamatory, blah blah. Of course nobody on the left posted anything on the Daily KOS on Jan 6 like "My Congresswoman is dead to me", oh wait they did! But Palin is the problem?

I believe that we need to hold dear the value of free and honest speech. I don't like it when Chris Matthews talks about sticking a c02 cartridge in somebody's head and killing them, but defend his right to expose himself as a bigoted homicidal jackass. We need to know where people are coming from. Congressman Grayson comes to mind, thank goodness he didn't tone it down. He exposed himself as a nut job and the people took care of it at the polls, job done, system works, world saved.

Do we really want Rush to pretend to be civilized, or do we want him to continue to marginalize himself as a bombastic @$$ hat?








You keep claiming Olberman is to blame for any links between Loughner and the right, but I have no idea what he said And google is not available in your area? For the love of hydrogenated peanut butter, google it! .
and I was able to make the connection from things Loughner said. To me that proves the nut got his ideas from the fringes of the right and the left, but to you, the connections to the right must be ignored. If there is evidence that this lunatic got inspiration or ideas from the right it should be examined. Please detail your analysis, I have posted what I am basing my belief on and given up links ad infinitum... His video burning a flag? Not right wing. His reading list?, nope. Statements from those who knew him? No. Favorite movies from his Myspace page? Not quite.

You got something? cool. Let's see your analysis, please.




I know you can think for yourself, so why the party-line rants? Take off the blinders. I respectfully submit that that particular question is more fairly asked of those who recited the party line rant expressed on MSNBC on Jan 8, I have included examples here in this thread of what MSNBC said, and folks here who repeated it.

Curtism
01-24-2011, 07:31 AM
I respectfully submit that that particular question is more fairly asked of those who recited the party line rant expressed on MSNBC on Jan 8, I have included examples here in this thread of what MSNBC said, and folks here who repeated it.

This is Olbermann's "Special Comment" from Jan 8, the night of the Giffords shooting. Is this what you're objecting to, perl?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw

Phillip Allen
01-24-2011, 08:09 AM
Haven't I heard people on this forum complaining about Bush's comment of "you're with us or you're against us...that is the obvious sum of Olbermann's little speech I just listened to...will they now step forward and apologize or suffer repudiation of their horrified fellows... :):)

perldog007
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
This is Olbermann's "Special Comment" from Jan 8, the night of the Giffords shooting. Is this what you're objecting to, perl?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw

That is certainly something I object to, Olbermann did say "right, left, and center" but then he goes on to only object to the rhetoric and suggestions of violence from his ideological counterparts, yet none from his fellow progressives. Why didn't he denouce Matthews, Totenberg, etc, etc,? Also what I was referring to regarding brother Keith was his segment with Potok of the Southern Policy Law Center where all information which tied Loughner to a leftist world view was ignored and instead an analysis of Youtube videos was "analyzed" to the conclusion that this man has to be tied to right wing hate groups. Upon further review.... as posted and linked in the thread.

If we really think a map with targets and gun metaphors is the problem, then let's discuss it honestly and free from propaganda. In this rant Olbermann is suggesting that Loughner was a mad man inspired by a slightly less disturbed person and offering Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck did not make that death wish post specifically mentioning Giffords on the DailyKos dated two days before the tragedy. Neither did Palin, O'reilly, Hannity, not even the bombastic rush posted that, a leftist did.

But here we have Olbermann decrying the rhetoric from the right, while ignoring the hate from his own network like the Chris Matthews and Nina Totenberg videos posted. Then Eugene Robinson states that virtually all of the violent rhetoric comes from the right in the last forty years while the on screen graphics report facts about the Tucson Tragedy.

All of this propaganda hits the mark with folks who ironically call Beck's audience "low information" check the first two pages of the thread, Arizona Congresswoman Giffords Shot Today (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?124933-Arizona-Congresswoman-Giffords-Shot-Today)

This is a problem. Propaganda, or the more politically correct descriptor, Public Relations is not confined to the right, or any ideology. We should question our leaders and media personalities whether it's Beck, Rush, Olbermann, Robinson, whomever.

When partisan blinders cause folks to accept propaganda so quickly it sets the stage for the perfect storm. Notice how quickly the accusations and ad hominem attacks on those with whom we disagree started? Why? what is gained?

Folks on both sides of the spectrum are being whipped up by schills. Doesn't matter if it's Beck or Olbermann, their job is to keep your butt in the seat long enough for you to watch commercials, Goldline or otherwise.

So while I may object to propaganda ( no need to bash fox, that base is covered here and that's healthy IMO) the point is to question what is heard before acting on it.