Schizophrenia tends to develop in the late teens and early 20s. What if this guy was perfectly fine when he was 18, passed all the necessary background checks, and became ill later? Do you want the government having mandatory mental health checks on people every year?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
What percentage of their time is your average person playing video games, watching movies, and listening to music? And what percentage of their time are they listening to congressmen?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Except there's absolutely no evidence that there's a connection between the two. :bored: Why not just blame Israel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
There's almost certainly no connection, all evidence points to the gunman being a total loon. All the teabaggers 'shoot this, shoot that' may have influenced in that it might have made him think that shooting politicians is a great idea but there is, as you say, no evidence.
However, this does not mitigate the people who were asking for this to happen, or saying it might happen, or should happen if they don't get their way. Palin is mainly only guilty of being crass, but there are other, worse offenders.
Please point me to the people who were seriously asking for this to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Sharon "second amendment solutions" Angle, John "Driehaus May Be a Dead Man" Boehner, Jesse "Remove Griffords from Office, Shoot a Fully Automatic M16" Kelly, Allan "Make the fellow scared to come out of his house" West. Any and all of the tea parters who've sent death threats to democrats.
I blame the Madrid bombings, they can easily be connected to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
None of that was meant to be literal. :bored: And believe it or not, politicians on both sides of the aisle get death threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's not the end of it---it's at the center of the discussion. People have been unhappy about negative campaigning and attack ads for a long time, recently more than ever, because it's gotten worse. Coupled with the 24/7 news cycle, the internet and social networks, it's in our faces constantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Even 'sane' people notice the tone in politics has become nasty, confrontational, inflammatory. Candidates promise to run civil campaigns and avoid personal attacks....but the negative ads get attention so they keep coming. Us vs Them, where Them and They aren't just wrong, but they're bad and evil. All those town hall meetings where folks were disruptive, the congressman yelling out "Liar" during Obama's speech on the floor, the lady yelling out "Except Obama" when the new congress read the constitution, etc.Quote:
I somehow doubt anyone sane would be convinced to go out and assassinate a politician based off her remarks, and those that would are likely to have done something equally insane without her prodding. There seems to be a deep seated fear here that Tea Party members are just waiting to explode and commit treason, but I have yet to see any proof supporting that claim.
We're losing a grip on civil discourse. The atmosphere has gone beyond political disagreements, and entered a place filled with negativity, anger and bile, even hatred. :(
The guy is mentally ill, it'd be speculation to say any one thing influenced him more than the delusions in his head. It's not far-fetched to say our general political environment influenced him; it influences everyone to a degree. (We should be talking about the number of people who recognized his strange behavior, from HS to college, and why he didn't get the help he needed.)Quote:
Do you think Palin's or the Tea Parties rhetoric influenced this troubled young man to kill?
As I said, I don't think her intentions were sinister, but she and her advisors were cavalier. Not just her, or Tea Party people, but they're certainly the most vocal in using Fear to campaign. Both sides do it, it's like a race to the bottom. They should know better than to stoke fear and hate during terrible economic times, with high unemployment, heated immigration issues, and two unpopular wars....Quote:
Can't say I disagree with the attention whoring, but somehow I don't see the same malevolence that many are predisposed to see. I sincerely doubt Palin wants to see the country go up in flames, just as I sincerely doubt Obama does. These are people trying to do the best they can for a country I think they love. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I think that's a truism that can be applied to both political parties.
and we come full circle again. with each example explained away because the person speaker wasn't a complete moron and knew how to code it just enough to skit the law. The same excuse used here could be used for anything, anyone has said ever (lets see how that works on your students?); from Beck wanting to kill Michael Moore to the youtube clips of the talking heads calling for the death of wikileaks' founder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't know how much more literal you have to be when you cut the gas lines to someone's house, but whatever.
Not based on the this sort of wild assed speculation. :o Like I already said, I'm not sure waiting periods and background checks would have made a difference in this case, though I don't think that's a reason to oppose them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Dude. You need a real job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am one of those people. I don't think discourse is as civil today is it should be. That doesn't mean I think that political discourse is responsible for this mass murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
That's great, except it should be universally applicable. Were you waxing poetic about the dangers of the loss of civility when Bush was being compared to Hitler? When Code Pink protesters were interrupting Congress? I get the impression that people only seem to get their panties in a knot when there is vocal disagreement with people they agree with, never when it's happening to people they don't like.Quote:
Even 'sane' people notice the tone in politics has become nasty, confrontational, inflammatory. Candidates promise to run civil campaigns and avoid personal attacks....but the negative ads get attention so they keep coming. Us vs Them, where Them and They aren't just wrong, but they're bad and evil. All those town hall meetings where folks were disruptive, the congressman yelling out "Liar" during Obama's speech on the floor, the lady yelling out "Except Obama" when the new congress read the constitution, etc.
It's not far fetched to say that he watched a violent movie, played a violent video game, or read a violent book and that's what caused it, is it?Quote:
The guy is mentally ill, it'd be speculation to say any one thing influenced him more than the delusions in his head. It's not far-fetched to say our general political environment influenced him; it influences everyone to a degree. (We should be talking about the number of people who recognized his strange behavior, from HS to college, and why he didn't get the help he needed.)
You are playing a semantic shell game. You are setting yourself up to determine who is and isn't sane based on who or what they like. You aren't behaving any more rationally or sensibly than the people you are attacking. You are just as much a part of the problem as they are, but nobody is willing to admit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
People can advertise their views too, and I'm quite happy about it. Even reprehensible views that I disdain. You are aware of that, aren't you?Quote:
holding ≠ advertising
Do like the choice of words however, since censurable is a synonym of reprehensible :up:
Er, yes? Did you have a point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Free speech in my book definitely allows speaking out against violence. I, personally would like to take this opportunity to speak out against political violence, repression, and the failing of basic civilities in this country. I'm really not sure what you are getting at, but I don't think that strawman can take the kind of abuse you are throwing at him.Quote:
Then again, I find it funny that free speech in your book allows to propose violence but not speaking out against advertising violence. Maybe you should take a long look at your statements and the implications thereof.
Yep, and it's a sad commentary when congress has to worry about the safety of their families, spouses, kids in their own homes. As well as cyber threats, package bombs, anthrax mail. Or people who feel it's acceptable to physically confront candidates during Town Hall meetings. Will they all need body guards now? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't think a mass shooting is a good time to push through one's political platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I didn't say political discourse is responsible for murder. I think the environment, in general, has escalated to a tipping point, a bad place. Multi-factorial, like most things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I hope I've been consistent in complaining about radical extremism, on both sides. I don't think anyone should make verbal outbursts from the gallery during congressional sessions. I thought it was in poor taste for a supreme court judge to show disdain during a presidential speech, and Boehner to do his Hell No You Can't rant in congress, too.Quote:
That's great, except it should be universally applicable. Were you waxing poetic about the dangers of the loss of civility when Bush was being compared to Hitler? When Code Pink protesters were interrupting Congress? I get the impression that people only seem to get their panties in a knot when there is vocal disagreement with people they agree with, never when it's happening to people they don't like.
Not sure there's anything 'wrong' with wearing the color pink in the audience of committee hearings, though. I'd rather the chair not allow signs held up behind whoever's testifying at the mic / on camera, or those things intended as photo-op or youtube moments.
Caused what, his mental illness? :confused:Quote:
It's not far fetched to say that he watched a violent movie, played a violent video game, or read a violent book and that's what caused it, is it?
I'm saying it's not far-fetched for our socio-political / media-saturated environment to impact everyone, to one degree or another. It's practically inescapable, with live-stream news feeds on big screen TVs in airports and McDonald's, breaking news on smart phones, millions of cell phone cameras uploading to youtube, everyone and their brother blogging, Facebooking, twittering.....
And Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, et al? Have they once been the target of your ire?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quietly sitting in the galley wearing pink was not exactly what I was referring to.Quote:
Not sure there's anything 'wrong' with wearing the color pink in the audience of committee hearings, though. I'd rather the chair not allow signs held up behind whoever's testifying at the mic / on camera, or those things intended as photo-op or youtube moments.
Certainly watching a violent movie, reading a violent book, or playing a violent video game would have as much, if not more of an impact on such a fragile, deranged mind, no?Quote:
Caused what, his mental illness? :confused:
No, I don't think it's equivalent to violence in video games and film. I think figurative speech has a far weaker effect on our brains than watching violent scenes in a Tarantino movie, or taking head-shots in Splinter Cell or Halo. What was it the then-Minority Leader said? "Steve Driehaus. . . may be a dead man. He can't go home to the west side of Cinncinatti. The Catholics will run him out of town." Yeah, that solidly raises mental imagery of shooting someone. So do the lines Allen West said immediately after "afraid to come out of his house" about putting pressure on him and letting him know he can't be a distant ruling elite. Does our entertainment ever raise imagery of shooting someone? Yeah it does, when it literally displays imagery of shooting someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This whole thread is three or four posters telling the rest of you to stop being idiots by taking the latest version of "it means death-panels for the elderly" political manipulation at face value.
No, but "fire this guy*" and "take him/her out of office" doesn't scream violence at me either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'm not doing that but I think you're wrong. If your platform goes something like: "we need stricter gun control because it's too easy for crazy people to get guns and shoot a bunch of people" then when a crazy person easily gets a gun and shoots a bunch of people is about the perfect time to push. Do you disagree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You mean her "go shooting with me" fundraiser, in her campaign for Giffords' seat? Yeah, I can see how that raises concerns. After all, when Cheney did that sort of fundraiser, he put some birdshot in a lawyer. This is a cultural and social disconnect. You don't like it, but people are allowed to own guns in the US. That Guardian article earlier in the thread got one thing right, there is a gun culture, particularly though hardly exclusively strong on the Right. A natural corollary is that gun terms and gun imagery are easily comprehensible. As a consequence they're as common as sports metaphors. That doesn't make them advocacy for violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yeah, at one time or another. (I'm critical of practically everyone for something, ya know ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
But I'm not commenting on this one guy in particular, but our social tone in general. There's civil unrest all over the world, with political connections, angry protestors, vandalism, violence....IMO everyone with a leadership role or high visibility in media has a responsibility to at least acknowledge what they say goes viral, and has impact.Quote:
Quietly sitting in the galley wearing pink was not exactly what I was referring to.
Certainly watching a violent movie, reading a violent book, or playing a violent video game would have as much, if not more of an impact on such a fragile, deranged mind, no?
I heard Palin has removed the scope-sites from her web page. True or rumor?
Well good! I'm proud to say that I'm not particularly surprised you're intellectually honest. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So, it was what? A metaphor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, but there's a question of volume.Quote:
And believe it or not, politicians on both sides of the aisle get death threats.
Well, yes, it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yes, by making him afraid to come out of his house. How are they going to make him afraid to come out of his house? Not necessarily by shooting him, but surely some form of harassment.Quote:
So do the lines Allen West said immediately after "afraid to come out of his house" about putting pressure on him and letting him know he can't be a distant ruling elite. Does our entertainment ever raise imagery of shooting someone? Yeah it does, when it literally displays imagery of shooting someone.
No, it's three or four posters desperately trying to explain away the blatantly obvious because of some misguided adherence to the middle ground. Why do I get the feeling that if I could go and find quotes of democrats saying similar things about Republicans, you'd then be perfectly ok with calling the Republican quotes what they are: threats. intimidation etc? Because then, in criticizing both sides equally, we are not "partisan".Quote:
This whole thread is three or four posters telling the rest of you to stop being idiots by taking the latest version of "it means death-panels for the elderly" political manipulation at face value.
Look, here's a picture of a democrat one with bullseyes. Bullseyes aren't quite the same as rifle crosshairs, but it's close enough, right?
http://www.postonpolitics.com/wp-con...target-map.jpg
See! They're both as bad as each other! Now can we condemn intimidation of political enemies?
No, Fuzzy, the part about using a photo of her opponent's face as a target.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I already agreed the Palin thing is stupid.Quote:
That Guardian article earlier in the thread got one thing right, there is a gun culture, particularly though hardly exclusively strong on the Right. A natural corollary is that gun terms and gun imagery are easily comprehensible. As a consequence they're as common as sports metaphors. That doesn't make them advocacy for violence.
All of it is stupid with the semi-exception of your gripe about the person talking about 2nd amendment solutions. "He may be dead' was an assessment of Dreihaus's political career if he bucked the pro-life Catholics in his district. "The Catholics will run him out of town" is not a gun reference, it's a reference to a Colonial-era punishment, and Boehner almost certainly isn't even aware of that much *considering the crappy state of US history education* it's just another bog-common bit of figurative speech. Show me any comment I've made, anywhere, which suggests this is about me being partisan, that I give a rats ass whether the rhetoric comes from a Republican, a Democrat or anyone else in the American political spectrum. You all are taking idiom literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
edit: Screw it. There is absolutely no way to demonstrate figurative and idiomatic speech to people who refuse to look at language that way. Falstaff literally thought Prince Hal was a canine. Fine, we're about to become engulfed in a wave of political violence because people in the US don't share your immediate culturo-lingual background. Gifford's was just the first sign.
Images with cross-hairs etc are very common, fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Far from just the American right use that language/imagery, fact.
There is no evidence that this was motivated by that imagery, fact.
A few images from the UK, do they make you think that the person who made these wanted the person in the picture murdered? I didn't and that's not what was meant. Having a "target" and even the expression of having someone "in your scopes" is standard political discourse, not violence.
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...mcpoision1.jpg
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...et-hancock.jpg
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...t-baroness.jpg http://orderorder.files.wordpress.co...n-target-1.jpg
All of it is stupid? What's that supposed to mean?
A very sad, bad thing happened in Tucson. We're talking about it, fleshing things out. Congress is being advised to remove car license plates that identify them as legislators, they've cancelled business on the Hill, they're concerned about security for their families, the future of our political climate where they meet with constituents in public.....
Geez, some of you make it sound like we're just whining about something unimportant or inconsequential.
What is that attitude all about?
Well dear, so far all we have are facts, and none of those facts corroborate your claim that there is no connection. To the contrary, the facts point towards a very big likelihood of there being a connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Talking about security etc is one thing, trying to use a tragedy to score cheap, petty, political points is something else.
And where did you get that piece of fantasy? Only thing I've seen so far here or poking around online is that graphic circling the event excerpt from a list of "upcoming events" and a quick google search indicates the event never even took place, it got canceled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Who's doing that, though? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This isn't a winnable debate type thing, and it's not limited to just cross-hairs or targets or certain political language. It's not even a party problem, it's a national problem.
Seems like every week there's a video of threats to public officials, people shooting guns at school boards, or schools being locked down for a shooter. It's not even a gun problem per se, but a general violence and acting-out problem, even a mental health and community issue. From airports to state or federal offices, schools and public campuses, now even grocery store parking lots.....things have gone from Going Postal or Road Rage, to finding rage and anger pretty much everywhere.
Why wouldn't all causes or contributing factors be part of figuring out what's happened, or how to move forward in a violent and visually viral society?
Well, without naming others your first post on this thread wasQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Palin (don't retreat, reload! and using gun scopes as targets) and Angle (we'll use Second Amendment solutions) are cavalier with their "speech".
That's my opinion: cavalier with their speech, inflammatory during social strife, not the best approach (no matter who's doing it). I also don't give news media a pass.
That's not trying to make cheap shots or political points, unless you call wanting a more civil tone in our society "political". Rather hard not to have noticed the last couple of years have gotten angrier and negative. I'm not going to just sit back and act non-chalant, either. This bugs me, all these events taken together don't reflect our best; we can do better, we should do better. And yeah, more people should say so. Is that "political", too?
Ah, so teabaggers turning up to political events openly armed are actually being metaphorical? Is it, like, some kind of post-modern thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Answer me this; if Boehner was being figurative about Dreihau's political career, has he made any such statement to that effect, given that the first quote became an official Item of Controversy in the media? Normally when that happens, the person in question says "I didn't mean that, I actually meant something else".
Incidentally, LF, if you and I were feuding neighbors and I spent all my time talking about how I was going to shoot you, how if you don't stop being an ass someone might shoot you, and every time I talk about having an argument over the picket fence with you I'm talking about using military or violence based metaphors... and I own a lot of guns... even if everyone on the street knows it's just bluster, that I'm incapable of actually shooting another human being, that I'm talking figuratively, etc to what extent to I have the right to be indignant if, when you actually get shot by someone, the first conclusion everyone jumps to I'd that I had something to do with it, even if this later proves to be incorrect ?
Oh yeah, sorry. My cultural-lingual background. Yeah, this is why only foreigners are objecting to recent heavy use of right-wing gun based rhetoric. Oh, wait...Quote:
edit: Screw it. There is absolutely no way to demonstrate figurative and idiomatic speech to people who refuse to look at language that way. Falstaff literally thought Prince Hal was a canine. Fine, we're about to become engulfed in a wave of political violence because people in the US don't share your immediate culturo-lingual background. Gifford's was just the first sign.
Read it somewhere. May have misread it, so I'm conceding this point.Quote:
And where did you get that piece of fantasy? Only thing I've seen so far here or poking around online is that graphic circling the event excerpt from a list of "upcoming events" and a quick google search indicates the event never even took place, it got canceled.
It's probably people exercising their right to do so. I personally don't think flaunting being armed is a good idea, for a number of reasons, but it's (depending on their jurisdiction) often their right to do so. Many people open-carry all the time, not just at political events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
When Obama said that he'd bring a gun to a knife fight with Republicans, did he literally mean he would bring a firearm to the capitol, or face off mano-a-mano with John McCain? Is it possible that not everything politicians say should be taken literally, and there is a certain nuance to words that is well understood here?Quote:
Answer me this; if Boehner was being figurative about Dreihau's political career, has he made any such statement to that effect, given that the first quote became an official Item of Controversy in the media? Normally when that happens, the person in question says "I didn't mean that, I actually meant something else".
By openly carrying a weapon, you're obviously making some kind of statement, which can be summed up as "I'm armed, don't fuck with me". It's a threat. And if you openly carry a weapon at a political event, it's clearly therefore also a political statement. And clearly also a threat. "I'm armed, I'm clearly crazy enough to turn up to a political rally with a fucking gun, and I don't get my way, I might do something a we'd all regret, ok? ". And, as I said to Fuzzy, if you're going openly carry a deadly weapon in inappropriate contexts, you can't complain if people then find you a little bit scary and jump to the wrong conclusion when someone gets shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It's true, but what if Obama kept on saying things like that? What if it was Democrats, not Republicans who are into firearms in a big way? What if Obama was saying thing that actually suggests violence, but a few Democrats in the House were saying things like, "ooh, If John McCain keeps standing in the way of Progress, he might just find himself first up against the wall when the people's revolution comes?" It's just a metaphorical wall, what's the problem? Another less fringe Democrat has written down a Republican in their little red book. Relax, it's not a real book. Figuratively, Congressman So-So and so might be dragged off to an Alaskan gulag come the revolution, which is also a metaphor, but not really. Probably.Quote:
When Obama said that he'd bring a gun to a knife fight with Republicans, did he literally mean he would bring a firearm to the capitol? Is it possible that not everything politicians say should be taken literally, and there is a certain nuance to words that is well understood here?
What if MoveOn.Org people kept making threatening phone calls to Republicans? I mean, you can't blame the Democrat leadership for what MoveOn.Org does, they're crazy. Anyone who sends out that many e-mails must be crazy. Maybe a few Republicans who didn't vote for the Health Care bill got their offices smashed up? It just happens sometimes to people in public office. No problem, comrade.
Then, someone guns down an especially right wing Republican. One of the really annoying ones. Then people think, hey maybe some MoveOn.Org nutjob took things a bit too far, maybe all that "glorious people's revolution" stuff was a bit of a mistake? Is that unreasonable?
Nuance, yes. Also, context. You can't keep on using the same violence based metaphors, if that's what they are, and not have people wonder if maybe they're not as metaphorical as all that.
Also, does anyone have any experience of the kind of guy who keeps "jokingly" threatening people? What's he really trying to say with his jokes? Firstly, he's definitely saying "I could". He may also be saying "I would, if you push me far enough".
I mean, if we're going to be talking about nuance and everything, we might as well also talk about subtext.
I actually don't disagree. People who open carry generally do so to make a statement, though that statement often is more than just, "Don't fuck with me," and rarely the threat you seem to think it is. I also don't disagree that by open carrying they are opening themselves up to people jumping to the wrong conclusions. It doesn't make them particularly dangerous though. LTC permit holders have a much lower arrest/conviction rate than average citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Did the person that gunned down the annoying Republican happen to be certifiably crazy, with no connection to or affiliation with the Democratic party, and in all likelihood any political party at all? In that case, I think it would be seen, by me anyways, as enormously bad taste, but otherwise completely unrelated.Quote:
It's true, but what if Obama kept on saying things like that? What if it was Democrats, not Republicans who are into firearms in a big way? What if Obama was saying thing that actually suggests violence, but a few Democrats in the House were saying things like, "ooh, If John McCain keeps standing in the way of Progress, he might just find himself first up against the wall when the people's revolution comes?" It's just a metaphorical wall, what's the problem? Another less fringe Democrat has written down a Republican in their little red book. Relax, it's not a real book. Figuratively, Congressman So-So and so might be dragged off to an Alaskan gulag come the revolution, which is also a metaphor, but not really. Probably.
What if MoveOn.Org people kept making threatening phone calls to Republicans? I mean, you can't blame the Democrat leadership for what MoveOn.Org does, they're crazy. Anyone who sends out that many e-mails must be crazy. Maybe a few Republicans who didn't vote for the Health Care bill got their offices smashed up? It just happens sometimes to people in public office. No problem, comrade.
Then, someone guns down an especially right wing Republican. One of the really annoying ones. Then people think, hey maybe some MoveOn.Org nutjob took things a bit too far, maybe all that "glorious people's revolution" stuff was a bit of a mistake? Is that unreasonable?
Nuance, yes. Also, context. You can't keep on using the same violence based metaphors, if that's what they are, and not have people wonder if maybe they're not as metaphorical as all that.
Every day, for fifty years, a mystic claims that he will be killed by a magical meteorite, then one day he finally has a stroke and dies. Does that mean the man suddenly has mystical clairvoyance, and must we now fear the magical meteorite?
No, look. I reject any argument that recent right wing rhetoric is connected to this shooting because the evidence isn't there. The points I am making are these:
a) Before we knew who this guy was, everyone (well, a lot of people) assumed he was something to do with the tea party.
b) They have no one to blame but themselves for this, because they keep talking about shooting democrats, even if they're actually being secretly ironic.
c) While gun based metaphores might be innocent in isolation, taken together and in the context of general tea party behavior, they can be understood as either vailed treats, or an attempt to 'fire up' the teabaggers in the most irresponsible way conceivable.
d) c) is profoundly unwise and they should stop doing it.
e) While people are wrong if they're still trying to say that Palin, Beck &c caused this they are not wrong to draw a connection in the sense of "Look at this horrible event. THIS is what you're asking for when you so causally speak of "second amendment solutions" and "fully loaded m16s" are you really sure you want to take America back down this path? I know this is not what you want, so choose your words with a little more care in future. Also, stop lying about 'death panels'".
I don't know about others, but I very rarely hear the kind of rhetoric you seem to think happens every day, day in, day out. I hear heated rhetoric, I hear rancor, I hear a lot of anger, but I rarely if ever hear threats, even veiled ones. Around elections and during the worst of the healthcare debate it was probably more pronounced, but it's hardly commonplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Maybe there are others who can comment, I could very well be wrong.