No it was a mocumentary about what would happen if Bush was assassinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
No it was a mocumentary about what would happen if Bush was assassinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Why has that happened with a right wing PAC? Why didn't you say so sooner as there's been no link to that in this thread. Source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
That's fox news ( :rolleyes: ) and this is the US we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes I've heard of scuffles on picket lines, but not in recent decades. I've never heard of union thugs attacking someone that hired non-union labor. And what does this have to do with political leaders and pundits calling for violence against the opposition? It looks a lot like nothing.Quote:
You haven't heard of union thugs threatening to attack people who don't employ unionized labor or people who cross the picket lines? Seriously? As for the other groups, maybe you should give as much credence to marginal left-wing group as you do to marginal right wing ones.
:haha: If your attacks and slurs weren't so ridiculous I'd almost be offended and have to report them. So clearly you DO have trouble taking yoru own arguments seriously. I know I find pretty much everything you've said on this topic ridiculous.Quote:
Do you have trouble with your morals, seeing that you're a left-wing ideologue who doesn't give a damn about the truth and only cares about discrediting people you disagree with? It must be nice to think that anyone you disagree with is evil, while people you agree with wouldn't dare to stoop to the same level as your opponents. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
I used that as a source on purpose. Thanks for confirming my view about your ability to engage in any political subject without becoming a rabid ideologue. Don't expect further responses from me on any political issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
This thread is a perfect example of the "vitriolic rhetoric" that may have (though probably not) led to this deplorable act of violence. If you can't make an arguement without resorting to attacking the character of your opponent, maybe you should refrain from entering the discussion.
Found it on Netflix:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Heh, it won a prize at the Toronto film festival!Quote:
Death of a President(2006) R
This provocative mockumentary imagines the assassination of President George W. Bush and the fallout that follows, including the media's reaction, the rush to convict an assassin and the machinations of President Cheney. Directed by Gabriel Range (The Day Britain Stopped) and starring Hend Ayoub, Brian Boland, Becky Ann Baker and Robert Mangiardi, the film was awarded the Critic's Prize at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival.
But seriously, are you really saying this was a call to all the violent liberal groups in the Us to assassinate GW?
To point out the problem with Fox News, they are reporting an increase in Animal Rights Terrorism by tracking the reported number of "criminal actions undertaken." Comparing 18 month spans of 2006-2007 and (assuming) 2008-2009. Completely ignoring that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was passed in late Nov 06. Of note, it broadened the definition of “animal enterprise”, which helped tilt the numbers in favor of this article claiming animal rights terrorism is somehow on the rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But hey, its Fox News! Shouldn't blow them off for slanted and shitty reporting without first looking up the details, no matter how many times they've lied and fucked up in the past.
You should use legitimate news sources to make your argument. Fox News is demonstrably biased. And THANK you for not responding again, your arguments are typically somewhere in the field of "GOTCHA" jabs, irrelevant nitpicks, strawmen and outright stupidity. In short, you're trolling half the time, not engaging in honest dialogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
See, you fell into his litmus test trap too. If you say something bad about Fox News, you're clearly a violent liberal extremist. And guess what? <sniffle> He won't talk to you no mo. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Loki has no other argument at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrunner
He hasn't been quote-replying to me in a long while unless he is able to leech off of someone else's conversation. Started well before he sulked away from the boards this last go around.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
No, and neither was anything Palin or Beck has done.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
BUT, now what if I made the excat same movie with Obama??????
NPR and Co. would be DEMANDING I be put in jail.
Still nothing ...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
NPR would??? Why would NPR demand that? :shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Let me specify, NPR in general no, it's commentators would.
:D There's some regular commentators from the Weekly Standard and from the Heritage Foundation. Those guys? ;)
So you would be okay with this type of movie about a sitting president?
Perhaps to him all arguements are about the very character of his opponent. In which case he should make clear that he cares not about the topic at hand, but rather your failure to be Loki.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I haven't seen the movie so I don't know. If it is advocating someone shoot the president, implying that's the solution to our country's problems, etc, then its unacceptable. If it is made in a different context, then I don't see a problem with it. It would be poor taste, but as long as you're not advocating and inciting violence against the president, it is probably fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I do trust my perspective. I think you and the others decrying all this "violence" are full of shit. It's not as extensive, and it hasn't changed in volume recently, people are saying otherwise because they're alarmist or because they're looking to score political points. I think quite a few are doing the latter, I've already said in this thread that we're seeing these comments as a variation of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" accusations, and as the latest version of "death-panel" rhetoric. I'm saying that if you want to make a claim which I view as obviously wrong, you should back it up with proof, since, as I pointed out, there are some easy ways to quantify it and poli-sci academics are performing this analysis all the freaking time.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Fuzzy, you're fighting a losing cause here. The only kind of evidence she (and several others here) accept is that which confirms their existing beliefs. Any evidence that doesn't do this is flawed in some fatal way.
I think that political elements have been attempting to. . . exaggerate the state of affairs, shall we say. In the digging I've done so far, I've seen a number of allegations about violent speech which, it turns out, were malicious rumors and story-telling, when you finally manage to dig up actual transcripts and video clips from the alleged speakers. I posted that reply to Steely because I would have bet that was exactly what he'd seen. Except he took it at face-value. I know that over the past five years or so, Democratic politicians have been coached to try and spin opponents as aggressive, suggesting or acceptive of violence, etc. Perfectly normal by the way. In the past they've been coached to suggest militia links, Republicans are constantly coached to cry socialism, or race warfare, etc. People have cited Gifford's comments objecting to Palin's campaign but. . . you have to keep in mind that she said it while a politician. The job entails managing their speech. And the same issue applies when you're examining something like that Palin advertisement. Yeah, it uses gun metaphors. That's quite deliberate. Because the intended audience instantly grasps and identifies with them. Not because they want to go out and shoot someone, but because they're part of a culture which defiantly embraces guns as a fundamental part of a political principle which they cherish, and using such figurative speech says "I get you. I am one of you."Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Manipulations and exaggerations aside, this is an issue because a number of people *including on this board* are themselves fundamentally opposed to guns and gun ownership and the only meaning they apply to guns is "violent! Bad!"
I'm aware. But apparently while most of the forum obsesses about replying to Lewk, supposedly in an attempt to make him see the error of his ways, I do the same toward GGT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Maybe we're just opposed to this shit-flinging-monkey-politics the US seems to love so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
you mean like you just pulled to justify your perceived increase in animal activist related crimes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This. This is easily the best analysis of the issues at hand in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Not the entire US. I , for one, believe politics has become too...uhm... full of shit shall we say. Politicians like to speak as if their opponents don't care about the people, instead of portraying then as having different ideas. they'll say the wrong ideas, of course (it is the "opposition" after all). But to say things like "the people are back in charge" (rep. Boehner I'm looking at you) is bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Back to my point: Shit flinging monkeys wish they could fuck things up like a politician.
Somehow, I don't think we're all that different from any of the other English-speaking countries, and probably aren't all that different from Western non-English countries either. We are, however, 3-4 times larger than any other, and 10 to 100 times larger than most of the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I get what you're saying and I more or less agree with you. Any recent high profile shootings I'm aware of off the top of my head in the US have involved crazies, not plots. Thank god for that. The whole gun thing with Palin is more about macho-hunting than killing people, as far as I can tell. I do recall some issues with her rhetoric at a couple of VP rallies but they toned it down iirc. I recall the '2nd Amendment Solution' comment, though I'm not sure who said it. Wasn't that in relation to democrates that got re-elected despite strong efforts to get them out? Or was that in a different context. In any case, you don't have to exaggerate to get to the ugly context of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Personally, I'm not opposed to some reasonable restriction on political speech, for a variety of reasons. I think there's room for improvement before we get near a damaging slippery slope....
That person talking about "2nd amendment solutions" is the only example I've seen so far, of someone who isn't just engaged in figurative speech. They said what they meant (which is not to say they really meant what they said. Hot air and posturing is not of course the same thing as genuine intent). I interpreted that person as calling for revolutionary activity. Except they're were never going to put their money where their mouth was. I am pragmatic. Empty comments are meaningless as far as I'm concerned. White noise, yawn-worthy. Treating it as serious actually gives it more weight, it can create an actual threat out of the posturing. In most cases it's not likely to, but it is more likely than there actually being something behind the posturing in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Oh, and by the way. The best way to make a political situation worse is to let the radicals and firebrands polarize you. Whichever side you're on, either agreeing with them or in opposition.
I know that German politicians can and will be rebuked for even less strong rhetorics.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And I honestly don't see how a country's size justifies mud-slinging in politics.
Size magnifies the visible extent of the behavior. All other things being equal, a larger source will include a higher number of outliers *numerically, not proportionally* but we don't automatically normalize things like what we hear in the news for population totals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Please. You'd be, at the very least, disowned by your own party for the kind of comments that have become the subject of this thread, if they were made in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
This is such a silly attitude I don't know where to start. If a prominent Democrat said tomorrow that Sarah Palin should be repeatedly stabbed in the eyes on Live TV, that would automatically cause an equivalent Republican to say something similar about a Democrat? It is actually possible, in a debate with two sides, for one side to be just plain wrong. It is not putting your political colours first to call a spade a spade.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Was the Labourite who called his opponent a Taliban supporter kicked out of the party?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yes, but only AFTER he lost his court case and was stripped of being an MP. Until the verdict was delivered he remained not just a Labour MP but indeed one of the most senior Labour MP's, in the Shadow Cabinet. He was appointed by the new leader to the Shadow Cabinet after the facts came out but before losing the court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Aggressive language is far from unheard of in the UK. Indeed even though we don't have a gun culture we frequently hear phrases like "turning the guns on ...".
Eg, The Guardian in the Election Campaign published an editorial saying that "Brown and Clegg should turn their guns on Cameron". After Clegg became Deputy PM and his party pushed through higher Tuition Fees they hosted a rally were an effigy of Clegg was burnt at the stake. Yet they then attack the Republicans and Palin etc for colourful language. It's bullshit hypocrisy.
Now Steely, since I've given evidence that it happens in the UK and that both left and right do it do you care to provide any evidence for your claims that it doesn't happen in the UK or that it's solely the right?
It wasn't implying he should be killed, it explored possible consequences if it would happen (with assuming the worst reactions liberals could imagine).Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Not true, over here talking like this is not acceptable. Every country has its own standards, of course (Berlusconi has made some pretty crude remarks in the past). And it's not exactly a secret that US political campaigns are played on the person a lot more than over here. Not very surprising since we don't have a district system like you do, so it's not one person vs one person but party s party.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
"They're blood suckers..."
Quote:
...they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."
LOL, there's a shock :haha:. He would have been a Congressman when those remarks were made I guess. "Put against the wall and shoot", "first to be lined up against the wall..." etc not the first time I've heard that from a lefty.
Steely and Chaloobi, are you both happy to accept now that left and right both use strong language? In fact to be fair, that language is even stronger and more explicit than "second amendment solutions", the only violent quote so far in this thread.
You mean Boehner's comments? Somehow I doubt equivalent idiom would see someone kicked out of Labor. But hey, you still insist a reference to running people out of town on a rail connotes gunsQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
choking the life out of someone is not violent? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I figured the youtube clips calling for assassination would at least count.