US Representative Shot in Arizona + Fantasies/Falsehoods about Dreadnt and Guns

[GGT]

And three posts from now, GGT is again going to insist that no one in is positing any sort of relation between Palin/Tea party and what happened.

I reserve the right to post about political posturing, ads designed for public consumption, propaganda and marketing Fear in campaigns. At a later date.

I think the claim that things are worse recently is pretty much a bunch of bullshit too. Someone wants to claim things are worse, prove it. Academics are making that sort of content comparison all the time, cite some recent studies.

You need studies for this? As a young girl I can remember (vaguely) the daisy commercial. Using fear of global nuclear war, mushroom clouds, those evil commie pinkos, those evil Asian chinks, they were all out to get us, kill Americans, blow us up in a nuclear cloud. We were supposedly post-WWII, but it still haunted us as a society. I was young, the contexts didn't make sense. My folks watched MASH (the Korean war) and laughed, but Vietnam wasn't such a laughing matter. The "Iron Curtain" made me think of a literal curtain, like the Berlin wall, or the Great Chinese Wall, an actual physical barrier. (I used to see it as an accordian door, something that "disappeared" when drawn back, but neatly folded and waiting to be pulled out when needed....)

When we finally retreated from Vietnam, I remember the front pages of the newspaper, and thinking hadn't we withdrawn a long time ago, wasn't that war over a long time ago? When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall", it was a great visual. Crowds cheered, but I wasn't convinced it was anything but a political ploy for the masses. When Bush declared our Mission Accomplished, it felt the same way.

I can remember Black Panthers raising their fist during the Olympics. 60's radicals using violence to endorse world peace Timothy Leary and Abbie Hoffman, marches and protests. But I don't recall any American burning effigies of our leaders, or burning flags (or bras) or those latex masks for Halloween that made fun of our leaders. We didn't have the internet or youtube to show us within 10 seconds what was going on. We had to wait years for the Pentagon papers and Watergate. Nixon as a Halloween mask didn't occur until years after he's already left in disgrace......

[LittleFuzzy]

You need studies for this?

I know how you hate to let things like truth or reality interfere with anecdotal and subjective feelings.

[Enoch the Red]

There's a straight connection to politics, because it was a congresswoman and her aide, and a federal judge. But like I said.....it wouldn't seem so straightforward if this had been a disgruntled worker or jaded lover. Even that wouldn't be a straight line, cut and dry.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. The start of this particular conversational thread began with the white washing of earlier posts made by several posters here. Something along the lines of, "Nobody here would ever have blamed the Tea Party or its members for this kind of tragedy."

That's clearly not the case.

There is nothing wrong with thread drift, and to say that the current discussion is moving towards the topics you have been discussing is one thing. To claim that nobody on this forum has ever tried to put the bloodshed in Tuscon on the Tea Party and/or Sarah Palin seems hopelessly naive.

[GGT]

I know how you hate to let things like truth or reality interfere with anecdotal and subjective feelings.

Right, and I know how you're loathe to give up an emotion. Might make you appear less than intellectual, therefore, all emotions are.....silly distractions. Got it.

Seriously Fuzzy, do you need studies before you can make a statement about the violence in our society? If those studies are a more reliable way to view our culture, I've gotta ask why you don't trust your own perspective, or why you'd wait so long for an answer from "experts" doing studies.

[GGT]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. The start of this particular conversational thread began with the white washing of earlier posts made by several posters here. Something along the lines of, "Nobody here would ever have blamed the Tea Party or its members for this kind of tragedy."

That's clearly not the case.

Oh, okay, but that still brings questions. If the Tea Party wants to be considered as a legitimate political entity, they should realize that comes with a degree of accountability. They can't just hide among the GOP and hope their leadership will protect or speak for them. They can't continue to say their "party" is an unorganized mish-mash of various groups, or pawn the uncomfortable questions off to smaller "unaffiliated" groups, or the larger GOP.

It's a tangent, but no one really knows what the Tea Party means, not even the Tea Party people. So many various groups have glommed onto that title, it's practically meaningless. All we know is they've succeeded in co-opting the GOP, and the GOP has welcomed them with open arms.

[Flixy]

Left-wing icon Jon Stewart, http://tv.gawker.com/5730178/watch-j...izona-shooting

Well said.

I think it's wrong to blame the right-wingers or tea party people for this. It was just a crazy guy. And let's be honest, things like cross-hairs on a target are not that unusual. And I think it's fairly obvious that when a politician was mentioned as 'dead' they meant 'politically dead' which is a standard phrase. The second-amendment solution remark crosses the line though, for me. And hell, even if the guy was motivated by speeches like that... Well, you have to be crazy to be motivated by that, and I assume that if this was not around he would have been motivated by something else.

That said, I am not a fan of the rhetorics used in politics these days. I'll leave it up for academics to show if it has increased lately, but it appears to me that it has (but I am only following politics for a couple of years now). The climate of extreme partisanship and playing out things on a person is sickening. Politicians no longer seem to debate just about issues, but people opposing their views are unAmerican, traitors or evil. That is not a good thing. But not so much because of possible violence, but mostly because it makes bipartisanship practically impossible - how can you expect to be taken seriously by your voters if you work together with the people you painted as the Antichrist a year before?

I do think that the GOP should have been more outspoken against threats and violence committed before though (like the vandalism to homes and personal threats around the healthcare debate). I mean, those were quite obviously done by a (tiny fraction of) their voter base, so they had a responsibility to condemn those actions, especially because their voter base would listen more to them. But no, I do not think they are responsible for this.

This does remind me of when Pim Fortuyn was murdered here, when people were worried it might have been a muslim who did it. Of course, two years later Theo van Gogh was murdered by a muslim...

[Flixy]

Right, and I know how you're loathe to give up an emotion. Might make you appear less than intellectual, therefore, all emotions are.....silly distractions. Got it.

Seriously Fuzzy, do you need studies before you can make a statement about the violence in our society? If those studies are a more reliable way to view our culture, I've gotta ask why you don't trust your own perspective, or why you'd wait so long for an answer from "experts" doing studies.

Because exactly those perspectives and feelings about the current state of society compared to the history is often very far from reality. It is often noted that people feel like violence has increased when it has actually decreased in the same period.

[EyeKhan]

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.

That's a good question. Completely aside from this specific incident, you have to ask the question: Where IS all this coming from? There's been tons of talk about violent, hateful, over the top political rhetoric here and in the general media. Why is everyone thinking the political discourse, particularly on the right, is over the top when there really isn't any out there? Are you suggesting that everyone's been sort of imagining the incitement and rehetoric, and that it really isn't there?

[RandBlade]

I don't. I also think that for everything said by the right, something else is said by the left. I think some are putting their political colours first.

[EyeKhan]

I don't. I also think that for everything said by the right, something else is said by the left. I think some are putting their political colours first.

Maybe. In my experience gun-related, aggressive war-related stuff is the realm of the Right. I wonder what the public discourse would be like if the victim were a Republican? Would everyone be calling to tone down the rhetoric? Would people have jumped to the fear that this was an act influenced by violent liberal rhetoric?

[Loki]

Animal rights terrorists? Communists/anarchists? Black and Hispanic nationalists? Union thugs?

[RandBlade]

Maybe. In my experience gun-related, aggressive war-related stuff is the realm of the Right. I wonder what the public discourse would be like if the victim were a Republican? Would everyone be calling to tone down the rhetoric? Would people have jumped to the fear that this was an act influenced by violent liberal rhetoric?

No and no are my guesses. People would (and do) view "liberal rhetoric" as free speech.

It's not as if anyone said anything aggressive about Bush at all is it? As for war-related, on that issue specifically the anti-war movement has been more aggressive in the last decade. Unsurprisingly as they've not had their way. People don't protest against what they agree with.

[EyeKhan]

No and no. People would view it as free speech.

It's not as if anyone said anything aggressive about Bush at all is it?

Not to my knowledge. I know there were calls for impeachment, trial, imprisonment, and so on. But no '2nd Amendment' solutions... certainly not from any high profile politicians or pundits. Do you know of anything like that?

[Veldan Rath]

Not to my knowledge. I know there were calls for impeachment, trial, imprisonment, and so on. But no '2nd Amendment' solutions... certainly not from any high profile politicians or pundits. Do you know of anything like that?

Uhhh.... the movie about Bush being assassinated??????

If that don't qualify...then the people on these boards can take their screams about Palin's targets and shove it.

[EyeKhan]

Animal rights terrorists? Communists/anarchists? Black and Hispanic nationalists? Union thugs?

Just curious, what is an animal rights terrorist? Is that the people that show up mostly naked in public? Or the ones that throw red dye on fur coats?

Communists/ anarchists with violent political rhetoric - in the US? Really? I must not be plugged into the same liberal groups you are. Black and hispanic nationalists? Like they want to make a separate country from the US? I've heard of the black panthers back in the '70s but they haven't been on AM radio talking about 2nd Amendment solutions for the conservative politicians that keep getting re-elected. And hispanic... Okayyyyy......

And last, union thugs. Um. What era are you talking about again? I'm not, well, I've not heard any union thugs on TV or radio or the internet advocating violence agaisnt conservatives. I work around a lot of union guys, had some working for me for a few years, have some in my family, but I haven't seen or heard about thugs running around threatening congressmen.

But you are saying all of these violent liberal groups are equivalent to the rhetoric from what we've heard from what passes for mainstream conservatism today?

(Do you ever have trouble taking your own arguments seriously?)

[EyeKhan]

Uhhh.... the movie about Bush being assassinated??????

If that don't qualify...then the people on these boards can take their screams about Palin's targets and shove it.

What movie was that?

[Veldan Rath]

Death of a President (2006 film)

[Loki]

Just curious, what is an animal rights terrorist? Is that the people that show up mostly naked in public? Or the ones that throw red dye on fur coats?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525039,00.html Though it's a far bigger problem in Britain than in the US.

Communists/ anarchists with violent political rhetoric - in the US? Really? I must not be plugged into the same liberal groups you are. Black and hispanic nationalists? Like they want to make a separate country from the US? I've heard of the black panthers back in the '70s but they haven't been on AM radio talking about 2nd Amendment solutions for the conservative politicians that keep getting re-elected. And hispanic... Okayyyyy......

And last, union thugs. Um. What era are you talking about again? I'm not, well, I've not heard any union thugs on TV or radio or the internet advocating violence agaisnt conservatives. I work around a lot of union guys, had some working for me for a few years, have some in my family, but I haven't seen or heard about thugs running around threatening congressmen.

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.

But you are saying all of these violent liberal groups are equivalent to the rhetoric from what we've heard from what passes for mainstream conservatism today?

(Do you ever have trouble taking your own arguments seriously?)

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.

[EyeKhan]

Death of a President (2006 film)

Never heard of it. Was it put out by a PAC, calling for some of these violent liberal groups to kill him???

[Loki]

And yet you "hear" about everything mentioned by right-wing extremists. Funny that.

[Veldan Rath]

Never heard of it. Was it put out by a PAC, calling for some of these violent liberal groups to kill him???

No it was a mocumentary about what would happen if Bush was assassinated.

[RandBlade]

Never heard of it. Was it put out by a PAC, calling for some of these violent liberal groups to kill him???

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.

[EyeKhan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525039,00.html Though it's a far bigger problem in Britain than in the US.

That's fox news ( ) and this is the US we're talking about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Loki]

That's fox news ( ) and this is the US we're talking about.

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.

[rumrunner]

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.

[EyeKhan]

No it was a mocumentary about what would happen if Bush was assassinated.

Found it on Netflix:

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.

Heh, it won a prize at the 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?

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

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.

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.

[EyeKhan]

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.

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.

[EyeKhan]

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. Completing 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 animal rights terrorism somehow being on the rise.

But hey, its Fox News!

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.

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.

Loki has no other argument at this point.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

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.