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

[Veldan Rath]

Found it on Netflix:

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?

No, and neither was anything Palin or Beck has done.

BUT, now what if I made the excat same movie with Obama??????

NPR and Co. would be DEMANDING I be put in jail.

[RandBlade]

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.

Still nothing ...

[EyeKhan]

No, and neither was anything Palin or Beck has done.

BUT, now what if I made the excat same movie with Obama??????

NPR and Co. would be DEMANDING I be put in jail.

NPR would??? Why would NPR demand that?

[Veldan Rath]

Let me specify, NPR in general no, it's commentators would.

[EyeKhan]

There's some regular commentators from the Weekly Standard and from the Heritage Foundation. Those guys?

[Veldan Rath]

So you would be okay with this type of movie about a sitting president?

[rumrunner]

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.

Loki has no other argument at this point.

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.

[EyeKhan]

So you would be okay with this type of movie about a sitting president?

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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?

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."

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!"

[LittleFuzzy]

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'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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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."

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!"

Maybe we're just opposed to this shit-flinging-monkey-politics the US seems to love so much?

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

you mean like you just pulled to justify your perceived increase in animal activist related crimes?

[Enoch the Red]

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."

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!"

This. This is easily the best analysis of the issues at hand in this thread.

[rumrunner]

Maybe we're just opposed to this shit-flinging-monkey-politics the US seems to love so much?

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.
Back to my point: Shit flinging monkeys wish they could fuck things up like a politician.

[LittleFuzzy]

Maybe we're just opposed to this shit-flinging-monkey-politics the US seems to love so much?

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.

[EyeKhan]

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."

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.

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....

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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.

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

I know that German politicians can and will be rebuked for even less strong rhetorics.

And I honestly don't see how a country's size justifies mud-slinging in politics.

[LittleFuzzy]

I know that German politicians can and will be rebuked for even less strong rhetorics.

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.

[Steely Glint]

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.

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.

[Steely Glint]

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.

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.

[Loki]

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.

Was the Labourite who called his opponent a Taliban supporter kicked out of the party?

[RandBlade]

Was the Labourite who called his opponent a Taliban supporter kicked out of the party?

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.

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?

[Flixy]

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.

It wasn't implying he should be killed, it explored possible consequences if it would happen (with assuming the worst reactions liberals could imagine).

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.

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.

[Enoch the Red]

"They're blood suckers..."

...they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

Guess who said this?

Guess who said this before calling for a return to civility.

Guess who wouldn't be considered part of the climate of hate?

People making political hay out of tragedies? Priceless.

[RandBlade]

LOL, there's a shock . 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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

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 guns

[Ominous Gamer]

"second amendment solutions", the only violent quote so far in this thread.

choking the life out of someone is not violent?
I figured the youtube clips calling for assassination would at least count.