Home › Forums › Open Discussion › AZ Giffords shot, how do we cool the rhetoric?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 12, 2011 at 4:44 am #713500
jamminjMemberdobro: that is what I was saying earlier… both sides have their nutjobs (and hate rhetoric), but the right have a penchant for making their nutjobs candidates and celebrities.
over the last two years, there were about ~22 ‘newsworthy’ attacks on politicians/government, and all done on the voice of anti-govt… the argument by the right/tea party for the past few years. Along with taking up arms when ballots don’t work.
So tell me again how gore telling a stupid joke is equivalent and show me the evidence of all the attacks and the 400% increase of threats to the republican leaders??
Sorry, but don’t buy it. Over a year ago the DNC released an open letter and asked the RNC to agree and go along with it… to denounce the hate rhetoric, that it is going to far… the RNC denounced the letter and NO republican/tea party member asked to tone done the rhetoric.
January 12, 2011 at 5:56 am #713501
CaitParticipant“you ask me to stop it, you first”
I thought we needed to work on rhetoric here but I guess we’re starting all the way back at maturity. I’d advise the high road, but I think Rich beat you to it.
Again… how is this not a part of the problem…
January 12, 2011 at 6:10 am #713502
redblackParticipant“mature” conservatives abandoned the high road when they let the “tea party” drive the boat during the mid-term elections – without an ounce of condemnation for inflammatory rhetoric against elected officials like barack hussein obama, barney frank, and nancy pelosi.
yeah, conservatives need to work on rhetoric; specifically on reigning it in. and admitting that the “tea party” is a problem is the first step.
heh. “tea party.” they don’t even know what the boston tea party was about. to them it’s all about overthrowing lawmakers they abhor without engaging in any kind of mature or thoughtful debate.
edit: sorry, cait. no conciliation here. as a lifelong liberal, i’ve been lied to, punched in the face, and backstabbed by conservatives and their waterboys for too long. on this issue, they and their spokespeople at fox “news” and KVI know that they’re wrong. yet they continue to spin it as if they’re innocent.
no quarter. it’s time to pay the piper for getting in bed with the anti-government gun nuts.
January 12, 2011 at 6:17 am #713503
CaitParticipantI’m not sure why Rich and Smitty are getting lumped in with these people you’re talking about though.
January 12, 2011 at 6:19 am #713504
redblackParticipantbecause they’re pretending that the guy wasn’t somehow egged on by anti-government rhetoric.
or that he was a liberal.
January 12, 2011 at 6:26 am #713505
CaitParticipantMy understanding is that he was not affiliated with any political party.
January 12, 2011 at 6:29 am #713506
redblackParticipantright. just like all the teabaggers call themselves “independents.”
doesn’t matter, anyway. the guy is a terrorist, and the sooner conservatives condemn that kind of speech and behavior as terrorism against our government, the sooner we can all sing kumbaya.
January 12, 2011 at 6:46 am #713507
jamminjMember“rhetoric” is not the problem. With our two party system, we will always have disagreements. But when one group resorts to arming themselves when the ballots don’t go their way, then don’t tell me that its equal to both parties.
This WAS predicted with all the hate speech over the past few years, don’t tell me I’m the problem when all I ask is to look at the facts, not pick up a gun. Thats the remedy for the other side.
January 12, 2011 at 6:59 am #713508
redblackParticipantno disrespect, but rhetoric is the problem, j.
disagreements and policy debates between the two parties are one thing.
advocating for coup d’etat because you think the pinkos in the other party have taken over the government is quite another. throw in some gay-bashing and latent but veiled racism and it makes sick people pick up and load weapons.
and just where did the gun nuts get those ideas? i wonder.
notice that sarah palin doesn’t run around DC with a gun. she just plants the seed and lets the rubes do it for her. plausible deniability.
January 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm #713509
SmittyParticipantLet me be perfectly clear.
I have two issues:
1) I find it completely disgusting that the media (Krugman, etc) within hours jumped on this thing without ANY proof. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. That is not professional journalism.
2) Whether you want to admit it or not BOTH SIDES are guilty of inflamed rhetoric. For every Palin “bullseye map” there is DNC hit list. For every Beck comment there is KO and Shultzie. For every “Barak Hussien Obama” there is a “Bush is a murderer”. Ever seen some of the signs at War protests? Give me a break if you think this language is just coming from the Tea Party. Maybe 60/40? Maybe! Certainly it’s not limited to the Right as demonstrated by many links above.
This guy was stalking her two years before Palins target list was even developed, for goodness sakes.
Time will tell and you very well may be right! But to claim “I told you so” before the dead are even buried is an absolute shame.
January 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm #713510
WSMomParticipantNo, give me a break…
“Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly infamous mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected gunman in the Arizona shooting, by saying that the reason Loughner is smiling in the picture is because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party.”
“Sarah Palin … has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
— Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 3/25/10
January 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm #713511
AndyParticipantWithout chasing the link, I would guess Rush’s point is that when this happened, Democrats everywhere (quietly) rejoiced because they knew this was going to be fantastic blame fodder to throw at Republicans.
Just like Republicans did with Ft. Hood, reveling in the chance to shout “See, Muslims really are terrorists!”
Collectively, as humans, we’re a friggin’ mess.
January 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm #713512
dgirlMemberReading through this very long and involved post…yikes! My two cents: Sarah Palin is irresponsible…period. Not saying the shooting was directly her fault (or anyone’s except the shooter)….just saying that Sarah is extremely irresponsible and it is time for all Americans to understand that. For crying out loud…her attacks on Michelle Obama are so ridiculous it makes me want to cry.
January 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm #713513
dhgParticipantMy question was, Can we tone down the rhetoric? And the answer is clearly no. Actually, the answer is more like “how dare you” and “you are stepping on my 1st amendment rights” but the intent is a resounding no.
January 12, 2011 at 5:38 pm #713514
AndyParticipantCan’t get this pic thing done, but it took about 10 seconds to find a Christian hunting permit and a CEO hunting permit. Same format. This sort of thing could go on forever, and get us nowhere.
January 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm #713515
dawsonctParticipantCait, I was referencing your post #74 that I feel is filled with false equivalencies.
There is NO WAY that the violent idiation of the right-wing rhetoric is matched by the rhetoric of the left.
—
A good example would be Smitty comparing Glenn Beck to Ed Schultz and Kieth Olbermann, neither of whom I have EVER heard talking wistfully about hiring a killer or choking to death ANYONE with whom they have disagreements.
—-
Threatening violence is NOT participating in debate.
January 12, 2011 at 5:52 pm #713516
AndyParticipantOlbermann on Hillary Clinton:
‘Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”‘
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html
See, all day long.
January 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm #713517
JoBParticipantIt is very sad that the real point is being missed here.
this is not just another political he said she said.
and this is not about this troubled young man’s political affiliation either…
as best i can tell.. he didn’t have one.
this is about turning people into cartoons of themselves so it is ok to hate them.
this is about the climate of violent rhetoric that has been carefully tended by one political party to win elections at any cost
this is about the ultimate cost of the rhetoric of hate that is currently passing as political discourse.
this is about the fact that this style of rhetoric has been used for so long that those listening to the messages don’t even hear their offensive and violent language.
the image in the post before mine is repulsive.
that anyone could think that is a joke turns my stomach…
but these images are pervasive…
and btw.. nowhere so pervasive as in Arizona
LIBERAL HUNTING PERMIT –
no bag limit
i have to ask just what is ambiguous about that message?
If we replaced that banner with
CHILD HUNTING PERMIT
or better yet
CHRISTIAN HUNTING PERMIT
you can bet there would be a huge public outcry
yet.. because it’s political it’s ok?
this bumper sticker specifically targets people engaging in activities that express their political and social beliefs…
liberals at
gay pride parades
democratic conventions
union rallys
handgun control meetings
news media associations
lesbian luncheons
hollywood functions
Is this what politics has become?
there is no need to win the hearts and minds of your opponents
no need to win on the merits of your case
you only need to eliminate them?
This assassination attempt has liberals like me feeling ashamed that we find ourselves fleetingly thinking that the world would be a better place if some of the more egregious hate talkers were shot.
What i can’t understand is why this event doesn’t have my republican counterpoints feeling equally ashamed of voicing what i only think in my darkest moments and wouldn’t share with anyone else …
even as a joke.
January 12, 2011 at 6:11 pm #713518
dhgParticipantI did not say the Dems are innocent, I was just saying the over-heated political rhetoric needs to chill. If you want to say both sides do it, fine. Both sides do it. It is not acceptable political debate. Threatening to shoot people, praying to God for someone to die, is not acceptable behavior from any political entity.
January 12, 2011 at 6:51 pm #713519
CaitParticipantYes dawsonct because it’s really the AMOUNT of comments that determine who’s to blame when both sides are doing it. Because if you’re on the side with the least amount of detention slips, you’re the good guy. Gotcha.
January 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm #713520
redblackParticipantso let me get this straight: conservatives feel that is was mere coincidence that this nut job – i mean “poor, mentally disturbed individual” – carried out exactly the brand of second amendment remedies that sharon angle was blathering and drooling about? are you denying that this type of armed insurrectionist rhetoric is part of the tea party’s bullying tactics?
no matter if he was a liberal or a conservative, the idea was planted in his head that he was going to water the tree of liberty with someone’s blood. these ideas are core tenets of the tea party. like i said, read the comments on redstate any day of the week.
then remind me which political party the NRA and their gun nuts – i mean “the collectors of assault weapons” – adhere to.
remind me which party called war protesters and those who condemned bush’s hegemony traitors, and daily reminded us that treason is punishable by death.
remind me which party dropped the assault weapons ban. (and, yes, i know that the dems have done shack jit about it.)
smitty, et al: are these nut jobs not terrorists? and isn’t anyone who advocates second amendment remedies or who defends using violent rhetoric *cough*sarahpalin*cough* in political debate also a terrorist?
stop denying that the “cold dead hands” rhetoric comes from the right side of the political spectrum. teabaggers, independents, social conservatives, apologists for cheap chinese goods – all of them use the threat of violence to bully their opponents. why? because they believe in the second amendment! hyuk hyuk.
imho, conservatives went on the defensive immediately after the shootings because they know that they’re at least partially – if not fully – culpable for promoting violence in political debate.
January 12, 2011 at 7:06 pm #713521
JoBParticipantCait…
the tea party rhetoric in AZ has republicans frightened… and resigning.
We are not talking about business as usual campaign sniping here.
it appears degree does matter when it come to rhetoric
January 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm #713522
CaitParticipantIt’s almost laughable at this point, but I’m noticing that everyone is pointing the finger but most people aren’t calling the party by name. It’s all “remind me who” and “only one party does” and no one wants to outwardly name it while they’re handing out these condemnations. You’re talking about republicans. Are you seriously comfortable with calling all republicans terrorists and gun toters? Would you point at your neighbor and tell him that he’s responsible for what happened to Giffords? No. At least I certainly hope not. Because that’s what these broad generalizations are implying.
You want an axe to grind – find out how this guy got a gun and rally for less generalized gun laws. Rally for better security around our elected officials. Be the first one to step back in a heated argument that you know is out of hand. Condemn the few politicians that DO use outwardly and inequivacably violent rhetoric and don’t rest until those few have been found guilty of conspiracy. But do it on both sides. And don’t lump everyone you know that voted for McCain/Palin in with them.
I think it’s because we’re hesitant (as we should be) to call an entire political party terrorists. The danger starts when you point the finger at your neighbor’s political party, or worse yet your neighbor himself, and blame him for the death of a political figure that was carried out by a terrorist.
There are a few politicians that are negligent rockstars and want to go for the shock value. There are a few that are not educated enough to use stirring language that does not involve violence to get their party to get out and vote. It may be true that republicans are more well known for this behavior than others, but this playground mentality of excusing similar rhetoric from politicians from your own party because “they hit you first” is ridiculous.
If we’re to equate this to political movements earlier in our country’s history – it’s all Malcolm X and no MLK – it has it’s place but it can’t run rampant forever without a counter-movement to balance it. We need some temperance here and it’s going to take using our outrage to put the tape over our mouths, quit inflamming the rhetoric and physically stand in the way of the progression of hatred.
And don’t tell me we can’t peacefully protest when other people are threatening violence and carrying guns. It was done before and it can be done again. I just think it takes a sense of social maturity that, as a country, I just don’t think we have anymore.
January 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm #713523
JiggersMemberIt’s so sad that our country is deteriorating in many many ways.
January 12, 2011 at 7:37 pm #713524
JoBParticipantCait…
really…
we should beef up protection for our political leaders?
because we did beef up protection for our political leaders in the wake of the Sarah Palin inspired rallys in the Presidential election
second link on same subject.. please note the date.. Aug 17, 2010
the same woman who whipped her audiences into a frenzy says today that heated discourse is a good thing…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256942/sarah-palin-americas-enduring-strength-nro-staff
responsibility for egging a crowd on to death threats is lacking in her response…
blood libel indeed…
btw..I find her use of the phrase blood libel in this context offensive..
are we ready to become the society in which any means justifies the end?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.