AZ Giffords shot, how do we cool the rhetoric?

[dawsonct]

Oh for Gawds sake Cait, the violent rhetoric from the right is constant, direct, and blatant, someone occasionally stooping to the level of the Republicans and lashing back at them using their same ideation IS NOT EQUITABLE!

Democrats are constantly taken to task, mostly by Republicans, for being wimpy. I call it civil, but apparently showing respect for a political adversary is a sign of weakness. Once again Democrats are damned if they do (show a spine) or damned if they don’t.

Your excusing the CONSTANT and UNREMITTING violent rhetoric of the far right is completely blind to the truth. I guess you are attempting to reset to zero, but by ignoring the role that the far right millionaire pundits, under instruction from their billionaire bosses, are taking in the destruction of civil political discourse in this Nation you are ignoring the destruction they have already visited on our Nation and her people.

How long are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Why SHOULD we allow the hate filled right, and their frightened and/or selfish minions to make the decisions on discourse in our Nation? They always talk about taking personal responsibility for ones actions, yet blame others for THEIR actions.

—

Right Andy, that one incident with Olbermann is EXACTLY equal to this:

BECK: “Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out — is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.”

Keep grasping at straws.

Liberals aren’t out there shooting up boardrooms, or pro-subjugation-of-women rallies, or monster truck pulls, or conservative evangelical churches.

Liberals aren’t making hit-lists of gynecologists or journalists or educators or politicians. Liberals aren’t carrying their guns to political rallies to “prove a point.”

To keep ignoring the violence of the far right puts our Nation in peril.

Share This

[dhg]

Hate speech? If I say I hate Rush, that is not hate speech. If I organize a political event and post a sign in the window saying “Open hunting season on Rush, no tags required” … that’s hate speech. That kind of rhetoric has no place in a civil society, whether it comes from the left or right.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Careful what you say redblack, at this point in 1978, Ronald Reagan was considered an unelectable buffoon.

But then the Iranian hostage situation erupted and William Casey negotiated an arms deal with them to hold the hostages until after the election, and it has been more or less all downhill (for the vast majority of us, at least) ever since.

Suddenly, Ronnie became an eminently electable buffoon.

—

I don’t believe the billionaires who have created Sarah as a viable political voice will give up on her, and their HUGE investment in her, that easily.

Share This

[Cait]

I am not concerned that “IT’S NOT EQUITABLE”.

Share This

[JoB]

A calm and sensible man says it better than i ever could…

David Brock of Media Matters on the rhetoric of the right and it’s consequences…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVDla_Ax40k

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich

I can not tell you how sad your comments make me…

“The Right has learned to fight back when the left so obviously goes off the deep end.”

tough talk.

but what does it mean really?

are they fighting against the media they primarily control?

are they fighting big business?

with Koch bankrolling the tea party that’s not likely.

are they fighting back against big government?

they increase it every time they are in power

who exactly is the right fighting for

when they fight back?

tough talk without substance is trash talk

and trash talk can get you killed

Share This

[dawsonct]

For those who excuse the messengers:

—

http://www.opednews.com/articles/News-Flash-Most-Americans-by-Bud-Goodall-110111-940.html

—

“Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.”

They KNOW who they are speaking to, and know exactly how far they can take their rhetoric and still maintain a credible level of deniability.

Share This

[dawsonct]

I can tell cait, apparently anything the far right does to wrest control of our Nation from the PEOPLE of OUR Nation is a-okay. Gotcha.

Share This

[Andy]

Geez, dawson, you said you had never, all in capital letters and everything, heard Olbermann talking wistfully about killing someone he disagrees with. I simply said, “here you go.” Didn’t try to equate it to anything anyone else said. That’s your crusade to, with unwavering intellectual tenacity, predetermine the outcome of.

Share This

[Cait]

That doesn’t even make sense…

Share This

[JoB]

Cait…

i am not sure what it is that doesn’t make sense.

I know David Brock’s quiet analysis of the situation makes sense.

Regardless of all the he said she said distraction that is floating as an argument here…

David Brock stated the bottom line eloquently….

Share This

[Cait]

JoB, I’m already a little pissed that you asked me “what point?” after I stated my opinions clearly. It took a lot on my part to not consider that the missive that I’m pretty sure it was meant to be. You understand my points, you just don’t agree with them. You don’t need to keep harping on it. I do not understand how dawsonct’s 159 comment is in any way referring to what I said or have been saying and frankly I’m not interested. The only translation I can possibly come up with is one that requires such a leap that I’m honestly not going to dignify it with a response.

The way people brow-beat each other on here is why many participants left, honestly.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

JoB, I read what you say but I will try to work with you on this.

Put your cards on the table. Who or what caused this shooting? What direct evidence do you have that ties the right to Loughner? Jumping to conclusions isn’t doing anybody any good.

JoB, if I accuse you of drowning puppies, (which you do not) are you going to sit and take it? That is how conservatives feel when the left goes on the attack. Got it?

I daresay too that each side has felt the brunt of unfair commentary. I also think we can be more civil. But right wingers did not shoot the congresswoman a madman did.

Krugman and others spouted off because the Tea Party and Independents caused the biggest shift in the houses of governance since the 20’s. Only two years after Hope and Change was voted in. This was an opportunity to blame the opposition. The only problem was there was not a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Maybe in the future but not now.

So please, lets remember the fallen and hope for the best for their families and loved ones.

Cait, I do apologize for the tone of my posts but mostly I pipe up to give another side of the issue. It is just an opinion. I appreciate your posts while I know politically we do not always see eye to eye. Thanks. Rich

Share This

[Cait]

Rich – your last post sums up how I feel exactly. It’s always a pleasure to see you contributing here despite our differences.

Share This

[JoB]

cait…

you are wrong.

i don’t understand your point at all.

It’s not just that i don’t agree with what you have had to say

it makes absolutely no sense to me.

you can read that as browbeating if you want to

but unless i understand your argument it’s pretty difficult to have conversation about it.

and btw…

it is equally clear to me that you don’t understand my argument either

Share This

[Cait]

If it didn’t make sense, how were you able to respond to every single post I made, JoB?

Share This

[miws]

Quoth:dawsonct, Post #151:

“Democrats are constantly taken to task, mostly by Republicans, for being wimpy. I call it civil, but apparently showing respect for a political adversary is a sign of weakness. Once again Democrats are damned if they do (show a spine) or damned if they don’t”

QFT.

I freely admit, I’m the stereotypical, don’t wanna cause a commotion, don’t like conflict/confrontation liberal. That’s one of the reasons I don’t get into the political discussions too often.

That paragraph, from dawson, is spot on.

I don’t know how much, if any of Cait’s original post (#11), was directed toward me in calling Palin a “terrorist”. Admittedly, I was acting on knee jerk emotion. Would I edit that part out now, if I could? Probably not. Would I use the term if posting the links anew, several days later, after initial emotions have ebbed? Probably not, unless it could be proven her actions were indeed a direct cause of pushing this guy over the edge.

If Palin, Rush, Beck, and the teapartiers, and others that hint at using violence against others with whom they don’t agree can’t be held liable legally, thanks to the First Amendment Right we all share, and which I highly value, then I think they should be morally responsible.

And which party is it, that in general, is always preaching morals?

Mike

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRICH…

i never said Loughner had any ties to the right.

There is nothing that makes me believe that he did.

However, i did say that in my opinion the sheriff of Pima county was dead on in his assessment of the likely outcome of the hate speech that has passed as dinner table conversation in Arizona lately.

and it turns out that in the wake of Loughner’s violent acts more than one Republican official has agreed with him..

see previous link for republican officials resign because of death threats

I believe firmly that when speech is full of images of violence that “random acts of violence” by unbalanced individuals will follow.

The US Secret Service has seen that in the direct cause and effect relationship between Sarah Palin’s incendiary comments and death threats against President Obama.

see previous link for connection between Palin’s rhetoric and Obama death threats

We see that in the statements of “lone gunmen” who site Glenn Beck’s programs as their inspiration

see previous link for Media Matters Dave Brock’s comments

That belief has only strengthened as online postings from this troubled young man have been released…

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/jared-loughners-online-postings-reveal-deep-misogyny/

and i suspect this is only the tip of a very ugly iceberg…

The biggest problem I see here is well illustrated by your analogy

“JoB, if I accuse you of drowning puppies, (which you do not) are you going to sit and take it? That is how conservatives feel when the left goes on the attack. Got it? “

I don’t accuse the republican political machine just to accuse them… as your analogy implies.

I accuse them of incendiary rhetoric and hate speech because that is an accurate label of the kind of “political” speech that has become commonplace…

To say that hate speech incites unstable minds to violence is an understatement and one i don’t think i have to defend.

History has done an admirable job of documenting that connection on both small and grand scales.

The federal law we now have that treats hate crimes separately from other acts of violence is a direct result of that connection.

“Krugman and others spouted off because the Tea Party and Independents caused the biggest shift in the houses of governance since the 20’s. …”

and how did they do that Rich?

They did it with slogans like

“if the ballot box doesn’t work bullets will”

and

“open hunting season on liberals.. no bag limit”

they did it with death threats

and that’s hate speech

“…Only two years after Hope and Change was voted in….”

Is that how you think you should fight hope and change…

with anger and violence?

“… This was an opportunity to blame the opposition. The only problem was there was not a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. Maybe in the future but not now.”

Or.. it could be a real concern about the kinds of reactions hate speech cloaked as political dialog create.

tell me Rich…

What do you think all those angry people Glen Beck’s malicious and misleading rants and his vocal Tea Party advocates have stirred up are going to do with their anger when they figure out that they and their candidates have been bought and paid for by big business…

that they are just another tool Krog is using to separate them from their money and their independence?

“”if the ballot box doesn’t work bullets will”

I am not frightened at all by the likes of Sarah Palin …

but masses of angry and misinformed armed citizens who feel that their government has failed them scare the proverbial sh.. out of me…

Lest you think that armed insurrection would be a good thing…

you might remember that courtesy of George W Bush the United States now has an active military presence on American soil in addition to the national guard.

It’s something to think about.

Share This

[Cait]

miws, no no no. I was’t referring to you or your post. And I agree with that segment that you quoted. I have a HUGE issue with Palin’s words and actions and I would love to see her put on trial for it so we can make an example of her.

My issue (listening, JoB?) is calling REPUBLICANS terrorists, which you didn’t. See Rich’s most recent post for my feelings on that.

I can think Palin is guilty AND agree with Rich’s post. They do not contradict each other. I take issue with basically every reference to “republicans” on here in reference to the shooting. Name names. Be careful. And don’t generalize.

Now that I’ve basically typed out a **** thesis on my point I hope it’s been made clear.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Cait, I apologize for offending you in any way and I am sorry if I haven’t been eloquent enough to get my point across.

I think I understand your intentions, and for the most part I agree with you. I was raised in an atmosphere where people discussed politics all across the spectrum without resorting to demeaning your opponent personally in order to win a point. I desperately long for a return to that era of civility.

Unfortunately, we have reached a point now where some of these same people will rabidly accuse me or people with whom I agree as being dangerously seditious and wanting to destroy “their” country. I have tried to mildly reassure them that I/we aren’t secret plants from some amorphous organization that wants to march them off to re-education camps, but when the far right commentators keep repeating that same meme, the words of individuals seem to get drowned out.

—

I appreciate your attempts to calm the waters, but I won’t be joining you until I start to see the far right start taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for, and start toning down, the violent ideation of their rhetoric.

I feel the concessions and compromises of the Left have led us to the point where people who would have been considered FAR on the Fringe Right back in the 70’s NOW set the agenda for the Republican Party. I believe, and all evidence holds that I am correct, that Americans DON’T want to live under a corporatist oligopoly. I feel we have reached the point where we on the left can no longer make concessions that don’t completely compromise, not just OUR ideals, but the ideals of our Nation’s Founders.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Exactly Jo, when Republican Party officials are resigning because of the fear of violence amongst the far right fringes, Democrats can’t be taken to task for crying wolf.

Share This

[JoB]

Cait…

so let me see if i understand your point.

you agree with Sarah Palin’s guilt

but you give Republicans a pass on her guilt because you don’t think she reflects current republican rhetoric

and you base that on what?

have you listened to Michelle Bauckman?

or Tim Pawlenty?

i mention those two because i had the dubious privilege of meeting both of those current republican political stars in person in Minnesota and listening to them speak.

Bauckman was particularly vitriolic when it came to racial comments during Katrina…

Pawlenty’s rhetoric was equally vitriolic towards the muslim community and Minnesota’s legally elected muslim representative to congress.

Their publicly reported comments paled in comparison to what I personally heard them say in smaller political gatherings. Michelle is no more shy of using the N word than Pawlenty was of the term rag-head.

I use those two examples of hate speech cloaked as political dialog because they predated Sarah Plain’s emergence on the national political scene and are so obviously racial in nature…

those comments are only the tip of either candidate’s incendiary political rhetoric

What about Gifford’s political opponent in Arizona? His speech was at least equally reactionary as Sarah’s and more to the point was directed at congresswoman Gifford.

I could list republican candidate after candidate who currently flourish by using incendiary hate speech as campaign rhetoric…

that list that grew exponentially in the last election.

don’t you find King’s statement that Muslim Americans aren’t Americans an example of hate speech? You can’t get more mainstream than an appointment to the head of the committee on homeland security.

The specifics are there to back up the general claim that the republicans have not only used incendiary hate speech as campaign rhetoric but have increased it’s use in the past few years.

so here’s what i don’t understand.

You can clearly see the pattern in Sarah Palin

but fail to see that is endemic in current Republican political discourse

in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

Writing off the evidence as political bickering won’t stop the rhetoric…

In fact we have ample evidence that given a pass the rhetoric will only increase.

If Sarah is guilty then she has plenty of company.

That she is Republican isn’t that point..

that she is the poster child for using incendiary language to stir up voters is the point.

Unless we can admit that this is a problem

the problem will only escalate…

Share This

[Cait]

“but you give Republicans a pass on her guilt because you don’t think she reflects current republican rhetoric”

Yes. I do not think all Republicans need to feel guilt based on her actions or words.

It’s not “republican rhetoric”, it’s “hate rhetoric”.

Share This

[dawsonct]

I don’t feel there is any way that we could SAFELY (speaking Constitutionally here) prosecute any of the punditry for inciting any particular instance of violence, since they never actually say “go do this” specific act. Nevertheless, it does not absolve them from responsibility for the ultimate results of their hyperbolic teachings.

They are a bunch of corporatist millionaires that use wordsmith Frank Luntz to code their message in ways that incite unreasonable reactions from uncritical thinkers.

MOST of the time, all it does is get people elected who work against their constituents best interests, but a small, very, very fringe and violent minority of the minority are having their paranoia fed by this type of speech, and their reactions will inevitably and ALWAYS be violent.

The right-wing pundits are either aware of this factor and are incredibly dangerous for tapping into that vein, or their ignorance of the effect of their incendiary verbaige disqualifies them as thinkers worth paying attention to.

I would say the right needs another Bill Buckley, but you all consider David Brooks a wild-eyed leftist radical nowadays, so I am not holding out much hope.

Share This

[JoB]

Cait…

The most egregious and numerous examples of hate rhetoric hiding behind political discourse are to be found in the public statements of Republican candidates.

By electing the candidates who make those remarks…

Republican voters condone the statements of their candidates.

I am truly baffled that you can discount such a clear cause and effect relationship.

Share This

[Author]

Posts