These louts took advantage of the silence in the Theater of Respect and soliloquized about how the shooting resulted from and exemplified the terrible things about their political opponents. This either offended or annoyed the other players in the Theater of Respect, depending on whether they were genuinely decent people who mourn suffering or whether they simply felt constrained to behave as if they were.
That was yesterday. Today, it seems that everyone's ready to jump into the big generalizations game. But let's stop and think about this first. From everything we've seen so far, the gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, is deranged. Like many insane people, he connected up ideas that don't really connect:
A series of short videos posted on the Internet, apparently by Mr. Loughner, consist of changing blocs of text that are largely rambling and incoherent. Many take the form of stating a premise and then a logical conclusion that would follow from it.Ironically, writers purporting to be horrified by what happened yesterday will take the shooting as their premise and work — with what they think looks like sound reasoning — toward their conclusions.
They speak of being a “conscience dreamer”; becoming a treasurer of a new currency; controlling “English grammar structure”; mentioned brainwashing and suggested that he believed he had powers of mind control.
“In conclusion, my ambition — is for informing literate dreamers about a new currency; in a few days, you know I’m conscience dreaming!”
Now, my question is: Should we resist? The event is vivid. We've got to keep talking and writing. Everyone else is doing it now....
First, you might want to resist because it's the right thing to do not only out of respect for the dead and wounded but also because Jared Loughner is probably just a crazy guy whose acts say nothing about anybody else.
But let's assume you're not that pure. You're a political animal, and you're not too fastidious about using the raw material that comes your way. I'd say you ought to think very hard about whether you want to use this shooting in your political rhetoric. You might want to adhere to the respect for the victims/crazy gunman position because it serves your political interests.
But whose interests are served by chewing up the wounded flesh in the meat grinder of political rhetoric and whose interests are served by pretending to be above all that? Liberals have an interest in creating a big distraction that might undercut the prevailing conservative momentum. To conservatives, I would say: Don't help them.
Posts
266 comments:
1 – 200 of 266 Newer› Newest»I have already deleted one Facebook friend this morning for screeching that the Tea Party and Sara Palin really killed these people.
I am bracing for the onslaught.
I expect the comments on this post to be absolute insanity.
Good thing my daughter is coming over for lunch and I've got to rehearse for an upcoming audition with a pro showband.
This will keep me out of the discussion, thank God.
It's hard for me to discern any political content in the shootings.
The youtube video I saw by the shooter (the couple of minutes I could stand) makes me think he was schizophrenic and the violence was an outgrowth of his mental illness. Finding any meaning in that is not something I wish to pursue.
I'm very sorry for all the injured and the families involved (esp of the poor 9 year old girl, that's so horrible for her surviving family).
Only one thing surprised me in all of this shameful politicking of a tragedy: that Kos was capable of feeling shame; hence the airbrushing of his site.
blocs of text
Cornel West may be edited, but the NYT sure isn't.
Well said. And like "shoutingthomas", I unfriended somebody this morning for similar reasons. It would be nice to know more about the killer before making judgements.
Why do you pretend to want to know someone else's mind when you are so busy claiming to know moves them?
I am horrified not only by the shootings yesterday but by the growing body count from political violence in this country.
Althouse, you engage in a cheap shot by saying people speaking out against the strident and incendiary and violence-invoking rhetoric is somehow wrong.
Your reaction has been the same for every political killing: don't criticize the preachers of hate. Don't speak against "RELOAD" and "second amendment remedies" and the rest.
Under the self-serving rules you invent, it is never time to criticize these haters and fomenters. Not the day of, not the day after. You're an apologist.
It wasn't like this in America before. It is now.
Hear Giffords' own words. It informs this conversation:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs
Really, Althouse? After being found culpable for this, within minutes of the news appearing on the web, should Sara Palin and other Republicans just sit on their hands while they are basically being called terrorists by the leading lights of America's Tolerant Party?
That's bullshit.
This is the sanest thing I've read regarding the political posturing around this crime. Thank you.
Andrew Sullivan quoted a bit blaming the right-wingers and their atmospherics for the death of JFK at the hand of a left-winger. That lie is alive and well after nearly 50 years, so we should expect this lie to have a long life as well.
Conservatives have no choice but to fight back. We don't set the agenda, and we certainly can't get things off the agenda. When there was a chance yesterday that this was a tea partier, the media decided this was a huge and meaningful event for the country, and so it will be.
Why do you pretend to want to know someone else's mind when you are so busy claiming to know moves them?
I am horrified not only by the shootings yesterday but by the growing body count from political violence in this country.
Althouse, you engage in a cheap shot by saying people speaking out against the strident and incendiary and violence-invoking rhetoric is somehow wrong.
Your reaction has been the same for every political killing: don't criticize the preachers of hate. Don't speak against "RELOAD" and "second amendment remedies" and the rest.
You refuse to speak out against constant metaphors of violence. Without the Giffords shooting considered, that is wrong.
Under the self-serving rules you invent, it is never time to criticize these haters and fomenters. Not the day of, not the day after. You're an apologist.
It wasn't like this in America before. It is now.
Hear Giffords' own words. It informs this conversation:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs
It's entertainment. That brings eyeballs.
Wounded flesh is all very well, and actually appears as such if it appears in your own family, but otherwise it gives people the chance to entertain themselves by posturing one way or another about who they are.
That entertainment is the thing to decline, not out of respect so much as out of its effect on your character.
But that's the MSM audience - a minority but a minority big enough to sell to advertisers.
==
Sympathy ("sorry about your father") is extended not so that the guy knows you're sorry - you're probably indifferent in fact - but because it's a way of saying you're releasing the guy from his social or business obligations for a while. That's why it's polite. The guy has a use for your release from everyday obligations. He doesn't have to laugh at the same joke you always tell today, for example.
If you don't know the guy, it serves no purpose except for your own vanity. The guy has no obligation to you that you release him from.
Yesterday, some folks leapt into scoring political points...
I dunno if they scored anything, but Daily Kos was even nastier and funnier than usual.
"But whose interests are served by chewing up the wounded flesh in the meat grinder of political rhetoric and whose interests are served by pretending to be above all that?"
Good questions. In addition, there is the distinction between what is in your (best?) interest, and what you think is in your best interest.
A lot of the hyperpartisans, left and right, seem to believe that bringing down the whirlwind is in their best interest.
It probably isn't, though -- for them or anyone else. But they can't see that, because they're righteous indignation addicts. And this is the purest stuff they've had for years.
The doctrine of "never let a crisis go to waste" applies in many contexts.
Bear in mind the other political shootings and attempts of recent years, most people citing right wing and anti-government concerns:
- Attempt to shoot up the Tides Foundation by a Glenn Beck fan, stopped by police on his way to kill.
- Jim David Adkisson killed two people and wounded six others at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. "Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
- Scott Roeder, anti-abortion extremist, killed Dr George Tiller. Roeder is a hero to many anti-abortionists.
- Border protecting militia types Shawna Forde, Jason Bush, and Albert Gaxiola were arrested and charged with the murder of Raul Flores and his daughter, and the wounding of his wife.
- In 2008, Bill Gwatney, state chair of the Arkansas Democratic party, was and shot and killed.
And I'm missing a lot more...
If Muslims had been the shooters in this case, the right wing would be calling for concentration camps.
"Yesterday, some folks leapt into scoring political points"
Yes. And pointing that out is also an attempt to score political points.
How about John Hinkley, who shot Ronald Reagan in order to romantically impress Jodie Foster, a lesbian?
Assigning rational motives to irrational people is nuts.
It's nothing but performance art to me.
"Why do you pretend to want to know someone else's mind when you are so busy claiming to know moves them?"
Ever thought about standing in front of a mirror and saying that, Squealer?
"Normative sociology, the study of what the causes of problems ought to be, greatly fascinates all of us." -- Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
I don't think that it's wrong to speculate about motives (if motives is even the correct word for describing a crazy person's mindset), as long as you are clear, absolutely clear, that you are only speculating and guessing. I don't see that as disrespectful to the dead.
Trying to score poliical points and accuse those who had nothing to do with it, and trying to use it to shut down political speech, is twisted.
Although I shouldn't be by now, I'm also appalled by the dishonesty by ommission from people like Alpha Lib (and I've seen a lot of those people since yesterday, he's just an example we all recognize). They completely ignore anything that doesn't fit their worldview ("targets" used by the DNC, favorite books that are certainly not right-wing, etc.) and only seek to blame those that they have already chosen to hate. Sick, sick, sick liars.
Even if, in the completely unlikely event, this man was a complete Palin lover, unless Palin specifically said to kill those who disagree with her (however little Rep. Gifford, a bluedog, even does disagree), this man (and possibly his illness) is completely responsible for his actions. If we are to hold anyone who speaks negatively about a politician as insurers of that politician's safety, we have effectively shut down political speech in this country.
Which, I suppose, is what some people seem to want.
- Lyssa
To Ann Althouse's hysterically loaded question:
But whose interests are served by chewing up the wounded flesh in the meat grinder of political rhetoric and whose interests are served by pretending to be above all that?
The interests to be served by criticizing the hate speech of Sarah Palin and the rest includes:
- Tamping down the metaphors that invoke and legitimize violence from political leaders. Per chance to avoid more violence and death.
- Increasing the social shunning of those people and leaders who use violence-laced rhetoric against their opponents, the better to remove all incentive to use that language.
- To try to get to a point where our country attaches a social stigma to invoking and fomenting violence.
From my point of view, this is not mysterious in the slightest.
Ann, your question is just a political attack, setting yourself as some moral superior when you have failed time and time again to exercise moral choices to denounce the hate speech and hysteria.
Wow. This is the Sheriff for Pima County: Mecca of bigotry. Thank god he's keeping his perspective.
"To conservatives, I would say: Don't help them."
But aren't you helping them (liberals) by publishing posts like this. You know they are going to respond - much like Alpha (Assuming Alpha IS a liberal, since Meade said he's a fake. And how pathetic is that, if true) is doing now - and it will only get worse as the comments grow longer and longer.
One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.
“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/01/09/dem-operative-obama-should-totally-use-this-shooting-to-demagogue-tea-partiers/
AL - if you look up the definiation of "innuendo" you'll see that linking this to any political speech out there right now fits that definition perfectly. You're trying to score points here. And you're missing Ann's intent commpletely.
How about John Hinkley, who shot Ronald Reagan in order to romantically impress Jodie Foster, a lesbian?
Fair question. My answer:
a) That was not one of many acts of political violence.
b) There was not a background of political and media speakers invoking violence.
We don't have all the facts on the shooter. He does seem unbalanced and has a weird mix of views. But the calls for insurrection and anti-government hysteria appeal to such minds.
We had no such calls in early 1980s. I was politically active then, I protested Reagan, I know.
Say, AL: Why does Alan Grayson wear steel-toed boots?
To kick Republicans!
Har har hardy har!
I'm sure you deplored this when you heard it, right?
Trying to detect the political nuances within someone's insanity to score political points makes one look unserious and small.
So yes, I think it's probably in everyone's political interests to refrain from that.
I watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger and Jessica Yellin spend about 30 minutes speculating if Palin and Tea Parties are to blame.
They failed to mention President Obama's advice to "punch back twice as hard" or "they bring a knife, we bring a gun" etc
They failed to recall it was Howeird Dean who first screamed "we are taking our country back".
So, my answer is No, the media & libs will not learn from this murderous event.
Mead, yesterday you said, "highly intelligent" frankly, I'm just not seeing it.
This is a crucial time for Sarah Palin. A misstep could hurt her political future. Problem is, it's a minefield right now, and therefore hard to know where to step. First advice: at least for a while, it's about Giffords and the other victoms, not about Palin or any other politician.
As to Rep. Giffords' "crosshairs" statement: I likw most everything I see about her, but that quote was all political. Palin's graphic was no different than several used by the Democrats in their campaign.
Another part of an unbalanced mind can be delusions of grandeur. So they can hook into political movements calling for violence and play out their issues there.
Or not. The point is that we should reject invocations of violence in political speech. (Althouse will not).
Here is a listing of violent rhetoric as well as a number of acts.
We don't have all the facts on the shooter. He does seem unbalanced and has a weird mix of views. But the calls for insurrection and anti-government hysteria appeal to such minds.
What you're saying is, you don't claim to know, yet you do claim to know, what drove the shooter.
::groan::
Freeman Hunt said...
Trying to detect the political nuances within someone's insanity to score political points makes one look unserious and small.
Yes. Stupid too.
David:
Palin's graphic was no different than several used by the Democrats in their campaign.
I call bullshit. Steaming heaping bullshit.
Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery. Who is the Democrat who used language like "reload" and uses rifle crosshairs over opponents?
Ya got nuthin. False equivalence.
The rush to pin blame on one side or another was here, in the media, and by some officials, which says quite a lot about the times.
Some of it was done to refute any association, and avoid partisan blame. I suppose it's a good thing that no one wants this guy on their team.
But it makes me fearful as well. We seem to be at a crisis point in history, where things could change very quickly, set off even by a minor event, like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand before World War I.
It's a lack of leadership, for one thing. The US is acting like a hydra, pulling in multiple directions, each head biting at the other. There is no calming voice, no reassurance, no vision, no hopefulness.
Not yet.
" We have nothing whatsoever to do with this," Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. "We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps," she said, suggesting that it is a "surveyor's symbol."
So Alpha, where are your condemnations of the many, many uses of violent rhetoric from the left?
* Did you condemn the Alan Grayson comment Mesquito pointed out?
* Did you condemn the not one, but two uses of targets by the DNC that others have pointed to?
* Did you condemn and shun President Obama, for his "they bring a knife, you bring a gun" and "punch back twice as hard, get in their faces" language?
* Did you express anger over the movie about assasinating GWB, and the many liberals who actively wished for his and VP Cheney's deaths?
Etc., etc., etc.
Otherwise, blow it out your ass.
- Lyssa
The Left are the people who are trying to make political hay out of this. They should be held accountable for that. What they're trying to do is live by the new Lefty mantra, "Never let a good crisis go to waste".
There are plenty of examples of inflammatory rhetoric from the Left - up to and including the Lightworker - and plenty of Demo and other Lefty maps using targets as a device.
Ann is right when she says don't help them, but I would add this. The Left would love it if Conservatives were good ladies and gentlemen once again and said nothing, letting them control the debate. Rebut them with facts and let it stand. Don't sink to the level we've seen in the last day from people like Alpha and Oaf - and Florida.
As it appears this morning, the shooter was an anti-Semite who targeted what one site said was Arizona's first Jewish Congresswoman. If AZ has the death penalty, they should use it.
No, none of us is pure. And we should not use others as political props, in any case, but especially by exploiting their tragedy, by which to score partisan political points or otherwise advance our own selfish agendas.
And, when we are wrongly attacked and slandered as being the cause of such tragedy, we would all do well to more often bear wrongs patiently and forgive injuries done to us.
That said, one does have an obligation to truth.
And it does not exploit the dead, injured, or their families, nor is it contrary to patience and forgiveness for those who are the victims of such abhorent exploitation to call attention to such abohorent practices and condemn them.
I don't know about other places, but for the first several hours yesterday, the initial stories in the Washington Post all had to prominently state how Giffords had drawn opposition for her support of ObamaCare.
The inference was clear -- that some right-winger, some Tea Party, Sarah Palin type, being the evil bastards they are, had done this.
That the Washington Post's "reporters" and editors are all political hacks who would sink so low is made clear in practically every story they write on every subject. But that does not mean that one should not call them out on it. And if others did the same thing -- and apparently they did, and typically mostly from the mouth-foaming left, which includes much of the MSM -- then they too are to be condemned and one should not be shy about voicing such condemnation.
I just came back from Mass, where the priest prayed for the victims of the attacks and for an end to political vitriol in America and I thought that we should be praying for the mentally ill and for those affected and victimized by it.
Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery.
That's easy. Obama. Next?
On Friday I posted a comment about truth vs partisanship made back in the '60s by Thomas Merton. The response to the tragedy in Tucson is a sad illustration of what Merton talks about--a tendency that every one of us has to one extent or another: Thomas Merton on Truth and Partisanship
If Muslims had been the shooters in this case, the right wing would be calling for concentration camps.
Probably. And the mainstream media would be saying, over and over and over again, "It's too soon to jump to conclusions." (Which would be the right thing to say - about your hypothetical Muslim, and this gunman in Tucson.)
woof:
"" We have nothing whatsoever to do with this," Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. "We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps," she said, suggesting that it is a "surveyor's symbol.""
I think this counts as blowing it.
"Conscience dreaming" is actually I think "conscious dreaming." This is an activity advised by Jungians to revisit your dreams and make them go the way you want, in a kind of half-sleep. I'm not trying to indict Jungians here, but just trying to get a sense of this young man, who wasn't very well-educated, and is, like you say, clearly a nut. When we give legitimacy to his actions by tying them to a former governor, or to a coherent populist movement, it's like we try to give John Hinkley, Lynette Squeaky Fromme, Cho, Manson, John Chapman, or any of the other small subset of lunatic shooters in our immediate past legitimacy. This guy was not legitimate, no one welcomes what he did on any side of the aisles. I like your sense of wanting to silence the shouting over the shooting. There's no point to it, except perhaps to try to get the momentum to move the other way.
We should continue to talk about why we shouldn't talk about this, and shouldn't leap to bizarre conclusions.
I beg your pardon Ann but only a few liberals are grinding on the axe and there are an equal number of conservatives in the fray.
I do appreciate your playing to your base here but we could have all done without those last sentences.
I've written on a number of places that this is partially a result of wild rhetoric slung around everywhere and from all directions.
If you question how this guy got his hands on the weapon du jour you are inatantly attacked and the "guns don't kill people stuff" comes flying out. If you mention rhetoric the Palin defenders leap up even though no one - or I didn't anyway - mention her in connection with this.
I'll go back to my instrospection about this and look for a day when the temptation to toss a cheap shot out isn't acted upon.
The comments here are like many on the blogs elsewhere - full of "aha he mus be a liberal or aha he must be a neo-nazi or aha a conservative gun nut". Can't you see that this is precisely the noise this fellow was listening to in a mind that didn't know where it was.
...A sad day......
Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery. Who is the Democrat who used language like "reload" and uses rifle crosshairs over opponents?
Right here: http://bigjournalism.com/jsexton/2010/04/03/memo-to-paul-krugman-my-search-was-not-in-vain/
Although I'm sure that targets and crosshairs are, somehow, completely different in your mind.
Do you honestly consider yourself to be arguing in good faith when you ignore these things? If so, you are seriously out of touch with reality.
AlphaLiberal said...
I call bullshit. Steaming heaping bullshit.
Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery. Who is the Democrat who used language like "reload" and uses rifle crosshairs over opponents?
Be careful what you wish for.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Verum Serum posted your rebuttal yesterday showing almost the same type of messages by the Democratic Congrssional Campaign Committee run by Van Hollen, who now decries Palin imagery. The DCCC even uses the same map version with "Bullseye" instead of "crosshairs" (and labels them bullseys) in case you miss the imagery. They go on to call the GOP Congresspersons in the Bullseyes as "targeted Republicans" for opposing the stimulus.
pretty much the same as Palin except of course, she is not an elected federal official, just a private citizen from a part of the country that uses hunting language in normal discourse. When an anti-gun Dem uses gun talk, you'd think it was done with more malice and forethought :)
@AL:
Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery. Who is the Democrat who used language like "reload" and uses rifle crosshairs over opponents?
Ok. Sure. Here ya go.
Ya got nuthin. False equivalence.
Looks like sumpin to me...
wv: nerse: Nerse, come help me pull AlphaLiberal's head out of his ass, stat!
"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps," she said, suggesting that it is a "surveyor's symbol."
From a cartographic design standpoint, that's just baloney.
AlphaLiberal:
"Show us the Democratic leader or candidate who was so consistently using violent language and imagery."
Joe Manchin, perhaps?
Yesterday, some folks leapt into scoring political points
Um, it wasn't "some folks" it was liberals.
All liberals.
Great post, Ann.
Yes, Palin used gun imagery, but so have the Democrats! And so have politicians forever.
Loughner is just insane and, in saner moments, a radical liberal. Remember that the left hated Giffords because she was too moderate.
These pols blow it every time. How do conservatives not play into the politization game? I can't imagine the scenario.
I too unfriended a ranter today. It's just rude to use FB that way.
"Joe Manchin, perhaps?"
Agreed! Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat, used a gun to fire on a liberal policy.
As far as Obama inciting violence, that's nonsense.
On Meet the Press we're reminded of the many times Tea Party leaders have threatened to turn to bullets if ballots fail.
There is no end of that talk from the right.
I found most disgusting the MSM sprint to a conclusion that her positions on health care or this or that were the reason for the shooting.
The implications are clear from that association. This kind of coordinated lie has been done before (noted above @ JFK and Oklahoma), and it seemed like a rapid response to create precisely this belief here, not least by Andrew Sullivan.
And damnit I am so tired of that.
"Who is the Democrat who used language like "reload" and uses rifle crosshairs over opponents?"
I suggest you do some quick research to answer this question. Start with this great post by over at Legal Insurrection . . .
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-sicknesses-on-display-in-arizona.html
The Democratic Leadership Council used one a while back.
And here's a Democrat with a wonderful campaign video putting his opponent in the crosshairs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
Bear in mind the other political shootings and attempts of recent years, most people citing right wing and anti-government concerns:
Um, where were you when Congressman Cantor's office was shot at last year?
When have you ever denounced the president you voted for when he said "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"?
When have you ever denounced the president you voted for when he said "Tell me who's ass I gotta kick"?
When have you ever denounced the hundreds of posts on the DU & Kos that wished death on VP Cheney when he went into the hospital?
You are a silly, lying, ignorant hypocrite.
This is a terrible thing that has happened and everyone needs to sit back and let the facts come out..and act like grown ups...sure the left will use this, that is what they do..but that does not mean that the right has to jump in to the fray and start bickering with them. A little girl is dead and that is an awful thing. This is not the time for the usual cat fight.
I don't doubt that this young man is insane. He might have looked at some anti semitic web sites and seen something that helped drive him over the edge..who knows what triggered him? We may never know.
As far as Obama inciting violence, that's nonsense.
In other words, you can't condemn his words.
You are a silly, ignorant, lying hypocrite.
Read about Christina Greene, the 9 year old who was killed.
She was born on 9/11/2001.
She was recently elected to the student council at her elementary school, and a neighbor offered to take her to the Safeway talk because it was a nice chance to meet a congresswoman and see some politics first hand.
http://www.ktla.com/ktla-christina-greene-arizona-victim,0,4003786.story
I would urge liberals to extend to Palin and her supporters the same courtesy that they extend to Muslims when some guy named Mohammed shoots up the office. In such cases they swiftly declaim that the acts of a lone gunman cannot be used to libel the faith of a multitude......I would also urge Palin supporters not to use imagery involving cross hairs. I don't think it truly encourages violence, but it does encourage the use of the blood libel against Republicans when some madman goes off the deep end.....After the attempted assasination of Pres Reagan, I do not recollect any calls for less vitriol in the rhetoric against him or any suggestion that such rhetoric was in anyh way responsible for the shooter's motivation.....Rep Gifford was a patently decent, likable person. I cannot imagine anyone hating or, for that matter, even disliking her. The gunman for all his madness was truly a scumbag.......
That was a dumb ad by Harry Mitchell (of Arizona) Chef Mojo. It was wrong of that Democrat Harry Mitchell to use crosshairs like that.
I am very willing to criticize Dems or liberals who do invoke violence.
Join me and criticize Palin, Angle and the others for doing the same.
AlphaLiberal:
"Agreed! Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat, used a gun to fire on a liberal policy."
Great! There's some agreement.
I say you should attempt to drum** DINOs out of your party so that they no longer cloud the issues. That's almost assuredly the way to greater electoral success.
Let me know how that goes for you.
Now...
About President Obama encouraging people to bring guns to knife fights...
Shouldn't you want to drum him out of the Democrat Party as well?
**Do you like the idea of "eliminating" or "drumming out" the DINOs? Why are you so violent?
In a way, all these attempts to cite instances of violent rhetoric from the left is futile. That's because any leftist worth his or her salt will maintain with a straight face that left-wing rhetoric, no matter how overheated, never escalates into violence, whereas right-wing rhetoric always does. And that's because left-wingers are inherently peaceful (they just need to blow off steam, that's all) while right-wingers ... you figure it out.
Word verification: tzing!
Now...
About President Obama encouraging people to bring guns to knife fights...
Shouldn't you want to drum him out of the Democrat Party as well?
No, of course not.
She simply dismissed it as "nonsense" magically pretending it didn't happen.
Do you see the big difference people? To the small degree that some Democrats use violent language and imagery, Democrats criticize them.
Example from Dailykos are the many posts criticizing now-Senator Manchin for his gun ad. One example.
All the talk of bullets over ballots, insurrection, gun sights, "reload," and the rest is accepted and defended by the right wing, including Althouse.
So, Dems criticize their own on this, Rs defend the speech and attack critics of the violent speech.
Now Jay, I'm trying to poke the bear** and I would appreciate you finding your own bear for the time being.
**miniature dachshund, perhaps, but you get the point
AlphaLiberal:
"...violent speech."
Would those be the captions during fights on the old Batman TV show?
Can you please point to "violent" speech? I'm laughing so hard right now I simply cannot stop. Usually clowns are repulsive to me but you amuse...
Now...
About President Obama encouraging people to bring guns to knife fights...
Shouldn't you want to drum him out of the Democrat Party as well?
That is an old political saying that we have used in this country for decades where we did not have political killings.
Kind of like "throwing someone under the bus," I'm told.
But we all should shy away from such language for some time, and I expect the President would agree.
I do oppose DINOs and try to elect Dems I think are better. I've done so for a very long time.
HDHouse said...
I beg your pardon Ann but only a few liberals are grinding on the axe and there are an equal number of conservatives in the fray.
Toddle on over to Insta and get an eyeful. Sullivan, Krugman, CNN - especially Blitzer, Kos (surprise!), and, of course, a lot of comment boards. For once, face the truth.
Do you see the big difference people? To the small degree that some Democrats use violent language and imagery, Democrats criticize them.
You can't provide a single example of any Democrat criticizing Obama for saying "we bring a gun" or we punch back twice as hard
You are a silly liar.
"I was politically active then, I protested Reagan, I know."
And then goes on to talk about delusions of grandeur. Wow, you're a tower of a human being. I can only imagine what a tiresome self-important bore you were in that decade. My god, is there a more insufferably, sanctimonious cretin on the internet than Alpha Dork?
It has just gotten insufferable. I feel like I just stepped into a sandbox full of children. I'm sending you all home - your diapers are leaking and it's ruining the place.
That is an old political saying that we have used in this country for decades where we did not have political killings.
Laugh out loud funny.
If this were true, you'd be able to provide an example of any Republican President saying it.
Funny thing, you can't.
You are a silly liar.
That is an old political saying that we have used in this country for decades where we did not have political killings.
So let me get this straight.
The President (a Democrat and you can provide no examples of a Republican saying this) says If they bring a knife, we bring a gun and that is just swell. But a map, a map, with crosshairs is too violent.
You are pathetic.
Birkel, here are some examples (which you will probably trivialize and dismiss):
“We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.” This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.”
This is typical of the calls for violent insurrection which are unique to the right wing:
Kitty Werthmann, a speaker at the “How to Take Back America” Conference in St. Louis, tells her audience, “If we had our guns [during the time of the Nazis’ reign in Germany], we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.”
And it comes from the top of the Republican Party:
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, circulates a PowerPoint presentation to his colleagues in which he compares the Obama administration to the Nazi regime in Germany and likens himself to Gen. George Patton, bragging, "Put anything in my scope and I will shoot it."
Glenn Beck:
“Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where's that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it's going to come from Texas.’”
Jay,
At some point you're just calling names whilst denying me my fun.
AlphaLiberal will be here to chide for some time. Let me borrow her.
AlphaLiberal,
I see you gathered some quotes you find offensive. That's uninteresting. Could you please forward evidence that those "words" are "violent"?
My seven year old daughter understands that "sticks and stones may break her bone but words will never hurt her" for the very simple reason that words are not and cannot be violent.
The point of violence is not itself violent.
It transcends differences.
You win or you lose.
That's so handy that it shows up as a figure of speech everywhere.
It imagines transcending a difference.
You can beat somebody in an argument. Could that be more peaceful?
The most extreme transcending of difference best stands for the entire range.
That's why it's used as a figure of speech.
BLogger dumped my first draft in response to the guy citing Batman.
1) NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris writes in an editorial published at WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
2) Glenn Beck: February 20, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts a program that games a 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect.” It involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government.
3) Michelle Bachmann “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back."
4) Glenn Beck: “Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where's that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it's going to come from Texas.’”
5) July 15, 2009—Katherine Crabill, a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, appearing at a “Tea Party” rally, Crabill quotes a 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then states, “We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.” This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.”
6) See Tea Party invocation of "blood of tyrants" and "tree of liberty."
There are many more such examples.
Blogger dumped my first draft in response to the guy citing Batman.
1) NRA celebrity spokesman Chuck Norris writes in an editorial published at WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
2) Glenn Beck: February 20, 2009—FOX commentator Glenn Beck hosts a program that games a 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect.” It involves citizen militias in the South and West taking up arms against the U.S. government.
3) Michelle Bachmann “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back."
.....
4) Glenn Beck: “Somebody asked me this morning, they said, ‘you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future?’ And I said, ‘if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country … Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.’ And they said, ‘where's that going to come from?’ And I said, ‘Texas, it's going to come from Texas.’”
5) July 15, 2009—Katherine Crabill, a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates, appearing at a “Tea Party” rally, Crabill quotes a 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then states, “We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny.” This thought is reinforced on Crabill’s campaign website, where she states the Second Amendment “was clearly intended for self defense as well as, and more specifically, to keep the government on notice of an armed citizenry.”
6) See Tea Party invocation of "blood of tyrants" and "tree of liberty."
There are many more such examples.
From everything we've seen so far, the gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, is deranged.
AZ's more orless non-existent handgun laws are about the best in the US, according to the NRA boys. So Loughner the glibertarian may have been insane--that doesn't stop any Gun Store from selling him a gun--that's how the slack-jawed yokels of the NRA and Sarah Grizzly want it.
""ah need a .......Glock, man. Time to implement the Gold standard. GALT TIME.........""
Kitty Werthmann, a speaker at the “How to Take Back America” Conference in St. Louis, tells her audience, “If we had our guns [during the time of the Nazis’ reign in Germany], we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.”
Obama's "if they bring knives, you bring guns" statement always reminds me of a scene in West Side Story:
-l want to hold it [the turf] like
-we always held it-- with skin.
-But if they say blades,
-l say blades.
-lf they say guns,
-l say guns.
-l say l want the Jets
-to be the number one...
Interestingly, this statement from a gang-leader in a play about violence and hatred is less harsh than Obama's statement: Rif only seeks to match violence; Obama's sought to on-up it.
- Lyssa
"All Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." --Ari Fleischer, 2001
At the time, it was an assault on the First Amendment, but it got better.
My hope is that this rush to blame Palin and the Tea Party backfires on the left, just like the inappropriate leftist demagoguery that happened at Paul Wellstone's memorial and resulted in the election of a GOP senator in Minnasota back in 2004.
Because it is obvious that this man was more leftist than far right and mostly crazy.
It seems to me to be very important to counter the concerted effort from the Left to capitalize on this tragedy.
This gunman seemed obsessed with many things, but Sarah Palin and the Tea Party were not among those things.
I think it's fairly safe to assume no blame can be ascribed to them.
Those who claim otherwise are actually hypocrites. If you want to engender a climate of enmity and fear, by all means keep accusing people of things they are not responsible for while the bodies are still warm!
In Alpha Lib's world:
If a leftist says it, it's a figure of speech. If a rightist says it, it's an incitement meant to be taken literally.
Everyone got it?
Liberals have an interest in creating a big distraction that might undercut the prevailing conservative momentum. To conservatives, I would say: Don't help them.
Which is why I don't understand why so many people here are giving this putz the time of day.
It is throwing reason away to try to reason with maroons like him. Why waste your time? Ignore him and his comrades.
So Alpha Liberal is all some sort of performance theater, right?
I hope so, because otherwise he is one of the most despicable human beings I have ever encountered.
The Comments section should be renamed the "Alpha-Liberal" show.
AA's post was interesting, the comment section not.
Sorry, I can't hack it.
Michelle Bachmann “armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back."
Hysterical.
That is "violent rhetoric" but apparently this,
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.
Is not.
Isn't that convenient?
J said...So Loughner the glibertarian may have been insane--that doesn't stop any Gun Store from selling him a gun--that's how the slack-jawed yokels of the NRA and Sarah Grizzly want it.
There are at least 2 parts to that problem. The fact that we let our insane out of institutions in order to become among other things, homeless, prey and killers...
The fact that somebody who some now say appeared unbalanced then, but who had not committed any crime and who could not be locked up as certifiable before, was allowed to legally purchase a gun.
Liberals were for the most part responsible for the deconstruction of our residential mental health hospital system.
conservatives are for the most part responsible for protecting the rights of the non-criminals to keep and bear arms.
Let's say that the guy hadn't had a gun... How many folks could he have killed with an F250 filled in back with cans of gasoline hitting the crowd and the Safeway storefront at say 60 mph?
I have no doubt that the left would try to trump this up (haven't paid attention to any news on it yet) and Althouse has a great post in response to that sort of chicanery. But at the same time to refuse to acknowledge the real, even if highly unusual, problem of violent rhetoric in politics is a cop-out.
There's enough blame to go around everywhere. Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame. Chalk psychosis up to an "act of God" if you will, but don't tell me that there aren't people out there who are perfectly happy to exploit the psychotics among us and put them in the service of this sort of thing.
There are many more such examples
And yet the number of incidents of violence perpetrated by tea partiers remains at zero.
And yet the number of violent incident perpetrated by those reading Marx is growing.
Loughner was deranged. The majority of American people know this. But his act will settle into the American conscience as symbolic of something horrible happening in our politics. Giffords will be recuperating for a long time; there is no forgetting what was done. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, will have to recalibrate -- as they already are starting to do by postponing the health care repeal vote. Palin's forward motion is probably over.
This is a horrible tragedy. It can be a wake-up call. That's a personal choice. It calls for personal change.
What I'm going to say won't make any sense to a number of people - but I want to express it anyway.
We are in a time of polarization. Too many dismiss that as they way of the world. This time, the polarization creates an either/or reality. Either you are a good guy or you are a bad gay. And this time, far too many have lost their humanity in their obsession with dogma and ideology. They go beyond sanity and humane rhetoric in their anger and rage at those who differ from them.
So much of this is about emotion: fear, anger rage, hatred, blame - emotions that people do not know how to express - do not know how to deal with.
Indeed, the insanity and the lack of humanity gets closer to the core of the tragedy, imo. To lose the ability to see one's fellow members of mankind as human beings and to, instead, erroneously, see them as evil, as individuals who have no right to their views and even have no right to exist.
The extremes - the hard right and the hard left perpetuate this insanity. They obsess with dogma over dialogue and they have ceased thinking and feeling. They have become stupid and dangerous. You don't even have to wonder what they will say - it it so predictable. Rather than deal with their emotions they choose to blame and attack.
All this is a tragedy, imo. When people aren't listened to - when they aren't acknowdelged as human beings - they are more likely to turn to violence. And they are encouarged in this climate - in this time of crisis and chaos.
What is gained if you win an election but lose your humanity?
Let's admit that once something becomes a popular line in a movie (and used by the "good guys", i.e. law enforcement), enough people see it as something other than a political directive, and that it significantly loses its power to incite hyperbolic acts in the real world.
"creating a big distraction that might undercut the prevailing conservative momentum"
I think the cons are the ones looking for distractions. They'll, as usual, get the TPers on the defensive regarding the evil libs/media. Look over there!!!
Then, on the DL, it's tax cut and spend. Cut a hundred billion...err...we mean fifty billion...ahh...we mean thirty billion. And, this is just intra-R downward bidding. What will actually become law? Who cares, have you seen what the evil libs are up to?
Rather than arguing whether this type of discussion is appropriate, it would seem better to note who is making these arguments and keep an eye on what they do next. It seems that many are succumbing to the same kind of thinking that culminated in Loughner's vile acts.
These people are intelligent and mature enough to know better, yet they they give no evidence of it. Are they all ticking timebombs?
"Tell me whose ass I've gotta kick" is now an example of violent rhetoric? Please.
@AlphaLiberal:
That was a dumb ad by Harry Mitchell (of Arizona) Chef Mojo. It was wrong of that Democrat Harry Mitchell to use crosshairs like that.
I am very willing to criticize Dems or liberals who do invoke violence.
Join me and criticize Palin, Angle and the others for doing the same.
Clever lad! But not clever enough.
I reject the notion that any political rhetoric is responsible for any of this. My example is not a condemnation of Mitchell, but an illustration of your rank hypocrisy. I do not condemn political rhetoric or imagery; in fact, I embrace it! It is part and parcel of this nation's history and is enshrined in it's politics. You've surrounded yourself in a feel-good fog of an imagined past when politics was somehow innocent and wholesome, instead of the blood sport that it is.
When you condemn so-called "violent" political speech and/or imagery, then you condemn free speech in toto, and that is where you are, Alpha.
To quote Glenn Reynolds: Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?
So which is it, Alpha?
I told my boss last week that I was going to kick a vendor's ass.
Or maybe I used it in a motivational sense, as in giving them a swift kick in the ass.
What if I said I intended "to light a fire under someone's ass"? Is that also, er, incendiary?
AlphaLiberal:
So you're proudly taking the point of view that
1) The First American Revolution was a bad thing.
2) Fighting Nazis with guns is a bad thing.
****
I'm not sure that's going to be a popular position, overall. But keep *figuratively* fighting the *figurative* fight.
"Tell me whose ass I've gotta kick" is now an example of violent rhetoric? Please.
Hysterical.
This,
If a leftist says it, it's a figure of speech. If a rightist says it, it's an incitement meant to be taken literally.
Nailed you ignorants to a tee.
You bozos are so predictable.
ah fock I got to take ..........
a .... Jay. brb
put some water on that sheet...
David Backes, nice quote. I also enjoyed checking out the rest of your blog. Good stuff.
Paul Krugman is a disgusting human being. He not only calls this an asassination but then shuts off the comments section because he doesnt want to deal with it. I had little respect for him to begin with. Now i have even less. He is nothing but a vile partisan pretending to be an economist.
Sunsong, it's not that I think that what you said at 11:26 is wrong, exactly, but I do disagree to the point that you are suggesting that this is unusual or based only on present events.
We have always been politically polarized. Read about campaign in-fighting and propaganda in the 1800's- it was generally far worse than today's. Polarization is human nature; it has always been. Similarly, there have always been crazies, and there have always been people who act on their obsessions, whatever they may be, with violence.
We live in interesting times, but they aren't special.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: Jay. Master of the one-word non-rebuttal. Whatever sense of reason he had was replaced by his own personal reactions - or at least what he claims are his own personal reactions.
Not the best approach for someone to take in a discussion about where to draw the line between speech and incitement.
I guess he felt "incited". Conversation itself, for him, apparently is just a form of incitement.
@AlphaLiberal:
That was a dumb ad by Harry Mitchell (of Arizona) Chef Mojo. It was wrong of that Democrat Harry Mitchell to use crosshairs like that.
I am very willing to criticize Dems or liberals who do invoke violence.
Join me and criticize Palin, Angle and the others for doing the same.
Clever lad! But not clever enough.
I reject the notion that any political rhetoric is responsible for any of this. My example is not a condemnation of Mitchell, but an illustration of your rank hypocrisy. I do not condemn political rhetoric or imagery; in fact, I embrace it! It is part and parcel of this nation's history and is enshrined in it's politics. You've surrounded yourself in a feel-good fog of an imagined past when politics was somehow innocent and wholesome, instead of the blood sport that it is.
When you condemn so-called "violent" political speech and/or imagery, then you condemn free speech in toto, and that is where you are, Alpha.
To quote Glenn Reynolds: Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?
So which is it, Alpha?
wv: molestr: Alpha is a molestr of truth...
@AlphaLiberal, Ritmo, J, etc.
So which is it?
Are you liars or contemptible opportunists?
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".
-Barack Obama.
Actually, that was the colleague of Elliot Ness.
For all you yokels who claim to respect law enforcement.
Dupes.
Chill out, Chef. Go make an omelette or something.
Pima County Sherriff Clarence W. Dupnik, was clearly angered by what he heard from the assassin: “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry … it is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”
Hey is close to this event and has probably interacted with the perp.
lyssalovelyredhead,
We have always been politically polarized. Read about campaign in-fighting and propaganda in the 1800's- it was generally far worse than today's.
Yours is a not an uncommon response. These times *are* different because of many reasons. That's a different debate. But my point here is about the inhumanity. That's what stands out to me. It is my understanding that the Founders argued fiercly and passionately - *but* they also respected each. That's not the case now. The polarization of our times includes - at the extremes - a loss of humanity and a loss os sanity.
That's my view. It's ok with me if we disagree.
@AlphaLiberal:
That was a dumb ad by Harry Mitchell (of Arizona) Chef Mojo. It was wrong of that Democrat Harry Mitchell to use crosshairs like that.
I am very willing to criticize Dems or liberals who do invoke violence.
Join me and criticize Palin, Angle and the others for doing the same.
Clever lad! But not clever enough.
I reject the notion that any political rhetoric is responsible for any of this. My example is not a condemnation of Mitchell, but an illustration of your rank hypocrisy. I do not condemn political rhetoric or imagery; in fact, I embrace it! It is part and parcel of this nation's history and is enshrined in it's politics. You've surrounded yourself in a feel-good fog of an imagined past when politics was somehow innocent and wholesome, instead of the blood sport that it is.
When you condemn so-called "violent" political speech and/or imagery, then you condemn free speech in toto, and that is where you are, Alpha.
To quote Glenn Reynolds: Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?
So which is it, Alpha?
wv: molestr: Alpha is a molestr of truth...
(I attempted to post this twice before. Evidently Althouse doesn't like me linking to Instapundit or something...)
http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html
So should we criticize these preachers of hate?
How about the Discovery Channel guy? Should Al Gore be brought up on charges for inciting him to murder people over global warming?
How about the Fort Hood guy? Oh wait he's Muslim? Totally ignore him he's in an Official Democrat Victim Group and cannot be held responsible for his actions.
In this entire debate, I have yet to hear the words "Taxi Driver".
So, the misunderstanding here is that liberals think that asking people to refrain from calls to violence is a common sense, nonpartisan request. Especially as the atmosphere is leading to more and more violence.
However, conservatives think that's a "special agenda." They rely on open calls for violence, routinely. So they feel attacked if incitement to violence is criticized and defend those who call for violence.
There we have the nut of the disagreement.
From Alpha's "that was then, this is now" school of commenting. This is regarding Major Hasan:
"I'm glad General Casey is more responsible than Ann Althouse:
"We have to be careful," Casey said, "because we can't jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that have come out." The general added that speculation could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers."
But, hey, who needs voices of calm and reason when people can scream and leap to conclusions?
Cue the "we are at war with Islam" craziness."
re 11: 46: are you just another stupid hillbilly of AA, or one of the Meyer Lansky wannabes? For that matter, your little attempt at racketeering doesn't hold water. (Some of us don't belong to GOP, OR Demos, genius)
The AZ handgun laws were a causal factor, as were the posters with crosshairs, etc. As Jane Fonda realizes that's what the TP, GOP, and NRA lovers have to own up to, instead of indulging in their usual whiny moralistic crap.
...that Kos was capable of feeling shame; hence the airbrushing of his site.
Not shamne. Like any intelligent sociopath, he realizes that others would look negatively upon him now that Giffords has been shot. It's simply a CYA attempt.
I am horrified not only by the shootings yesterday but by the growing body count from political violence in this country.
Alpha claims to be horrified but I don't believe him. For Alpha this has been nothing but an opportunity to assail those on the other side of the political spectrum from him. Lies, half-truths and a total denial of violent rhetoric and actions by the left make up Alpha's diatribes.
C'mon, Alpha! Which is it?
Are you a liar or a contemptible opportunist?
That's what stands out to me. It is my understanding that the Founders argued fiercly and passionately - *but* they also respected each.
I think that this is where we disagree (which I agree, is fine; it's an interesting discussion and doesn't have to be an argument). The Founders probably did generally respect each other (although there are many examples where they showed great disrespect to each other), but the comparison to the Founders should be our current representatives.
Don't current members of government generally respect each other? How many Republicans have spoken highly of Rep. Gifford since this happened? Certainly, none have suggested that this was in any way justified or that she is in any way less than deserving of their full support. People who shoot people because of their politics (if, indeed, that's what happened here) are kooks. There were kooks in 1776 and there are kooks today; it's not a change in the times, it's just what is.
He was clearly an unmedicated and untreated paranoid schizophrenic.
There is no political significance. None at all.
There might be policy issues about mental health care or gun control.
But this is not about politics in the sense that the media are braying about it.
I've already concluded that J is a liar and Ritmo's a contemptible opportunist.
I would urge liberals to extend to Palin and her supporters the same courtesy that they extend to Muslims when some guy named Mohammed shoots up the office.
...because that same courtesy was extended by the right to that "guy named Mohammed"? That's not how I remember it.
There is/was nothing to be gained from speculating on the motives and affiliations of either shooter w/o facts. Time will give us those facts. Let's just all take a breath.
A Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, says if she is not elected then it may be time for "second amendment remedies."
To the extent of my knowledge, her call was not criticized by Republicans. More like defended.
Can no conservatives see any problem with this kind of talk? You expend more effort attacking those who criticize it than in criticizing the statement, itself.
We hear a lot of conservatives itching for violence, as I have documented here (more available), so perhaps violence is now a partisan issue which would explain attacking those who oppose it as partisan or opportunists.
Sick.
[Sheriff Dupnik] is close to this event and has probably interacted with the perp.
Again with the I-don't-know-yet-i-do-know routine?
Word verification: rittiest
Hell, Alpha, I'll give you a third option to choose from, because you're just so special!
Are you a liar, a contemptible opportunist, or just a lame, lonely douchebag?
What contemptible opportunities language and reason afford us!
You're just jealous, Chef. I'm riffing/exploring ideas here and haven't taken a strong stand, having spoken to both sides of the issue; I hardly even know all the details. But even you must know that it's best to argue an idea out before coming to a conclusion. At least, you probably admit as much to yourself on the days that you skip those sips on the early morning Bloody Mary and go right to flipping flapjacks for the customers.
J: Amigo!! Nightmare man. Mr. antisemite. You know, of course, that the Congresswoman Giffords was Jewish do you not? Do you not think that your virulent antisemitic rants have an impact on people in a perhaps negative way? That is your intent is it not.
And Ive concluded yr another piece of moralistic hick garbage, Mojo (and like perhaps point out the supposed lies, crimefighter).
Now, re read Miss Jane Fonda's comments re Palin and teabugger a few dozen times and maybe yll get it .. tho probably not.
I meant to add to that statement that conservatives approve and defend the use of guns in politics. We've seen it numerous times on these very pages after some wingers showed up at rallies across the country with weapons.
There is a growing "eliminationist" rhetoric from the right wing, where they call for the destruction and death of their opponents.
So when one party embraces violence and defends preaching it and using it, then it becomes partisan to denounce the hate speech.
Althouse sides with the preachers of hate and violence.
"Concluded" implies that you thought about something, Chef. Which you haven't done. Admit it - you're just emoting and having reactions to things without actually thinking about them.
Much like psychotics and knee-jerk pundit/opportunists would do.
"J" typed:
"As Jane Fonda realizes that's what the TP, GOP, and NRA lovers have to own up to, instead of indulging in their usual whiny moralistic crap."
I assume therefore that you hold Jane Fonda responsible for the deaths caused by the Viet Cong, no?
Based on the available facts such as:
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
It is reasonable to conclude that he read,
My Congresswoman voted against Nancy Pelosi and is now DEAD to me (yes "dead" was in all caps) on the Daily Kos and took action.
After all, as a liberal, it is quite likely he read sites like that and there is no evidence he was ever exposed to anything the Tea Party or Sarah Palin said.
I read in today's Sunday Paper a news article that mentioned the killers favorite reading.
Here's the exact quote:
"On YouTube, Loughner's profile listed Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' "The Communist Manifest" and Adolph Hitler's "mein Kampf" among his favorite books."
Jane Fonda was the one fondling the gun in Hanoi wasn't she?
k*thy:
So I suppose you would argue for "extending courtesy" to the Fort Hood shooter after it comes to light that he yelled Allah Ackbar before opening fire, right?
A Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, says if she is not elected then it may be time for "second amendment remedies."
And yet the number of violent incidents involving tea partiers remains at zero.
And yet a revered Democratic member of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, actually killed a woman.
And yet a revered Democratic member of the Senate, Robert Byrd, was a member of an organization that lynched people.
You are beyond parody.
So if conservatives use "gun rhetoric" - that means they are guilty of whatever comes down.
If liberals use gun rhetoric - no problem.
got it.
@Alpha:
Can no conservatives see any problem with this kind of talk?
This one certainly doesn't. There is no "violent" speech. There is no "hate" speech. There is simply speech, the freedom of which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. You obviously have a problem with that, Alpha. You want to shut down political speech you disagree with. I don't. The more, the merrier. It's the American way.
Don't give me bullshit about yelling, "Fire!," yada, yada.
Not one single example you tossed up is an incitement to riot, mayhem or murder. Not a damn one of them.
The left AND right AND all points in between use the exact same language, imagery and symbolism when it comes to politics. They always have and they always will.
Unless it is your intention to stiffle political discourse?
So, the misunderstanding here is that liberals think that asking people to refrain from calls to violence is a common sense, nonpartisan request.
Liberals routinely wish death on their political opponents.
You are beyond parody.
I'm sorry, but I've had it.
http://rabidsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/ive-about-had-it.html
1jpb said...
"creating a big distraction that might undercut the prevailing conservative momentum"
I think the cons are the ones looking for distractions. They'll, as usual, get the TPers on the defensive regarding the evil libs/media. Look over there!!!
Then, on the DL, it's tax cut and spend. Cut a hundred billion...err...we mean fifty billion...ahh...we mean thirty billion. And, this is just intra-R downward bidding. What will actually become law? Who cares, have you seen what the evil libs are up to?
PB&J, back in the saddle - and vindicating Ann, BTW.
The Tides Foundation was very nearly the scene of another bloodbath if not for the police pulling over the perp on his way to shoot it up.
Glenn Beck has ranted against the Tides Foundation many times in the past, invoking hysteria.
The Tides Foundation CEO has called for a boycott of Fox in response to their continued hosting of such inciteful speech:
On July 19th of this year, I arrived at our San Francisco office to learn that a misguided person carrying numerous guns and body armor had been on his way to start a "revolution" by murdering my colleagues and me. The Oakland Police Department called to tell us that, following a 12 minute shootout with the California Highway Patrol, law enforcement officials arrested an assailant who had targeted the Tides Foundation, an organization which I founded and currently serve as CEO, and the ACLU for violence. To say we were "shocked" does not adequately describe our reaction. Imagine, for a moment, that you were us and, had it not been for a sharp eyed highway patrolman, a heavily armed man in full body armor would have made it to your office with the intent to kill you and your colleagues. His motive? Apparently, it was because the charitable, nonpartisan programs we run are deemed part of a conspiracy to undermine America and the capitalist system, which is hogwash.
Although not a political organization, the Tides Foundation has been a frequent target of misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies by Fox News' Glenn Beck. Since his arrival at Fox in early 2009, Beck has repeatedly vilified Tides, suggesting we are intent on "creat[ing] a mass organization to seize power." He accuses the foundation of indoctrination and says we are "involved in some of the nastiest of the nasty." Beck tells viewers that Tides has "funneled" money to "some of the most extreme groups on the left" and that our mission is to "warp your children's brains and make sure they know how evil capitalism is." In total, prior to the attempted rampage, Beck had attacked the Tides Foundation 29 times. On September 28th, more than a month after the shooting, Beck reiterated his focus on the Tides Foundation, warning, "I'm coming for you." In jailhouse interviews, the gunman confessed he views Beck as a "schoolteacher" who "blew my mind." My would-be killer admitted that Beck "give[s] you every ounce of evidence you could possibly need" to commit violence.
Beck is a self-described "Progressive Hunter" who relies on violent rhetoric. Do you really think that the millions of Americans who describe themselves as "progressive" need to be "hunted down"? If so, to what end?
So, yeah, Althouse and her ilk are not at all outraged by this vile and incendiary talk from Beck and the like. No problem for them that we hear more about "Obama tags," "progressive tags," "progressive hunter."
They are only outraged when someone calls attention to it.
And the body count from right wing violence grows.
I present to you: Jay. Master of the one-word non-rebuttal.
You are a moron who says moronic things.
It really isn't more complicated than that.
Chef Mojo: These guys are both not smart and stoned. Wicked bad for discourse but probably good for the restaurant business. If only they had any money you could lay some delicious on them. But their bank accounts are as empty as their thinking.
We hear a lot of conservatives itching for violence, as I have documented...
Where's your documentation of lefties itching for violence? Don't pretend it doesn't happen. "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
Movie lines are not usually violent rhetoric.
Are the less informed commentariat really trying to pretend that taking down Al Capone's gang was a dangerous act that placed the legitimacy of the republic and our political process in jeopardy?
What an butt-ignorant thing to say.
Alpha Liberal: I wonder at the motivations behind someone who must pursue such causal connections at such a moment, looking for any hint of injustice in such a tragedy so your ideas about governance, the economy, and political preferences can be justified.
If you are any kind of representative of a broader liberal outlook, you do that outlook no good.
You already dug a deep hole yesterday. Stop digging.
@Ritmo:
Yep. I was right. You're a contempible opportunist. With a fair amount of lame, lonely douchebag mixed in.
Hybridity!
There is a growing "eliminationist" rhetoric from the right wing, where they call for the destruction and death of their opponents.
You can't provide 2 examples of this.
To sum up all the responses from the left (including Alpha, hell especially Alpha) since the tragic attack, I'll just leave you with this great quote of a commenter over at Ace's place:
"Either he's a Tea Party extremist or... please, no labels."
So, the misunderstanding here is that liberals think that asking people to refrain from calls to violence is a common sense, nonpartisan request. Especially as the atmosphere is leading to more and more violence.
However, conservatives think that's a "special agenda." They rely on open calls for violence, routinely. So they feel attacked if incitement to violence is criticized and defend those who call for violence.
There we have the nut of the disagreement.
---------------
Nah, that's not the nut of the disagreement and you know it.
Why don't you listen to the intellectual godfather of modern liberal thought.
"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book."
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody."
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... "
"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
So in other words, this is the crux of modern liberal tactics: revolution is the goal, the ends justify the means, morality is just something you try and clothe yourself in, foment chaos within society, any successful tactics are acceptable tactics, personalize everything.
This is the blueprint that Obama and and his fellow travelers on the left follow. It is steeped in demagogary, calls to violence and chaos, and poisoning the political atmosphere.
These are indisputable truths.
What Anne hasn't learned is that we shouldn't try and disengage, we should be using their own rulebook against them.
Is Michael resorting to more of his whore talk?
Michael, how does it feel to be an unprincipled whore? I mean, emotionally, what's that like?
Birkle takes the bait!
No, pendejo the slaughter of the NV--civilians and military-- was due to like Johnny McCaint and his cronies. Anyway, no one said Miss Fonda was always correct. Merely that her comments re Palin/TP as partially to blame were...on the mark. Yet, lest we forget, Jared read Aynnie Rand--that probably had some effect as well. We ...hyperboreans, destined for ....greatness
Unless it is your intention to stiffle political discourse?
Stiffle?
I am using my freedom of speech to criticize the speech of others. You know, exercising freedom of speech?
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
There is absolutely no equivalence from the Dem side, especially in terms of quantity.
Conservatives embrace, and espouse, violence. We want them to stop espousing violence. How what got to be a partisan issue is tragic.
Again --
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".
--Barack Obama
Hey Alpha UberLib - what say you? Are you going to condemn such pro gun rhetoric?
What about the pro-death rhetoric posted and then scrubbed from Daily KOS? Posted just 2 days ago!
"My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi and is Now DEAD to me."
2 days ago. This.
So, the misunderstanding here is that liberals think that asking people to refrain from calls to violence is a common sense, nonpartisan request. Especially as the atmosphere is leading to more and more violence.
However, conservatives think that's a "special agenda." They rely on open calls for violence, routinely. So they feel attacked if incitement to violence is criticized and defend those who call for violence.
There we have the nut of the disagreement.
---------------
Nah, that's not the nut of the disagreement and you know it.
Why don't you listen to the intellectual godfather of modern liberal thought.
"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book."
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody."
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... "
"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
So in other words, this is the crux of modern liberal tactics: revolution is the goal, the ends justify the means, morality is just something you try and clothe yourself in, foment chaos within society, any successful tactics are acceptable tactics, personalize everything.
This is the blueprint that Obama and and his fellow travelers on the left follow. It is steeped in demagogary, calls to violence and chaos, and poisoning the political atmosphere.
These are indisputable truths.
What Anne hasn't learned is that we shouldn't try and disengage, we should be using their own rulebook against them.
There is a growing "eliminationist" rhetoric from the right wing, where they call for the destruction and death of their opponents.
Yeah, like this:
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.
Where were you when that happened?
Oh, utterly silent.
That's where
I'm an opportunist, but you only find me "contempible" (sic) since you lack the mind for finding opportunities, let alone defensible ones.
The rest of your comment was just an example of your very limited vocabulary.
Please feel free to resort to grunts and snarls next. It would get the point across much better. And it would have the added benefit of being interesting to veterinarians and zoo goers.
Courtland Milloy in the Washington Post on March 24, 2010:
"I know how the "tea party" people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
Laugh out loud funny.
You can't cite a single example of this.
Not one.
There is absolutely no equivalence from the Dem side,
You mean other than the Al Gore following guy who shot up the discovery channel?
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
Actually, you have no examples.
But again, you're a silly, ignorant, lying hypocrite.
@Alpha:
Ok, that settles it. You answered well, Alpha.
You're a liar.
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
That's a lie. Hell, I'll even call it a dirty, stinking lie. And you're a dirty, stinking liar. You got nothin, as you like to say.
Show me the legal proof, clever lad, of any relationship between talk radio and violence. That's legal proof, sonny boy, not your fevered, jerk-off fantasies.
Conservatives 4: I would think you could do better if you weren't ripped all the time. You know, of course, that even at work people can tell that you gone. I would give it up if I were you and then you might have something to say other than the little burps that appear pithy in the haze.
Threats made against my Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt, for not voting for the health care bill.
"Capitol Hill police are investigating the threat made Wednesday night in a call to her district office in Sycamore Township. The caller mentioned he had a 9-mm gun.The caller said Schmidt was a racist for opposing the bill backed President Barack Obama, whose father was African, Bennett said.
"I'm glad the president passed health care," the caller says on a copy of the recording provided to The Enquirer by Bennett. "(Racist) Republicans hate that, don't you?"
The caller also labeled as racists Rep. John Boehner of West Chester and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both Republicans.
"Why don't you all just change the party name to racist?" the caller said. "F--- all you racist(s)."
The man added that he wished Schmidt's back had been broken in 2008 when she was hit by a car while jogging in Miami Township."
From the Cincinnati Enquirer.
OOPS:
A 66-year-old man was sentenced Thursday to more than two years in federal prison for threatening Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.) in the aftermath of the healthcare debate. . . .”I’m terribly sorry that it ever happened,” Pidrman said before his sentencing Thursday morning, according to the Tribune. “I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC,” at the time at which he made the call, he said.
But that doesn't count, right alpha goofball?
If anybody knows contempt, I bet it's a lame, lonely douchebag chef who hates his patrons.
People who hate their customers usually get found out, with bad consequences to follow. Just ask Michael.
But whose interests are served by chewing up the wounded flesh in the meat grinder of political rhetoric and whose interests are served by pretending to be above all that? Liberals have an interest in creating a big distraction that might undercut the prevailing conservative momentum. To conservatives, I would say: Don't help them.
I agree here with the esteemed AA. The tide is running right now against the left and the Democrats. You just have to watch what happened this week in Congress to see this. And, so, they are desperate to turn the debate anywhere else besides their disastrous economic policies of the last 2-4 years.
We all see (and most accept now) that ObamaCare and the "stimulus" plan were disasters. But few, as yet, seem to see how bad Dodd-Frank is going to be. It protects the perps of the financial crisis by declaring them too-big-to-fail, while piling onerous restrictions on their smaller competitors. All in trade for massive discretion on the part of the federal government in oversight of these institutions. This "reform" appears specifically designed to implement crony-capitalism in this industry. And, if you have any doubts, just look at the sponsors' actions with community lending in the run-up to the current financial problems. The two politicians with arguably the most responsibility for the problem drafting the "solution" to it.
So, yes, the left will use anything at their disposal, shamelessly, to change the subject from their failures over the last 4 years.
I blame the present administration for the tragic shooting in Arizona. Why? Because they deny those who oppose their policies non-violent political and legal options.
Take for example the FCC’s internet regulation ruling. The Supreme Court stated that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over the internet. The FCC decided they would implement internet regulation anyway.
Another example — Congress did not pass the cap-and-tax bill to set controls on CO2 emissions. The EPA has said they will implement CO2 controls anyway.
No one can forget how the health-care law was passed despite strong opposition by many. Their voices were ignored.
When people see they have no legal or political remedies, they contemplate more drastic measures. The heavy-handed approach of the current administration has greatly contributed to the feeling that normal non-political remedies are not available.
Mojo reminds me of those really nasty, drunk chefs -- you know, the type who come in in the morning with a flushed face and bellow at the dishwashers. The type whose hypertension is so severe that they can't really partake of their most heavily seasoned dishes.
The ones who have to watch what they eat as a family history of early heart attack looms over their future.
Those types.
@Ritmo:
Man, you crack me up! You're just too cool for school, baby!
Given your rhetoric these past couple of days, I figured you'd take "contemptible opportunist" as a compliment. Not openly, mind you. But I'm sure it gave you a little smile. And perhaps a chubby?
You are what you are.
OOPS:
A Madison man was arrested Tuesday in connection with a bomb threat Sunday afternoon that disrupted a town Republican fundraiser featuring Senate candidate Linda McMahon.
OOPS:
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
Don't worry alpha, you can't respond.
I am using my freedom of speech to criticize the speech of others and spread lies about anyone I disagree with.
There. Completed it for you.
Show me the legal proof, clever lad, of any relationship between talk radio and violence.
Glenn Beck and the Tides Foundation. Bill O'Reilly and the murder of Dr Tiller are two that come to mind.
lyssalovelyredhead,
I think that this is where we disagree (which I agree, is fine; it's an interesting discussion and doesn't have to be an argument).
That's nice. I will soon need to go off-line to shovel snow - (lucky me :-) - but I will return to respond to you.
but the comparison to the Founders should be our current representatives.
I am not sure why that would be the case? It seems to elevate this Congress far beyond their merits :-) I would prefer to compare our views to the attitudes and hostility of posters here on this blog. We have ready evidence and we are both familiar with what is being said here.
Don't current members of government generally respect each other?
I don't think so. Not at all. They may be shocked by what happened or they may be saying what they think they *ought* to say. I don't think that every single Congressperson is a ass - but I think far too many of them are. And I don't think they respect those who disagree with them. Just as I don't think that posters here - especially those of the extreme - respect the humanity of those who diagree with them.
I think the polazization we are experiencing is of a kind that creates an either/or reality in which those who are on the *other side* - [whatever that *side* represents to the indiviual who is sufering from the polarization] are no longer seen as humans beings but as evil and no good. They are not seen as simply being mistaken in thier views - it seems to me that it is assumed that they are deliberately, consciously choosing an evil position. Do you see what I mean?
I agree with you, certainly, that there are kooks in all times. And it does seem that this fits yesterday's killer. What I'm talking is about the explosive environment that I see us in. The explosive environment of which the polarization we experience is a symptom. I hope that makes sense.
Yes, I'm talking about you, AlphaLiberal. You and your ilk ... are murderers.
As I said, I'm an opportunist, but a principled one. You just find intelligence to be contemptible and resent my ability to take the opportunity to show that you have no argument.
Really man, chill out. I'm sick of having to come up with animal metaphors for your behavior today. It's even more ironic given a discussion on what does or does not contribute to unhinged psychopaths acting out.
Screw caution.
The shooter is a leftist. Yes, he is insane. All leftists are insane, although not all are willing to indulge their violent fantasies. Leftists would like to indulge their violence fantasies but most leftists happen to be cowards.
That's why Leftists are conflicted.
I repeat. The shooter is a Leftist. Do you want to see what a leftist looks like when he overcomes his cowardly nature and acts out his natural tendencies?
Look to what happened in a grocery store parking lot in Arizona.
I meant to add to that statement that conservatives approve and defend the use of guns in politics.
Yeah, kind of like this,
Reid practiced shooting at one of the ranges, firing six rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun and hitting two clay birds. Each clay bird busted into pieces and the crowd cheered as Reid reloaded the gun. Collins also fired several rounds.
Note the picture in the article.
Don't worry you little liar, you can't respond.
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
We have seen for better than a year now the attempts to tie the Tea Party movement to violence, racism, etc. Indeed, to pretty much anything except outrage at the mis-governance of the Democrats over the last 4 years.
And, what is a bit scary is to realize that the MSM, DNC, etc. have been somewhat successful in redefining reality, esp. for those who limit their news to that laundered by the left.
But, I think that so much of this is projection. The left is filled with racists, and so figure that the right must be too, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement. Ditto for violence. For them, they would be violent if faced with losing power, and so expect that the right will be too. And, yes, they have resorted continuously to such over the last couple of years, ranging from union thugs beating up protesters to shooting up or breaking into Congressional or campaign offices.
Don't flatter yourself, Mojo. Someone infinitely cuter, more attractive and more at ease with the art of conversation gave me a chubby today. And then she did something very pleasant about it.
Sorry to make you feel left out.
@Ritmo:
Oh, man! This is great! Full bore Ritmo abuse! Bringing out the "drunk chef!" Mean and nasty, too! I cannot wait to get back to work, beat my cooks and dishwashers and lock them back in their cages! Cuz' I'm one of those mean, drunk chefs! Whoo! I make Gordon Ramsey look like a complete pussy!
Ritmo bringin' the hurt!
Right through my heart!
Bender at 11:18 Am:
Which is why I don't understand why so many people here are giving this putz the time of day.
It is throwing reason away to try to reason with maroons like him. Why waste your time? Ignore him and his comrades.
In addition to the original post, best post of the thread.
One reason I really like this blog is because of the vigorous debate on a wide variety of issues. The other is because of the graciousness of Ann to open the door a bit into her daily life (e.g. the passing of Holly).
But there are some posters that are essentially bomb throwers (see the threads on the shooting yesterday). Folks know who they are.
Just ignore these jack wagons, they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Maybe consider writing or calling some of the folks who yesterday made statements in the national media that were over the top (e.g. Krugman, State Senator from AZ, etc).
@Garage:
BZZZZZT!!
Nope! That's hearsay!
Go back to the end of the line and try again!
OOPS:
“Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order,”
-Garrison Keillor
Geez chef. I surmised you were nasty and abusive. But you bring the description to a level that makes you the Buffalo Bill of cuisiniers.
That really ruined my afterglow, man.
We have numerous examples of violent acts from people who followed the hate talkers such as Beck, Palin, Hannity, et al.
There is absolutely no equivalence from the Dem side, especially in terms of quantity.
Conservatives embrace, and espouse, violence. We want them to stop espousing violence. How what got to be a partisan issue is tragic.
---------
pentagon shooter. anti-military registered Democrat:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/05/about-the-pentagon-shooter/
proabortion nutbag kills antiabortion protester in cold blood:
http://www.examiner.com/broward-county-liberal-in-miami/anti-abortion-shooter-harlan-drake-s-crime-of-hate-not-hate-crime
Joe Stack, anti capitalist who flew a plane into an IRS building:
"The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010) "
And let's not forget the HUGE bit of organized violence by the left at the 2004 Republican National Convention:
http://volokh.com/posts/1220326475.shtml
There were 250 arrests, wonderful stuff like bags of cement being dropped on buses and Boy Scouts being terrorised by masked rioters took place. The FBI actually stopped the worst of it. They arrested several "anarchists" just before the event and confiscated all sorts of weapons and things like nail strips to blow out the tires of buses.
Post a Comment