1876 replies to this topic

[Sakura Blossoms]

Now she's gone and done it. Palin might as well not even bother running for President, because realistically pretty much all polls show that Americans will *never* vote Palin into office. And this latest controversy is a clear indicator of why:

http://news.yahoo.co...oment-for-palin

[Nate River]

Now she's gone and done it. Palin might as well not even bother running for President, because realistically pretty much all polls show that Americans will *never* vote Palin into office. And this latest controversy is a clear indicator of why:

http://news.yahoo.co...oment-for-palin

Wake me when they provide actual evidence that Palin or her map had anything to do with his motivations. Until then, this is a bunch of bull crap drummed up media outlets and bloggers looking to score political points. It's embarrassing to watch.

Even the article you site dedicates a single sentence to the shooter and that sentence contradicts the notion the article is trying to push.

[Insurrection]

Wake me when they provide actual evidence that Palin or her map had anything to do with his motivations. Until then, this is a bunch of bull crap drummed up media outlets and bloggers looking to score political points. It's embarrassing to watch.

Even the article you site dedicates a single sentence to the shooter and that sentence contradicts the notion the article is trying to push.

Doesn't matter, the echo chamber caught something and opened a can of worms and Giffords spoke against the chart before, no matter how uninvolved Palin was the social/media view is she had some form in creating this mess. If anything it should cause people to face the reality of the metaphors.

The fact that the two sides are attacking each other over who is to blame over a psycho who probably shouldn't be able to purchase a gun because of the mental health from incidents shown like Virginia Tech makes this event even more sad. Nothing was learned, the school that kicked him out should've reported the need for an evaluation to the authorities.

Also anyone remember that Homeland Security report from two years ago warning of domestic attacks that was criticized? Well looks like the thing ain't wrong AGAIN.

Edited by Insurrection, 11 January 2011 - 07:13 AM.

[Nate River]

Doesn't matter, the echo chamber caught something and opened a can of worms and Giffords spoke against the chart before, no matter how uninvolved Palin was the social/media view is she had some form in creating this mess. If anything it should cause people to face the reality of the metaphors.

Actually, I think you give them too much credit. This makes it sounds like gross negligence when it's really deliberate malfeasance.

It's also sad because there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Palin that don't involve exploiting a tragedy to fake a controversy where none should exist.

Simply put, the way I've been seeing it is that both sides of the fence have their bad apples, but the Republicans/Conservatives have essentially mainstreamed extremism, while the left has to struggle to present themselves as centrists and get punished just for breathing.

Your complaint sounds like world's smallest violin considering your party of choice controlled all of Congress and the Presidency less than two months ago (not to mention the fact that the Speaker of the House for the last four years hailed from you previous area of residence, one of the liberal places in this country). IMO, the onus is on you and your side to convince people of the correctness of your beliefs.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about whether conservatism is considered "centrist" or not. Partly because I'm more interested in convincing people I'm right and partly because I know it wasted time to worry about whether Liberals or Democrats will ever accept that it is or should be. If some change their minds they'll believe, otherwise they never will and I'm not going to worry about it.

You can use things outfits like talk radio and Fox News as scapegoats if you want, but there are plenty of media outlets willing to go to bat for you and your candidates (see the 2008 election converage which the media itself has conceeded was egrgiously one-sided (at least among what is consider the Mainstream Media), and all of MSNBC)). You have plenty outlets, whether you believe it or not.

While you pay lipservice to the fact that both sides have their bad actors (you couldn't possibly say anything else and maintain credibility), I'm doubting that it's concidental that you came to this conclusion and that you are a woman of the left. Nobody thinks they (or they're ideological bretheren) are the crank.

This is why the who is the bigger offender or who has the worst extremist debate is probably one of the stupidest deabtes that exist in politics. There isn't a way to objectively prove it, it's an opinion, and most importantly nobody ever thinks it's them.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Wake me when they provide actual evidence that Palin or her map had anything to do with his motivations. Until then, this is a bunch of bull crap drummed up media outlets and bloggers looking to score political points. It's embarrassing to watch.

Even the article you site dedicates a single sentence to the shooter and that sentence contradicts the notion the article is trying to push.

http://news.yahoo.co...blicanpartyback

Quote from article:

The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people in Tucson left Scarborough shaken—and his wife, Susan, in tears—but added resonance to the message he has been peddling. “Nobody can find a direct link to a Sarah Palin ad or a Michele Bachmann statement or the extreme rants from the left,” he says. “But it serves as a very clear warning to everyone involved in politics that there are unbalanced people out there who may seize on any words they hear and the consequences may be devastating.

“Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”

[Nate River]

http://news.yahoo.co...blicanpartyback

Quote from article:

.

Because Joe Scarborough is an authortative source on the mentally ill.

That said, I find this quote more informative.

The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people in Tucson left Scarborough shaken—and his wife, Susan, in tears—but added resonance to the message he has been peddling. “Nobody can find a direct link to a Sarah Palin ad or a Michele Bachmann statement or the extreme rants from the left,” he says. “But it serves as a very clear warning to everyone involved in politics that there are unbalanced people out there who may seize on any words they hear and the consequences may be devastating.

“Timothy McVeigh didn’t come to his conclusions about government in a vacuum.” While the case of Arizona gunman Jared Loughner is very different, he says, “we warned for three years that those who are most affected by the harsh language are people who are detached from reality and can hear the ranting on cable or in parts of the blogosphere.”

You still haven't provided a shread of proof that Loughner was at all motivated by the politcal rhetoric or Palin. You've only quoted a disaffected (and former) Republican Congressman. This isn't proof, it's a generic quote by a former politician and political commentator who is unhappy that he is on the outside of the current Republican party to pat himself on the back. Not to mention that as a founder of NoLabel, it's totally self-serving.

EDIT: And, it provides no clear warning because there is no evidence at this point on what specifically set him off. You can't with a ounce of credibility say if Palin hadn't used that map he wouldn't have done this.

Where, Joe, were you for most of the last decade when the vitriol was from the other side? Do you worry about affecting the mentally ill when a Democrat uses harsh language? I'll bet you don't.

[Sakura Blossoms]

.

Because Joe Scarborough is an authortative source on the mentally ill.

That said, I find this quote more informative.



You still have provided a shread of proof that Loughner was at all motivated by the politcal rhetoric or Palin. You've only quoted a disaffected (and former) Republican. This isn't proof, it's a generic quote by a former politician and political who who is unhappy that is on the outside of the Republican party commentator trying to pat himself on. Not to mention that as a founder of NoLabel, it's totally self-serving.

Where, Joe, were you for most of the last decade when the vitriol was from the other side? Do you worry about affecting the mentally ill when a Democrat uses harsh language? I'll be you don't.

I'm not trying to prove anything, Nate. In fact I never once said I thought the shooting was motivated by Palin or her rhetoric. I only said that most Americans would never vote for Palin, and posted a link that talked about how far extreme right she was. You took it upon yourself to then tell me to post an article showing evidence that Palin and her rhetoric played some part in the shooting. Again I never said or claimed anything about Palin having any influence on the shooting. Just that most Americans wouldn't vote for her. And in the new link I posted nothing was said by me. I was merely posting what this political anchor/commentator thought of the shooting, and what *his* take was on all the 'rhetoric' you've been talking about.

[Nate River]

I'm not trying to prove anything, Nate. In fact I never once said I thought the shooting was motivated by Palin or her rhetoric. I only said that most Americans would never vote for Palin, and posted a link that talked about how far extreme right she was. You took it upon yourself to then tell me to post an article showing evidence that Palin and her rhetoric played some part in the shooting. Again I never said or claimed anything about Palin having any influence on the shooting. Just that most Americans wouldn't vote for her. And in the new link I posted nothing was said by me. I was merely posting what this political anchor/commentator thought of the shooting, and what *his* take was on all the 'rhetoric' you've been talking about.

Except that the article pushes a controversy for which there is no evidence to prove it's assertion with only lip service to the complete lack of evidence for it.

As to my original post I apologize, as I had to meant to be more generic and intended to be a general call on anyone pushing this or believing in it to provide proof of it. However, I can easily see how you'd see it was a specifc call to you personally as I quoted you when I did it. My fault, and I will try to choose my words better next time.

One the other hand, the fact that you quoted that portion of my post- where I specifically ask for that then site Scarborough with THAT sentenced highlighted certaintly made if sound to me like you were offering Scaborough as actual proof not as a sample of his take.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Except that article pushes a controversy for which there is no evidence to prove your stated assertion.

As to my original post, as I had to meant to be more generic and intended to be a general call on anyone pushing this or believing in it to provide proof of it. However, I can easily see how you'd see it was a specifc call to you personally as I quoted you when I did it. My fault, and I will try to choose my words better next time.

One the other hand, the fact that you quoted that portion of my post where I specifically ask for that when site Scarborough with THAT sentenced highlighted certaintly made if sound to me like you were offering Scaborough as actual proof not as a sample of his take.

Not as proof. I merely highlighted the quote to show that this kind of rhetoric is something that others, like Joe Scarborough, has been calling to stop because it *might* lead to incidents like what happened.

In fact it would seem that the majority of Americans don't blame the rhetoric:

http://news.yahoo.co...gresswoman_poll

I'm 50/50 on it myself. I believe that like all things, environment and what people see/hear/believe *always* has some influence on their personality and behaviour. That doesn't mean though that you can blame *everything* on environment and rhetoric. Sometimes people are just screwed up in the head and they will do whatever they choose, no matter what kind of positive or negative influences they have around them.

You also mentioned in an earlier post that those who didn't watch Palin's TLC show hated her. Again you are assuming. I don't hate Sarah, neither have I ever claimed to. I dislike her politics but her as a person I actually have no issues with. She's a galvanizing figure and it's always interesting to see or read about her.

[Nick Soapdish]

I guess that the talk is mostly about the blame game because everybody agrees that Loughler committed a reprehensible act. I've noticed that the coverage has focused on Giffords and Christine Taylor (the 9-year old). Unfortunately, most of the coverage that I've seen on Christine is her age and birthdate. Talking about how she involved in student government and attending because she wanted to learn more about government or that she liked horseback riding and playing baseball does a lot more to put a face on the tragedy that telling us that she was born on 9/11/01.

On to my thoughts about the blame game. I don't know if the rhetoric influenced Loughler and I doubt we'll ever really find out, but I wouldn't be surprised if that claim is eventually made by his lawyers or family in an attempt to deflect some blame. It seems a bit less surprising to me that it happened there since there have already been three uses of violent imagery against Giffords, her offices were vandalized and one of her previous rallies had a gun scare so that's where I'm leaning. What this should be is a wake-up call that the violent rhetoric could be sowing seeds of violent action. And we shouldn't be propping people up as role models for bringing guns to political rallies or the veiled threat "I didn't bring my gun ... THIS time".

From David Frum (originally from a WSJ article, but it got edited and they took it out for some reason):
"This talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk. Better: This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it,"

He's had a few other articles on the subject, including what Palin should have said.

Quick disclaimer. I like Frum. I often disagree with him, but he's on NPR every other week (alternating with Robert Reich) and he's good at being clear and coherent. Even more importantly, he focuses on issues rather than partisanship unlike way too many commentators who treat politics as a sport.

I'm not a fan of guns and would like to see some tightening of regulations (such as gun shows), but I think that McCarthy is being opportunistic by bringing it up again now and I suspect that any legislation that gets presented (and probably voted down) will have holes in it like the assault rifle ban did.

[Nate River]

Not as proof. I merely highlighted the quote to show that this kind of rhetoric is something that others, like Joe Scarborough, has been calling to stop because it *might* lead to incidents like what happened.

In fact it would seem that the majority of Americans don't blame the rhetoric:

I saw. That leaves me in good cheer. The break down of the poll is also good news as a majority/pluralirty of all polled groups aren't doing so either.

It possible it might, but how would one police such a thing? This is the main problem I have with Nick's post. I believe Nick is genuine (as I explain below, I don't believe Scarborough is). For example, Terrorist Threat's are already a crime. It punishes threads made with the intent to place the target in fear of imminent seriously bodily injury. I hate these cases because so many of them are "I'm going to kick your ass." How do I know when they really mean it and when it's just empty words. So how do you determine what I should be allowed to say and what not to say and who even gets to decide what should be appropriate?

The implication is that if it were tone down things like this wouldn't have happened and she would not have been shot, but there isn't even evidence of this much.

I'm 50/50 on it myself. I believe that like all things, environment and what people see/hear/believe *always* has some influence on their personality and behaviour. That doesn't mean though that you can blame *everything* on environment and rhetoric. Sometimes people are just screwed up in the head and they will do whatever they choose, no matter what kind of positive or negative influences they have around them.

I generally disagree that the rhetoric is worse than it's ever been because I think people wrongly believe that the politics of old were much more cordial than the really were. There have been periods were I think they were a little less so, but those have tended to exist when one party was weak or non-existent (Era of Good Feelings for example; when the Federalist Party died).

I am cynical about calls to reign in the debate because it's generally worded in non-offensive, agreeable language about everyone toning it down (who could disagree about having a civil debate after all) desguised as attempt to silence the opposition. People seem to hate the virtriol only when it comes from someone else's mouth, but wouldn't, if they felt passionate enough about the issue, tolerate people limiting what they had to say in the interest of "political discourse."

I'm especially cynical about this particular round because despite what people like Scarborough say, the request to "tone it down" is only going one way right now, so I don't believe it's the least bit genuine. And being done in a manner that's trying to make individuals and entire political movements culpable for one attempted murder and six other murders without even the flimsiet of evidence. Moreover, it's really being done as a secondary matter to the slandering of Palin's character (the real aim here) because right now they can't do it directly with any credibility.

I especially dislike Scarborough and his NoLabel bretheren because people like him have set themselves as above the fray (when they are not) and as arbiters of what is acceptable discourse.

I'm not completely laize faire when it comes to speech, but I'm really close.

Criticizing people when they say something you think is inapprorpiate is one thing. When you choose to speak you are fair game for those who disagree. Trying to impute culpability for murder where none exists to silence those you disagree with isn't.

You also mentioned in an earlier post that those who didn't watch Palin's TLC show hated her. Again you are assuming. I don't hate Sarah, neither have I ever claimed to. I dislike her politics but her as a person I actually have no issues with. She's a galvanizing figure and it's always interesting to see or read about her.

You've got my assumption backwards. I assumed those who hated her wouldn't watch not that those who didn't watch hated her.

As I said, there are lots of good reasons not to vote for her. This controversy isn't really one of them.

[Sakura Blossoms]

You've got my assumption backwards. I assumed those who hated her wouldn't watch not that those who didn't watch hated her.

As I said, there are lots of good reasons not to vote for her. This controversy isn't really one of them.

Ah, okay. Just wanted to get that cleared up that I am not a 'Palin-hater'

[Nate River]

Ah, okay. Just wanted to get that cleared up that I am not a 'Palin-hater'

Actually, now that I think about you it give me too much credit. While I really wasn't thinking about specific people hating her, the assumption that most of the Democrats and Liberals do, is implied in what I said, especially the part about the answer being self-evident.

I'm not a fan of guns and would like to see some tightening of regulations (such as gun shows), but I think that McCarthy is being opportunistic by bringing it up again now and I suspect that any legislation that gets presented (and probably voted down) will have holes in it like the assault rifle ban did.

Brady is too.

The problem with laws proposed in the aftermath of a tragedy is debate is often limited and the law is written to correct a problem that has already occured (and thus, often filled with the holes (and unintended consequences) you mention). Sarbanes-Oxley's punishment of small businesses is a wonderful example that problem.

[Nick Soapdish]

It possible it might, but how would one police such a thing? This is the main problem I have with Nick's post. I believe Nick is genuine (as I explain below, I don't believe Scarborough is). For example, Terrorist Threat's are already a crime. It punishes threads made with the intent to place the target in fear of imminent seriously bodily injury. I hate these cases because so many of them are "I'm going to kick your ass." How do I know when they really mean it and when it's just empty words. So how do you determine what I should be allowed to say and what not to say and who even gets to decide what should be appropriate?

The implication is that if it were tone down things like this wouldn't have happened and she would not have been shot, but there isn't even evidence of this much.

I'm not sure what problem you have with my post, but I'm not saying that Palin's map should've been illegal or Kelly's "go to the gun range to get rid of Giffords" fund-raiser or the DNC map with bullseyes on the states. I'm saying that we (meaning the people that we keep on sticking in front of the camera) should be thinking twice before calling for a "2nd amendment solution" or putting Scott up against the wall and shooting him. And that we (and this time, I mean all of us) should be thinking twice before buying that shirt or bringing the sign that says "I didn't bring a gun THIS time" or carrying a gun and sign that says "The tree of liberty needs to be watered". And if we see somebody else doing it, we should be at least showing quiet disapproval rather than cheering them on.

I said earlier that I'm not too sure about whether it would've made a difference in this case. But I can point to a few others were it does seem to have directly influenced the nut like Jim Adkisson, Richard Poplawski, Daniel Knight Hayden, Warren Taylor and Joseph Stack.

[catsi563]

I agree nick. The Rhetoric is to blame here and so are people who push it with such blatant gusto. Sarah palin didnt have to order, or directly call for this type of action, she didnt have to at all. All she had to do was imply it as she did. When your paranoid I dont have to tell you to go do something violent, all i need to do is imply that someones out to get you, and youll do the rest.

Timothy Mcveigh didnt need to be ordered to blow up a building. All he needed was to hear that the government was out to get him and take away his guns and freedoms, and he made his own choice.

The toxic rhetoric pushed by FOX has stepped over the line and now were seeing the end result of the breakdown of dialogue, and rise of False Rhetoric and prophets like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coultier. People whose grasp on reality was tennuous at best are now being given calls to action by Politicians who are exploiting the boogeyman politics to get what they want.

And now we have Bachman calling for investigations into Anti_American Sentiments and Issa calling for hearings when hes allready clearly formed an opinion by stating that the president and his administration are corrupt before any evidence of any sort has been presented.

Ole Tailgunner Joe must be dancing a jig in hell right now.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Palin has just dug herself deeper into the controversial hole she had already begun digging with an 8-minute video:

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/47477

[Nate River]

@catsi: When you blame the current shotting on right-wing rhetoric when there is no evidence that it had anything to do with it you are doing the same thing you're critizicing Issa for.

@Kodachi: I had intended a LAP in response in most to your points, but then you cited Loughner as an proof that the right was worse and I decided worth the effort. I've been over Loughner several times in the last page of posts as has the blogosphere on the right and left. I'm not going to repeat it. So, I'll be brief:

1. You are welcome to interpret my decision not to site left-wing quotes however you wish. However, I think my decision not to was evident from my post. The last thing I said to you was that I think debates about who has the biggest offender are stupid. I've said this several times before, including the last time you made that accusion. So, the last thing I'm going to do is spend time looking up sources and commenting on them for the purpose of engaging in a debate I just finished calling stupid. I think so little of this debate that I'm not evening willing to argue the neutral line. I stand by that. If that reinforces your belief that the right's worse, so be it. The fact that you sighted Loughner (the "current shooter") as your objective evidence of that only reinforces my belief about the complete idiocy of that particular debate.

2. I didn't say the point of your post was to convince anybody of anything. My point was that I think the core of your complaint is that you are unhappy that a set of political beliefs should considered among the "center" when you think they should be and that if your unhappy about its up to you to convince the "center" otherwise, instead that bemoaing that extremist right-wingers have mainstream themselves.

[Strangelove]

Well...according to this article...her political action committee had put up a map, with gun sight images...

Is not related, but it may have triggered it.