Oh yes, those on the left are also guilty. Obama made the comment about bringing a gun to a knife fight. Harry Mitchell ran a TV add with crosshairs superimposed over a photo of J.D. Hayworth. I think a photo of a person with crosshairs superimposed over that person is a much stronger suggestion to shoot someone than a picture of cross hairs over a space on a map.

What set the looney off? Was it a map with crosshairs? Was it a suggestion to bring a gun to a knife fight? Was it a picture of someone with cross hairs superimposed over them? Was it heavy metal music he listened to? Watching too many Rambo movies created by the liberals in Hollywood? Voices in his head? Bad day at work? Road rage? Who knows?

Until he explains himself, who knows why he did it.

At least give the guy the swift execution he deserves. No not guilty by reason of legal technicality nonsense liberals are so fond of. There's no doubt he did it.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm stating LIBERAL inciting violence, I don't care that you're parsing it as anti-globalization or anti-government. That's splitting hairs.

Since many liberals don't believe in guns there won't be guns, but there are other methods used to incite violence and rioting.

First, as I said, they didn't incite anything. They showed up to protest and responded to the undue force of law enforcement. There were many documented incidents of the police or paramilitary troops engaging peaceful protesters. The response to that, be it violent or not, is not incitement.

Second, what other method is comparable to a gun?! Throwing stones? Yelling profanities? Please. Unless you can point to such protests where tools of deadly force are used like bombs, Molotov cocktails, or something which can be honestly compared to a gun, you're just spouting more false equivalence. You're enabling calls to violence on the right, be they implicit or explicit, by dishonestly suggesting that both sides are doing it.

you apparently don't equate violence with violence, and again, split hairs with fatal violence with violence.

You're perfectly happy to equate people of all political backgrounds from socialist to libertarian, as they were at the G20, defending themselves from paramilitary police aggression to even the mere speculation that the current climate had some bearing on the tragic shooting in Arizona. That's the imbalance. That's the false equivalence.

There's no hair splitting going on here. There's meaningful speculation and there's outright deliberate obfuscation.

I want you to look at this screencap of Glenn Beck's site:
http://i.imgur.com/3hYtf.png

Look at it very carefully. Doesn't this stand as a perfect example of calling for violence out of one side of your mouth while pretending to abhor it with the other? This is the problem. You can't just discount the nut with a gun because it doesn't fit with your ideological views.

I'm not discounting anything. I'm just not accepting that you're statement of Liberals don't incite violence as false.

In what way is responding to police brutality incitement?

what's the point though will? beck posing with a gun while denouncing violence, i just dont get how it relates to this shooting. obviously no one on the right is condoning this shooting, and why do you keep harping on it while at the same time saying the right didn't incite this shooting?

My point, if there is one, is that the current climate of calls, implicit or explicit, to violence and violent resistance to political ideas that you simply don't like (or have been instructed not to like) coincides with a similar increase in politically motivated violence and that, while we don't have all the facts yet, may be connected in some way to the shooting of which this thread is about. Moreover, because calling for political violence serves no beneficial function in a free society such as ours, it's long past time there was universal—that is, left, center, and right—denouncement and repudiation of these obvious threats. Not only is it not okay to so subtly suggest "Second Amendment remedies", as only one many many examples, but these stupid and irresponsible statements should be met with a wall of condemnation from the entire country, which includes conservatives. If Keith Olbermann were calling for violence, I'd be calling his ass on it even stronger than I am this. When Alan Grayson called his opponent 'Taliban Dan', the left, overnight, abandoned him. What I'm seeing in this thread is apologists. What the hell would possess you to try and make excuses for calling for violence? Are you really that entrenched?

It think there are people on both sides that have been guilty of violence in their rhetoric. Currently, the majority of that is coming from the conservative end of the spectrum.

Again, I don't care to make any connection between the language and symbolism that politicians and members of the media have been using (maps with cross hairs, reload, guns v. knives, etc.) and what the shooter did.

I just want to point out, again, that using this sort of language comes with consequences.

Now is not only the time to point fingers. It is also the time to look at ourselves.

Yes. Looking at ourselves is also a form of politics. We are all responsible for what happens. I can think of many reasons for this: our individual states of mind, our behavior, our collective action, how we treat the mentally ill, our lack of compassion and our lack of will to address the underlying problems rampant in our society. These are all illuminating and help provide some context...some understanding. It seems there are some ways to look at this that don't require us to argue with each other.

the false equivalence concerning this "call to violence" stuff is pretty obvious: even if one accepts that it's somehow coherent for conservatives to point to stokley charmichael as a counterexample in 2011 (which presupposes---shall we say---relaxed standards for coherent argument) there was no point---ever----where he or anyone else "on the left" in the arbitrary gallery of figureheads adduced for red-baiting purposes at the moment had the kind of saturation media exposure that contemporary neo-fascist discourse has. period. on that basis there is NO comparison between the danger posed by contemporary neo-facist calls to political violence and those of people who were active on the left in the united states 40 years ago. the comparison is absurd, yet another example of conservative metaphysics---all fast and loose with context, fixate like a crackhead on some purely formal resemblance, repeat the claim over and over as if repetition gets rid of the speciousness of the claim. and this should be tolerated because hey, it's just my opinion man. i'm entitled to indulge shabby superficial thinking. it's my right as an american. blah blah blah.

i dont think anything more damaging could happen to american neo-fascism than for it to be exposed for what it is. i find it amazing that the tea party et al have been able to form, gain some momentum, lurch about on the national political scene doing whatever chump work they're doing for the big money people and not be subject to serious critique. it just hasn't happened. i'm not advocating any censorship or any legal action---but i do advocate the political destruction of the far right and this because their politics are incoherent AND dangerous and if this democracy business means anything, it should be able as a process to weed out the incoherent and dangerous. if it can't then we really are in trouble because the substitution of shopping for politics is complete and the fading empire is well and truly fucked because the central political feedback loop that was supposed to make democracy so wonderful has been eliminated. shoppers don't get to criticize the retail system---that system is neutral---they merely get to choose which peanut butter they like.

that the ultra-right is viable in the united states is in itself an indictment of the american political system.

So left-aligned violence from people like Stokeley Carmichael and calls to 'kill whitey' with the ensuing riots are good.

A whackjob job Democrat who saw a map on Sarah Palin's website with crosshairs over states is bad.

Got it.

maybe reading something in print will help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems:

Dana Milbank - For Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, a McKinley moment?


i've been amused by conservative columnists like george will and others less literate who are effectively arguing that behind all this human tragedy stuff, the real victims of the past few days are conservatives....

Modern (American) conservatism seems to require a status of victimhood.

After all, the Tea Party movement isn't simply a political platform; it's a reaction to a perceived affront to a particular political stance. If Tea Partiers didn't see themselves as victims, I don't think there'd be a Tea Party movement. They didn't organize to support their views; they organized to oppose what they perceive as a threat to them.

And so it goes. A congresswoman and several others are shot at a public event. Would it not be expected to take a look at the political environment when a politician is shot? Is it not obvious that there has been a lot of violent imagery, metaphor, and innuendo coming from the right? It seems to have become the theme. I don't deny that liberals have also used some of that, but comparatively it's more than just a bit lopsided.

So what is to be done? Business as usual? I hope not.

When the loonie admits why he shot all these people, and that it was because of Sarah Palin's website, then maybe your position will have some validity.Until then, none. It's just conservative bashing. Again.

I've read a number of comments that the guy was angry at the Congresswoman for other reasons.

So while It's a tragedy that all these people were shot, you're not going to convince me that Sarah Palin had anything to do with it.

So when someone torches an under-construction upscale housing development, I just assume, without evidence, that that someone was from ELF. When someone releases a bunch of lab animals into the surrounding environment (which usually means most of them are dead within a few days), I usually assume, without evidence, that someone from an ALF-ey type group was involved. These are plausible assumptions given what I know about these two groups based on prior activity and rhetoric. These are leftist groups. Despite the fact that I typically fall on the left side of things, I have no problem denouncing their tactics and rhetoric.

When someone mows down a group of people in an attempt to kill a congressperson who had previously been targeted with death threats due to her "tyranny", I just assume that it was some right wing lunatic, because there is a fair amount of talk amongst some very prominent folks on the right that politicians engaged in tyranny need to be shot. Sorry if that hurts the feelings of some of the more reasonable conservatives folks around here. Part of having a named political philosophy is that you get identified with the loudest folks who share that philosophy. Get over it. Perhaps if you spent more time denouncing the gadflies on your own side and less time getting all whimpery whenever someone hurts your feelings by associating you with those gadflies, this type of thing would be less of a problem.

This is wholly separate from the actual motives of the actual shooter. However, when the political rhetoric your side employs starts to resemble the behavior of violent lunatics (regardless of their actual, lunatic motivations), perhaps its time to take a step back and think about how fucking ridiculous and out of place your rhetoric is.

So now, as we've seen so many times before (i.e. census worker), there is no evidence to support a political motive behind the attack. The sherrif essentially made up his statement to the press (without a shred of evidence) to support his claim that the attack was most likely prompted by the volitile media voices of the right. As a law enforcement professional expected to work within the evidence and the law, his statements are highly irresponsible if not intentional in the misrepresentation of the facts. To what purpose? We can only guess as to his motivations. It's fairly easy to guess why the media hacks would want spin this into something it's not. But to eagerly and willfully assign unsubstanciated blame to persons or groups for unrelated violent acts of a sick individual is highly disturbing in itself.

Immediately after the Ft. Hood masacre, our leaders and media rightfully echoed the need for restraint in jumping to conclusions about what motivated the attack. Where was the restraint in this case? Why do any of you feel justified in continuing to perpetuate this hoax?

Agreed....putting the motives of the shooter aside.

It appears that those on the right dont see, or are unwilling to acknowledge, any connection whatsoever between the ratcheted up rhetoric over the past two years and the 300% increase in threats of violence against members of Congress.

The whole thing depresses me. I watched Jon Stewart this morning and I think I agree with him... "I don't know."

I do find it odd, if not sad, that in a state where open carry is not only legal it's almost mandatory someone didn't drop this moron before his second shot.

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

Just to clarify- the shooter was a reg. indep. who did not vote last election.

Tully,

Good post. Nice to see someone turn off the Turbo Retard button on this thread. I've wondered exactly the same thing about the lack of return fire. I think it is probably because there is a lot of confusion regarding federal limitations on one's right to carry. Many can misunderstand the limitations of carrying on Federal property as opposed to carrying around a federal official. Or the limitation of carrying on election day as opposed to around elected officials. Furthermore, there's the laws forbiding carrying around the President which others might misinterpret as the all branches of the federal government. In short, some may have played the legality "better safe than sorry" card and left their piece at home, unfortunately.

As for the second part of your post, thank you for stating it.

What rhetoric is superior here? The fact that the majority here agrees with you is only reflective of this very small space. We can all go round and round indefinitly about which politics fosters the most crazies and back it up with articles and videos. I suspect we know in our hearts that this event was nothing more than actions of a highly disturbed mentally ill individual. So to what purpose has this highly emotional pot been stirred for us? We are too quick to jump to battle-mode. Who stands to gain from an eventual overreaction (we may already have)? It's like we're being baited toward escalation. It's simply a feeling that we're all being played. I don't know... I'm just looking for a way for all of us to step back and tone it down.

I think that the focus on the sheriff here is telling. Who cares what the sheriff said? He's not prosecuting the case. Furthermore, while he did mention Limbaugh by name as an example of a source of vitriolic rhetoric, he didn't explicitly blame Limbaugh for the shooting. He's said multiple times that the shooter was nuts. Scrape away the partisan framing and nothing the sheriff has said is outside the realm of common sense.

The sheriff has become the focus here because he gives folks like Rush an opportunity to paint himself and his fellows as victims. Seriously. Rush Limbaugh has convinced you that he's being oppressed by this mean old sheriff.

I feel like I've read this line elsewhere. Did you know that passing someone else's ideas off as your own is called plagiarism?

Feel free to provide a basis for the idea that Fox News was circumspect about assigning blame prematurely after Ft. Hood.

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

I think that it's interesting that we can all assume that this dude is crazy because his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with insanity but somehow it's totally not okay for us to assume that he's a right wing nutjob even though his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with right wing nutjobbery.

For the record, I don't care about his motivations. To me this issue here is the complete unwillingness for most folks on the right to be openly critical about the people who speak on their behalf.

Well, I would like to see the volume of screaming reduced so we might find actual solutions to our problems rather then simply yell at one another. Sad thing is this Giffords lady (I never heard of her before the event) sounds like the type of public official trying to make that happen. I read last night where the day before the shooting she sent out an e-mail stating pretty much just that. Now instead of becoming a nation reflecting on what needs to be done to make that happen we've just increased the volume of blame.

On the gun carry issue I found Sheriff Dupnik comments rather odd. He made it sound like Az. is full of gun toting trigger happy red necks. Doesn't the fact that no one else fired a shot dispel this idea? If he were right and Az. has become the "Tombstone" of the US wouldn't the air have been full of flying lead? Now we have a bunch of folks talking about tighter gun control, including several GOP members. An over reaction to inaccurate facts will not help us with our current problems, IMHO. But now we get to have that debate (again and again) instead of working towards many more serious issues the nation faces.

I just hope this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure at this point though that the extremists will tone it down and be rational though.

I think the left just hates the right wing pundits so much that they want to pin anything on them they can. This thread just keeps going in circles, the left pins blame on the right wing talking heads and the right points out the shooter had little if any at all connection to the right wing, then the left shouts about the 'rhetoric' again.

If they want to talk about hateful rhetoric they should at least pick a current event where it has some merit.

It might aid the effort of finding actual solutions if there wasn't an entire "news" network devoted to making money via sowing the seeds of political dischord.

Dupnik also said that he didn't think that Arizona's lax laws had anything to do with the shooting, and that he thought that this type of thing could happen in a state with more restrictive gun laws too, so it's possible you didn't get the whole "Dupnik" story.


Why do we care about what the sheriff said again?

If you are speaking of the remarks made by Sheriff Dupnik, I disagree with his "common sense." If what he said was actually true I think many more people then the shooter would have opened fire. Would have been the OK Coral 2.0.

But I don't think "sense" is all that "common." So what do I know?

I wasn't speaking about his statements about gun control or lack thereof. I was more commenting on his comments about the shooter's mental health and the state of political punditry in the US.

There seems to be an assumption here that everyone in Arizona is packing. Is this true?

Which one? Fox or MSNBC?

Did I listen to his every word? No. Did I hear and see him say "Az has become the Tombstone of the US." Yes. I thought we already had a Tombstone and it was already in Az. I stand by my remarks above.


With that logic... why care what any elected official says?

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------


It's a nice wish but crazy people have been doing stupid crazy things for a long time. I don't see it stopping anytime soon.

really...plagarism? seriously? oh my! ouch! cry... sob... what-ever... I mean you are the benchmark for originality.

NPR, of course! Actually, I'm talking about the network whose president recently decided he was going to tell his employees to tone things down. When he did so, he expressed the hope that "the other side" would do the same. Wait, did he say "other side"? I thought that his news organization was "fair and balanced".

So you focus on one offhand comment and ignore his further elaborations in regards to that comment? And you're the one calling for greater understanding and dialogue? I mean shit, 18 people were just shot. Perhaps a Commando reference would have been more appropriate.

What are you talking about? That's not at all implied by my logic (though at this point, I think that most elected officials are full of shit). The sheriff has nothing to do with this. At this point he's a cog in the criminal justice process (assuming he's competent). Do you think he's going to cook the evidence to implicate Rush Limbaugh? Do you really think his opinion on the state of punditry or the relative aptness of Tombstone comparisons is relevant to anything?

Maybe we're speaking about different parts of his comments then. I have done some quick reading and he himself seems to be readjusting his comments as of this morning.

I don't think everyone in Az is packing heat. I know the last time I went through the state the closest thing I had to a weapon on me was my Swiss Army knife. What everyone else thinks I don't know. I did read where the sheriff stated something to the effect of people wanting to issue every baby an Uzi for under their crib. Sounds to me like he might think the whole state is armed or wants to be armed.

I think his first statement was coming from someone who had just seen some of his friends and a little girl gunned down. I don't think he was speaking with the dispassionate, measured words that we might have a right to expect in other contexts.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

I was going to respond to this, but I realized that it would be best to just let it speak for itself.

Well-said Tully. Sorry I didn't see it earlier...

One- I do not believe it to be "one off handed comment." I heard him make several statements that made little or no sense to me. Yes, heard him, saw him say them.. not written on someone's blog or simply reported on one of the infotainment industry outlets.

Two- He makes off handed comments and makes level headed comments and I'm at fault somehow for listening to both? I really don't see where I stated everything this man said is just crazy. I simply stated his comments regarding gun carry laws and the event didn't make sense to me.

Three- The fact 18 people were shot depresses the shit out of me.




He's an elected official. I'm not a resident of his county but I certainly think people who do live there should listen to what he says.

No, I do not believe he would try to "cook" any books to pin this on Rush. If anything I believe Rush would create some lie regarding that in an effort to get the sheriff recalled. Rush's rating would likely go up and he's a proven liar with a long history. Until recently I never heard of this Sheriff. For all I know he's a damn good Sheriff who made some rather odd conflicting statements one day.

what are the problems here? first off, there's been a shooting. it happened within an extremely poisoned political atmosphere and tucson (a little dot of blue in a sea of red it was described as in an article i saw earlier about those fine people from westboro baptist who plan to protest the funerals tomorrow. what christians. what excellent souls.)....so there is a context, like it or not, and that context is poisoned largely because of the way the right has operated since the debacle of the bush administration. so that's one problem. want a solution to that? conservatives would have to stop playing the victim long enough to think about what's being said.

but the more directly linked problems are: how could this guy get a glock? information is still coming out about this. i don't have an a priori view on the matter beyond finding it incomprehensible that people can buy a glock. what do you hunt with one of those besides people?

the other is more tenuous and has to do with cuts to mental health services---which is a problem---but there's a lot of stuff circulating out there that seems to depart from the idea that had these cuts not been in place this guy would have been prevented from acting somehow. this i don't really understand---it seems like wishful thinking. but that doesn't detract from the Real Problems that have attended the devolution of mental health services since the reagan period.

beyond that....the real problems that are facing the united states are in no way broached by this unfortunate event. i think is absurd to decry that....why aren't we talking about something entirely different? because something entirely different didn't happen.
would it be good to have a serious discussion about, say, unemployment and what might actually be done to address it? of course.

but no-one seems to want to have such a discussion. particularly not conservatives. but that's another matter.

I guess I don't disagree with you. I just place much less stock in the first statement he made.


Precisely. I think that the reason we are talking about him is that he makes for a great distraction from any sort of substantive issue that might arise from this situation- just look at how much time you and I have spent talking about him.

not a trick question... in your opinion, what are the substantive issues we should be discussing here?

Maybe I'm getting a different vibe since I live abroad but from my point of view, in a very surreal way, both left and right are trying to play victim while at the same time go on the offense. Seems very odd to me.

Also why does one need to hunt anything with a Glock? I owned several for years and never used most of them for anything other then target shooting and home protection. I had several other, along with other brands of firearms, that I used at work but I don't see relevance to them in this discussion.

---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

I usually find talking about things helps. People should talk more and shout less.

I'm not certain there is a "substantive issue that might arise from this situation." This could be a situation where one nut job did something bat shit crazy.

A conviction of his previous death threats could of prevented him from even buying the Glock. This is very interesting if it's indeed true.

It's illegal to buy all sorts of things in the US, yet somehow people buy them everyday.

If the contents of the blog you quoted are true, which I have no way of knowing one way or another, I have several questions. For starters- What's the situation with mental health in his area? What kind of funding issues, if any, does this Sheriff have to deal with?

tully...i don't see what you're talking about the "the left" doing anything like "playing the victim" in this. what i do see is a diffuse attempt to call the neo-fascist wing of the right to account for its political language.

as for the glock:

Glock pistol sales surge in aftermath of Arizona shootings

it's become a hot seller in arizona gunworld.



edit:

this is interesting:

http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/sco...ix-months.aspx

Reports from Loughner's friend point to him having a long time beef with Giffords.

Claiming the right wing rhetoric had anything to do with this is starting to look more foolish every moment.

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords

I hope you don't mind if I butt in:

• We should be discussing whether violence has a place within political discourse.

Should any politician or political commentator of any stripe use phrasing, imagery, or innuendo that pertains to violence?

In the aftermath of this shooting, I think there is an opportunity to re-evaluate how we contextualize or frame political discourse and rallying.

Is it acceptable to use images of cross-hairs or state it's time to "lock & load" or "reload" to rally people politically? Should politics not be a peaceful process? Should it not be carried out without the threat—or even hint—of violence? Giffords mentioned that Palin had gone too far with her targeting theme. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize there a consequences to that action."

Dammit, Americans are big on their football and basketball. What the fuck is wrong with sports metaphors? Not powerful enough? Not sensational enough?

You mean like when the American Family Association called for a ban on Muslims in the military? When Michelle Malkin and the usual suspects blamed the media for not playing up the "Muslim" part? When Palin said he should have been "profiled?" When the folks at Fox News said that the shooting happened because the army has become "too politically correct" when dealing with Muslim soldiers?

I won't draw any causal connections between what has been said and the actions yesterday. But since Jon Stewart was mentioned, I'll just agree with him on another thing he also said: that is very sad when we can't really tell the ramblings of a lunatic apart from what some politicians and pundits actually say.


And enough about the false equivalency bullshit. This attempt to look magnanimous by talking about "both sides" is tired. Yeah, people on the left 40 years ago may have said this, or someone today might have mentioned a gun or used a gunsight or whatever. But there is only one group (not even a whole party, just a group within a party) that has consistently talked about "second amendment remedies," "bullet box" and similar things with regards to congress.

glock is already one of the best handguns which is why it's the choice of criminals and cops alike, and everytime there's a reason to ban guns, well guns fly off the shelves. not much suprise here.

The status or evaluation of such claims have no bearing on the reprehensibility of the rhetoric in the first place.

it's likely also the case, given that there's some consternation---like the run on weapon sales when obama was elected---driven by the manoevering at the public statement level about these weapons, driven by the the apparent ease with which laughner was able to get one.

Gun-control advocates say Loughner is proof of need for better background checks

(i might have linked this before--i'm in the middle of something and haven't much time)

this editorial, which is not like earth-shattering, but still gives an idea of the push that seems to be growing on this matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/op...nashooting2011

I see the left playing the victim card by blaming this on Rush, Beck, Palin et el.

As for Glock or gun sales going up I'm not surprised. Gun people are more easily spooked then a high mountain Brook Trout. Anytime one of them yell "possible ban" they all run out and buy anything and everything they can afford. With some GOP leaders talking about tighter controls this news does not surprise me.

o and in case you imagined that conservatives claiming to be the victims here isn't happening:

We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder | World news | The Guardian


and of course there's this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...998935ffeb%2C0


but hey, no connection. no need to take any responsibility. nothing to see here because people cannot prove that conservative rhetoric did in fact act like a parasite in the brain of jared laughner. therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with that rhetoric. neo-fascism is ok. and so are the people who tell us what it is that we are afraid of.

I'm not defending Palin, Beck or anyone for that matter. All I'm saying is this shooting, by this one whack job might not have anything to do with anything they've said or done.

I would be surprised if anyone here thought I didn't believe Palin was an empty pant suite, Beck a rather unpolished snake oil salesman and Rush a proven lying drug addicted douche.

What does the SS report on the rise in Obama death threats have to do with this shooting?

How soon after Ft. Hood did the offending media chips fly? It is a fact that he was screaming Allah Akbar as he squeezed off each round. It was immediately following the AZ shooting that the Sherriff speculated that violent rhetoric from the right was behind the attack. For one, there was "and is" no evidence to support this claim. While we should never jump to conclusions, it's kind of hard to overlook the immediate fact of a muslim shooting US soldiers while yelling Allah Akbar... as opposed to an unknown shooter in AZ with absolutely no information available (about anything), then to stampede the media within minutes of claims that it was motivated by right-wing rhetoric. The latter appears contrived. There is no evidence. You say equivalences are false. You are welcome to your opinion. Why do you continue to promote a hoax when it is now clear that the AZ shooting has nothing to do with anything political?

calling out obama on his lack of patriotism is free speech protected under the 1st. if anything someone says is not true then slander lawsuits need to be filed. if some crazy threatens the president or anyone else then they need to be dealt with and arrested.

the increase of death threats or violence due to rhetoric is par for the course in a free society.

i don't know how else to handle this within the realms of free speech.

To me, the issue here isn't whether the shooter was inspired by conservative rhetoric. The issue is the fact that his decision to open fire on a politician so closely resembles certain hallmarks of conservative rhetoric. If I had been using language like Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle, something like this happening would cause me to seriously consider using different language because I'd be hard pressed to not see my words in the shooter's actions, regardless of whether he was driven by my words or not.

The shooting just sheds new light on the tastelessness of overly militant language with regards to political rhetoric.

Where is the proof to support your claim of right-wing language driving a maniac to kill? I believe you are sincere in your opinion, but for now there is no evidence to support it.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

Again please show how these are related. Demonstrating that similar rhetoric exists from all sides is sumarily lost on you and dismissed as a false-equivalency. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. It has nothing to do with actual events.

Meh. Show how what's related? I specifically said I didn't care whether they were related or not. And it has everything to do with actual events.

My point, is that some of the militant rhetoric of folks on the right very closely resembles the tragic events of this past weekend and that is problematic. Any politician who has called for 2nd amendment solutions or used gun-flavored language to urge the defeat of their opponents, or endorsed the second amendment as an antidote to tyranny while at the same time calling their political opponents tyrants should have a good long look at the things they say, regardless of their political affiliation- even though this type of thing is much more prevalent on the right than it is on the left right now.

You don't see how using gun language as a response to political messages you don't like is involved in a person shooting a politician who he disagrees with?

Wait, so now you go from saying that no one did those things in the fort hood incident to somehow trying to justify them?

ALso, I don't think that the "anything political" angle has been proved one way or another, just that the individual had severe mental problems.

But the issue, as stated multiple times, is not whether this incident has been created by this sort of language. But that incidents have been created by it. Instead of going back 40 years to try to find someone on the wake of the vietnam war and the civil rights movement saying something foolish, why not grapple with the fact that currently there is only one group calling for second amendment solutions? There is no other group in mainstream American politics today that consistently talks about the bullet box, the second amendment remedies and so on. If you think that that sort of language is great and warranted, please go ahead and defend it. If not, then go ahead and say it. But stop trying to equate the "bullet box" speeches with any time anyone mentioned the word "gun."

Open criticism: Palin is a careless, perhaps even callous, idiot. It'd take both a worse democratic nominee (likely) and worse third party candidates (unlikely) for me to vote for her.

It's kinda bad form, though, to bring up that she's an idiot in a thread about a tragedy with no proven connection to Palin's idiocy. As wrong as Palin defenders usually are, so far they have zero responsibility to absolve her of blame for this. You gotta show the evidence before it can be attacked.

Kinda how you might want to find out first if that school shooter actually played Grand Theft Auto.

He didn't like her long before this talk started. It may turn out recent political messages motivated him and it may turn out it didn't. I don't know.

I do agree with filtherton and in the larger picture this one case doesn't really doesn't matter. You have people, mainly on the right, running around talking about reloading and drawing bulls eyes. It sure sounds dangerous to me. But the left is not without it share of wing nuts too. Some guy is trying to get his Palin restraining order lifted, why? No idea but he made death threats against her in the past. I think very little of the lady myself, but would think it awful harmful to her family if not the country if she were "taken out" by violence.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and knock off all the violent talk.

I don't. I work in a highly competitive environment. We talk all the time about blowing away the competition, obliterating the competition, etc. In the 20 years or so I've worked in this environment, I'm not aware of anyone going out and assasinating CEOs or employees of competitors.

If anything, seeing a picture of a person with crosshairs superimposed over them is more likely to make me think of them being shot than a map with crosshairs over spots in certain states.

As far as politics goes, this is just another opportunity for the left to play attack dog on conservatives.

Darn, another violent metaphor. Sorry.

Stop being so reasonable. It kills the debate and makes it boring for everyone if there's a simple, easy solution.

The talk was going strong in the early to mid 90s, though. It just went away for a bit because of the Oklahoma City bombing. It reemerged when it became clear Obama was going to be running against McCain and has skyrocketed since then.

And I'm not at all suggesting a direct causal relationship. I'm saying that there should be condemnation of both explicit and implicit calls for violence. I don't know why that's so controversial. I'm looking for a "You know, even though I don't think the calls for violence necessarily had anything to do with this specific case, it does seem like a wakeup call about that kind of speech. Maybe it's not a good idea for Sharon Angle to call for people to use their guns in the stead of free speech. Maybe it's not a good idea for Glenn Beck to describe how he would strangle Michael Moore to death on the air. Maybe it's not a good idea for Michelle Bachmann to say like half the things she's ever said. And yes, it's a stupid idea to use cross hairs to highlight congressional districts."

I agree with this, its like we are turning figures of speech into literal meanings. Its just stupid.

I would just like to add my voice to these two again.

This issue isn't whether the shooter was directly inspired by the language being used. It's that the language being used so resembles the language of "violent lunatics".

It's time for people to adjust the language they use. If you are holding a sign that says, "We came unarmed (this time)". You really need to have a think about what you are saying.

Maybe it's not a good idea for left wing whack-o's to fill the streets and go bat shit crazy at every G-8 submit too.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

I'd buy that if the people saying this weren't also supporting, often encouraging people to show up at political rallies with weapons. I doubt people are showing up in the work place with a loaded HK and talking about "taking out the competition." It's really no longer a turn a phrase then, it more of a threat of violence.


I agree with Charlatan, if you're holding a sign that reads "We came unarmed this time." You should take a step back and think about the message you're sending. Who knows maybe the vast majority of people doing this type of thing are not trying to send a threatening message. Problem is the message being received is certainly threatening.

The complaints against the G8 can generally be backed up with factual evidence. The protests against the G8 are true grassroots, not astroturf. The demands of the people protesting are not "do what we say or we'll shoot you" or anything of the sort. Acts of violence in those protests, which were relatively rare, were in self-defense. No acts of terrorism or murders can be associated in any way with the G8 protests.

It's not the same thing, and I can explain precisely why. I welcome someone to explain why an anti-government whacko pulling a gun at a Democratic congresswoman's public event intending to assassinate her has nothing at all to do with voice on the right calling for armed resistance against Democrats. I welcome a salient argument on how these are in no way related. Until that argument appears, I make no apologies for asking the right to turn on the individuals in their ranks calling for violence in this thread.

What do "bullet box," "second amendment remedies," and the sort mean as "figures of speech?"

I'm sure the average tea party member would tell you it's a real grassroots movement too. And I bet most people buying up the guns are in fact probably saying they're solely doing so to protect themselves and their families. In fact almost all of your arguments sound like "yeah, but we're right." Umm, ok, if you say so.

As for calling on people to prove it doesn't have a correlation, why not wait until we have all the facts. People were flat out calling the right responsible for the killing of the census worker too. Didn't quite turn out that way.

Are you sure you are replying to the right post? Try scrolling to the post you thought you were responding to or please re-read what you think you are responding to.

Will... while I would agree that the protesters at the G8 and G20 events do not have a voice or media representation on the scale that a movement like the Tea Party does, there are elements in these protests that are violent and do call for further violence.

I would suggest that the folks involved in these sorts of activities are truly fringe elements and are nowhere near the mainstream. Folks such as Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, etc, are in the mainstream and do have the ears of the Conservative establishment.

In the end, I don't think it's helpful to deny there are violent words or actions on either side of this equation. Frankly, I don't really care to point out how much more of this sort of language is used by Conservatives (though it should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention for the past few years). The point is, this language is not conducive to getting stuff done.

The current state of politics in the US is one that can't be taken seriously. It's almost like America wants to fail. There is serious shit that needs to be done and I get the impression that a significant portion of your nation (or at least an increasingly vocal part) is dead set on preventing anything from being done.

I had not heard the 'second amendment remedies' quote until you mentioned it. After reading about the context, it's something that I could see being investigated by the secret service or FBI.

I can demonstrate with factual, verifiable evidence that the Tea Party is astroturf. It's not an opinion, of which there's an opposing but equally valid opinion. It's objectively verifiable. In other words, yeah, I am right, but more than that I can prove it with the facts. The G8 protests are demonstrably not connected to corporate interests or mainstream political organizations. You'd never catch the DCCC, for example, even mentioning the protests, unless it was to condemn them. The NRCC chair is a vocal member of the Tea Party.

In other words, you can't compare the Tea Party and G8 protests.
I was following the available evidence in that case and it turned out to be fabricated (Occam's razor hardly would lead someone to conclude this man with no history of mental illness would write FED on his own chest). I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for the wrong reasons, wouldn't you?

And, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying this shooting is directly connected to the calls for violence on the right. I'm saying that in the aftermath of an attempted assassination, maybe it's time to tone down calls to violence because that's an appropriate thing to do.

More violent right-wing rhetoric.

2004 DLC Website campaign map
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010...geting-map.gif

From the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website... site and map on February 23rd 2009.
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010...target-map.jpg
Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican”

Twitter Users Wish Death on Sarah Palin



New Black Panther Party member King Samir Shabazz calling on blacks to kill “crackers” and their babies…:



…and lamenting “Fox Jews” while saying whites use black babies as “alligator bait”:



the president’s own hateful, angry, spiteful death threat against the pop group the Jonas Brothers: :rolleyes:



Obama supporter gets violent



M.I.L.P. Mothers I'd Like to Punch
http://www.afineexample.com/other/comics2/palin.JPG

Madonna bashing Sarah Palin and shouting “I will kick her ass:”



Good hearted Sandra Bernhard bashing Sarah Palin "will be gang raped by my big black brothers"



Bush stamps with gun to head
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bushgun.jpg

Kill Bush T-shirt
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/i...illbush003.jpg

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/i...shbeheaded.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...08/03/dope.jpg

2007 New Black Panther Party block party rap: “bang for freedom,” “put the bang right into a cracker’s face,” and if you’re going to bang, bang for black power… hang a cracker [unintelligible] . . .if you’re going to bang, bang on the white devil. . . . burying him near the river bank with the right shovel. . . . community revolution in progress…. banging for crackers to go to hell, we don’t need em:”



Tea Party Protesters Assaulted by Pro-Amnesty Socialist Group



These were just a few things from Michelle Malkin's website. But the supply is endless across the net... I could do this all night.

here's more from other sources....

Violent Obama Union Tory Thugs Attack Father in Tampa



Obama SEIU Shocktroops Beat a man for passing out flags!



Chris Matthews on Rush "...he's going to explode...I'll be there to watch."



OK bed-time

Otto...the DLC and the DCCC sites from 6 years ago are very similar to Palin's. I dont recall any spike in threats of violence against members of Congress at the time comparable to the spike in the last year.

The rest are good for a laugh (like most of Malkin's blog), but hardly in the same class as the ongoing, everyday rhetoric from the major talking heads on the right (limbaugh, beck, hannity, and yes, Palin)

But nice try.

how quaint, otto darling. decontextualized red-baiting (the new panther party? are you fucking serious?) anti-union bullshit, and arbitrary quotation all in one tedious, long post. and it's a perfect little snapshot of glennbecky talking points.

but it's strange...i don't remember any comparable spikes in violent activity....and i don't seem to see anything approaching context. so i dont see anything of substance in that post. what a surprise.

Then maybe there's some other reason. People are tired of Washington confiscating money from citizens? People tired of Washington passing legslation they don't want like Obamacare?

Nothing should push people to violence, but there are a few hot tempered people out there.

I can agree with that. It's pretty much what I've said all along. Other then that I'm done here, this thread is quickly approaching whack-a-doodle stage.

Well it always becomes personal when the truth punches you in the face. Westboro Baptist Church? are you fucking serious? The thugs on your side are inconvenient, but they're busy being thugs all over the country on a regular basis. When is the left going to take responsibility for it's language and real acts of violence? Your tedious rants of bigotry and hatred are an offensive cliche. Your arrogance in the face of truth is sadly predictable.

I realize that lots of people who are anti gun or indifferent to guns don't know the laws as well as others do, but if you want real answers to your questions, it's usually better to ask them in more polite ways.

1) It's NOT so easy to buy a Glock, or any other handgun from a gun shop, pawn shop, or any other shop licensed to sell guns. The form to buy a gun requires alot of information AND if it isn't filled out EXACTLY the way the ATF likes it, they can, and usually do, revoke the dealers license. On top of that, every form that is filled out gets called in to the ATF so that the agency can run the background check. If it passes, the gun can be sold. If a gun is sold to an individual that maybe shouldn't have one, you have only your federal government to blame for it.

2) Glocks are a very common handgun used by lots of police departments across the country. Being that popular, it should be easy to discern why there are alot out there.

3) States are not required to do background checks when selling handguns. Some do on their own, but they are not required to. It is, however, FEDERAL law that requires background checks on every single handgun that is sold by a federally licensed firearm dealer.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

why would you find this odd? even in states that are notoriously pro gun rights, few people actually know the laws and know that they have the right to carry. It's been hammered in to the people for so long, they think that simply carrying a gun without a permit is illegal.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

those comments are MOST LIKELY the result of his not liking the new law removing the need for a license to carry concealed. Alot of sheriffs are not happy with the new law.

otto---this is now depressing. i don't see a point in continuing any form of interaction with you. it'll just end up repeating the problem that the debate is about.

really? Because I'm a TEA party person and I haven't gotten a damned dime.

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 AM ----------

It went away because of the federal crackdown on militias.

I'll have to second that emotion.

The tea-party totally started grassroots there's no debate about that. It has been somewhat commandeered by right wing pundits I will admit though.

or as I like to call them.....TEA jacktivists.

dame sarah speaks and she does it with the epic stupidity that is her hallmark.

the problem, you see, is not the violent rhetoric of the far right. o no: the problem is the criticism of the violent rhetoric of the far right. which is a form of blood libel, she goes so far as to say. so to criticize the violent rhetoric of the american neo-fascist movement is to indulge something like unto anti-semitism.

or maybe she just doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Palin Calls Criticism 'Blood Libel' - NYTimes.com

amazing stuff.

I was licensed for years and filed out a lot of forms incorrectly. Not once did anyone even threaten to pull my license. Not even a call or letter to that effect.

I think a lot of people are well educated, Esp. in Az, as to what the laws are. There was, or it was reported anyway, a person there with a handgun on his person. When questioned he said he didn't fire because the man was out of ammo. The shooter still had ammo when taken in. Maybe this person arrived on scene after others subdued him. Maybe he froze. Maybe there was no clear shot. No idea.

I find the Sheriffs comments odd but then a lot of LE would like a lot tougher gun control laws. I think the Uzi under every crib might have been a statement made without much thought and after having a friend shot and nearly killed.


I don't get the problem people have with the Glock. It's a fine hand gun and I've owned several. My favorite for whatever reason was always a Model 22 .40cal. Felt good in my hand was pretty accurate for a semi-auto. I like them.

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

You couldn't have expected her to say anything else, could you?

she has practically taken all the blame for the shooting when she did nothing. her response was fitting if you ask me. the people still blaming the rhetoric are looking quite ridiculous.

the left has picked the wrong issue to base a 'rhetoric' war around. it's getting stupid.

That's fine... but it would be interesting to understand what you find so depressing or which problem it is you wish to avoid. I believe this could be a key to the essence of "the debate".

were you an FFL? of just a concealed license holder? Because I was referring to the FFL being revoked.


As I understand it, unless new info has come along I haven't heard yet, was that he was being subdued as the carrier approached and he had seen a woman grab the magazine out of the shooters hand.

FFL, yes I can prove that. You could just PM amonkie, she's been here and seen it. You think the paper work on selling is a hassle- cancel and they'll ask you for ever record of every transaction you ever made. That was a hassle.

Yeah, I hadn't read up on what exactly happened. For some reason reading about this story depresses me.

samcol---what's happened, really, is that the right is struggling to get back ahead of the news cycles on this that's all. that anything critical of far right language was going to be rejected by both the people who invest in that language and the machinery that produces it seemed obvious. personally, i think it follows from the underlying structure of far right politics, which is rooted in identity. so that validity of any of the claims made within that discourse isn't really open to debate, nor is the rhetoric for that matter because investment in it is a way to express one's personality more than it is a way to articulate a view of the world as an analytic problem. this one of the things that makes this discourse anti-democratic, really: it's not falsifiable, not part of a debate in any traditionally democratic sense of the term. rather it's a weapon.

and that's different from the language being used by any other political form in the united states. the conservative media apparatus is a dangerous thing.

what matters to the strategists on the right is being able to define the framing. they lost control of it almost immediately with the shootings on saturday. that loss of control did not rely on any causal argument that linked the gun fantasy-laden rhetoric of american neo-fascism directly to the shooting---from the beginning the argument was rather "this tragedy occurred in a poisonous political context. that poison is the responsability of the right."

since then, conservative media actors have struggled to reframe things---first as some kind of cause-effect argument, which is wasn't.
this sets up tedious lines of counter like those which otto has been working, which in turn presuppose the usual rightwing false equivalences and red-baiting....but that's too lame and stupid to bother with---and besides the whole thing sits on a bait-and-switch as to what the argument is that's being countered. so otto and people like him are just making shit up while complaining about shit being made up. go figure

the other line is that behind the superficial human tragedy of 6 people being killed and 19 wounded, some critically, there's another---the victimization of american neo-fascism itself.

this is unbelievably crass as a counter-argument, but it appears to have given poor conservatives who see in the loss of control of news cycles yet another instance of their martyrdom some solace---because what matters in the counter is that conservative identity as the Eternal Victim is reinforced. so it's asserted, made continuous across this.

no matter that it trivializes the tragedy in tucson. those people were Outsiders anyway. and We All Feel Badly blah blah blah. but really, conservatives are the victim here.

you find that line of argument appealing you can have it.
i think it's beneath contempt.

but hey, whatever helps you manage news cycles.

no need to prove it. i'll take your word for it. I've heard alot of stories about audits and revocations due to stupid paperwork things like abbreviating a state instead of spelling it all out. is this real or hype?

Name the things you claim otto made up. Sorta makes your post quite inventive in itself. (this whole non-interaction thing you promised must not include the passive-agressive rock-throwing thing)

I really don't know. I was moving to Mexico and my renewal was up, I didn't want fork out the money knowing I wouldn't have use for it here and decided to just cancel. First I just didn't pay, figured if they didn't get my cash they'd just cancel it and that would be that. Then I got a letter. So I called the PDX office and explained I was quitting. "Well, that's totally different. You need to send in a copy of every transaction you ever processed as well as your original unsigned permit and a letter requesting to cancel." I told the guy I would send in what I had but I'd had a water pipe freeze and burst flooding my home office, some of the older stuff might be missing." "Well, that might be a problem, you need to find those records." I ended up sending them a box of stuff including a bunch of unreadable, stuck together files and forms. We traded letters and phone calls, mostly professional, for a while and they complained about the unreadable paperwork. Eventually I stopped hearing from them. After moving here I went through some old files and tax records I'd toted down here and I found my original license. Turns out I never did send it in and I do not remember writing any letter. Meh. Have never heard a word about it. I think about it sometimes when I go through customs whenever I return stateside. I figure knowing the feds at some point some suit is going to ask me about the missing items. So far the only odd event I've had with customs is the last time I went to see my father the man at Houston stated "ok, your eyes are blue." I thought "What? WTF does that mean?" I still have no idea what he meant by that, but I passed through without incident.

otto: i merely used your posts as illustrative of a more general intellectual dishonesty. you should be flattered.

I guess Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" in her speech today means she somehow equates the recent criticism against her gun rhetoric to the Jews slaughtered for allegedly using Christian children’s' blood in their religious rituals. The analogy seems like something someone who has mental problems with grammar might say.

Dishonesty? I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim. You have stated that I made things up. Let's have the proof. This goes beyond intellectual-dishonesty. As long as you are willing lie, there is no room for debate. You've shown yourself for what you are. TFP can have you.

rb-

All this time, I thought you were insinuating that I only liked to wear the latest styles. Then I looked it up, and now I guess I have to be offended.

otto---you are trying to switch the actual claim i was making for something you can refute. that is the initial act of dishonest argumentation. the refutation you build of this imaginary claim is problematic for other reasons that have already been discussed in this thread. so either read the thread and try to say something that might open up an actual discussion of stop wasting your time with this.

poujadisme? it was a french neo-fascist movement that was around in the 1950. right wing libertarians shop keepers mostly who claimed that they and they alone represented the "real france" and who opposed all forms of the "nanny state" and the taxation that enabled it because taxation took their shit and gave it to the less worthy, whom they wanted to keep out of their pure lilly white country in any event because they threatened the purity of the very christian volk and besides most of them were illegal anyway. they also adamantly supported the war on terror that the french military was waging at the time in algeria and had no problem with torture and other extra-legal actions because terrorists are like the state in that they want to take our shit. the eternal victims, a politics of bottomless self-pity, a grinding sense of status anxiety. sound familiar?