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?