ricky,

I'll be quite happy to examine the failures of the system's status quo and weigh them against potential corrections. I am unwilling, however, to assign/imply blame before I know the whole story. According to Dan, that makes me morally deficient...I'm not sure I understand why...

So...do you have some info we don't? How many times was Loughner almost committed but didn't get in because of insufficient coverage? Was he misdiagnosed? By whom? When? How often? He was of legal age, was he in charge of his own care? Who was?

Like I said, I'll be happy to affix blame and support changes when I get more information...but I lack the moral surety for instant blame assessment.

danivon wrote:Interesting though. After all, Palin was "[i]Just sayin" that Giffords should be removed from office and using a gunsight to signify her district. Kelly was "just saying" shoot an M-16 with me and remove Giffords from office.

Shocking, isn't it, that a GOP leader would suggest a Democrat should be defeated? And, to use a "target?" Wow! It's a wonder every politician in America isn't shot if that's all it takes.

And, for the 300th time, what link was there EVER established between Kelly's rhetoric, Palin's rhetoric, and the shooter?

Oh? None?

Then, why can't you admit your initial post was misleading--at best?

As for holding people accountable for what they don't say, which you object to with regard to yourself, why would you hold Kelly responsible for what he didn't say? Did he explicitly link shooting an M-16 with removing Giffords from office? Hint: the ad was a fundraiser with a not-so-clever pitch. However, the wording was different than you suggest.

Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly

"Get on Target for Victory . . ." meaning "We're holding a target-shooting fundraiser."

"Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" meaning "Help defeat her in November."

"Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly" meaning "Contribute and get full access to the candidate."

It's not so difficult to understand, unless your first language isn't English. In fact, using your over-baked interpretation, Kelly was recruiting additional shooters for a hit squad. Yet, somehow, Kelly himself chickened out. Hmm, or, maybe, just maybe, you've misunderstood a fundraising pitch.

When someone says they are going to "take aim" at an issue or candidate, it doesn't mean they are going to shoot them. I'm just sayin'. There are a myriad of phrases that are used in politics that could, to the thick-headed literalist, sound violent. Maybe you skipped "parts of speech" in school?

Seems that I am as bad to you as Palin is to me. When my rhetoric involves oblique references to shooting individuals, then you'd be right.

Obliquely accusing others of causing a shooting while simultaneously adjusting your halo is just fine, apparently. I'm just sayin'.

Ricky, there is nothing wrong with pointing things out after a tragedy. Honestly, I expected the cry for gun control and this was a good "opportunity" to do so. But here's the problem, gun control was an afterthought, right from the get-go we had (and still have) people trying to link Sara Palin to the incident because of her map with gun sights on "targeted districts". (by the way, where was the outrage when this was new? only AFTER do we see such "outrage" when in all honesty absolutely nobody had an issue with it in the least now did they?) That was proven to have absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. When called on this, only then did the lefties take a sharp turn and discuss gun control and health insurance (that one still blows my mind how you managed to sneak that in here) all while continuing to hold on to the idea that Palin is still wrong (she just has to be wrong?)

interesting how only the USA uses such violent rhetoric isn't it?
Oh wait, here's an article from Canada:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada ... story.html

Nothing wrong with it at all, but in it they mention:
Launching Attacks
Attacking Rivals
Taking Aim at party leaders
Pouncing on hypocrisy
Zeroing in on issues
Hard Hitting attacks on rivals

this ad was from Monday, how insensitive to use such language only a few days after the Giffords shooting? How can this be? after all, only Americans use such coarse language!?

Should I stop shopping at Target?

Should we insist they change their name and logo?

They're going to hit you with the 'whataboutery' stick any minute now Tom.

I'm still waiting for the breakdown of the medical system's failures vis a vis this incident.

OMG! I shopped at Ta%#et (word scrambled to avoid inflaming wackos!) yesterday. Look at the Bu!!$eye for a logo! I am lucky I got out of there alive with so much incivility and vitriol readily displayed! Whew!

PCHiway wrote:ricky,

I'll be quite happy to examine the failures of the system's status quo and weigh them against potential corrections. I am unwilling, however, to assign/imply blame before I know the whole story. According to Dan, that makes me morally deficient...I'm not sure I understand why

Actually, that was not the moral comparison I was making that led you to start commenting on the thread.

I asked about the morality of what people like Palin and Kelly (and all the other examples that were comparable, in which guns or gunsights were used in connection with targeting an opponent) did.

You responded (vehemently) with what seemed to be a stern defence of their right to say what they liked (which is fair enough), and of the utility of having people who say outrageous and stupid things so that discerning voters know that they are outrageous/stupid (which is also fair enough).

However, the oft quoted line attributed to Voltaire goes

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

There is two parts to it. We have established that people have the right to free expression. THe question is whether you agree or not. In other words, whether they are right to have used their free expression in that way.

My point was that those who think it is OK could perhaps take a look at themselves. As the defenders of Palin & Kelly et al have pretty much not said either way, I don't know. Maybe you do oppose what she did, but are not prepared to say so?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Interesting though. After all, Palin was "[i]Just sayin" that Giffords should be removed from office and using a gunsight to signify her district. Kelly was "just saying" shoot an M-16 with me and remove Giffords from office.

Shocking, isn't it, that a GOP leader would suggest a Democrat should be defeated? And, to use a "target?" Wow! It's a wonder every politician in America isn't shot if that's all it takes.

It wasn't just using 'a' target, it was using a gunsight (and Pailn is now a GOP leader?). Kelly didn't just use a gunsight, but an automatic M-16.

And, for the 300th time, what link was there EVER established between Kelly's rhetoric, Palin's rhetoric, and the shooter?

No direct one. Doesn't mean that no indirect one cannot exist, or that the correlation itself is not worthy of comment.

Then, why can't you admit your initial post was misleading--at best?

Only to those who spend more time reading between lines than reading the lines themselves.

As for holding people accountable for what they don't say, which you object to with regard to yourself, why would you hold Kelly responsible for what he didn't say? Did he explicitly link shooting an M-16 with removing Giffords from office? Hint: the ad was a fundraiser with a not-so-clever pitch. However, the wording was different than you suggest.

What was the actual wording of his Tweet, then Dr Fate? Oh, you've handily quoted it and tried to take each sentence out of context as if that makes much difference:

"Get on Target for Victory . . ." meaning "We're holding a target-shooting fundraiser."

Where was the mention of funds or fundraising? I see none. Was it between the lines, perhaps?

"Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" meaning "Help defeat her in November."

Well, no timescale given, but that would be the normal interpretation.

"Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly" meaning "Contribute and get full access to the candidate."

No mention of contributions. Right after the preceding sentence

When someone says they are going to "take aim" at an issue or candidate, it doesn't mean they are going to shoot them. I'm just sayin'. There are a myriad of phrases that are used in politics that could, to the thick-headed literalist, sound violent. Maybe you skipped "parts of speech" in school?

Yet context matters, Steve. 'Take Aim' alone is ambiguous. 'Take Aim' with a gunsight is less ambiguous. "remove from office" with an M-16 is less ambiguous. Is it totally explicit? No. But it does create contextual connections.

Alone, the three sentences from Kelly are less problematic. All together, that is not the case. Not in my opinion.

Say, you are able to leap to contextual connections with my first post, but unable to do so with Kelly's tweet. Is that an on-off switch, or just political blinkers?

Obliquely accusing others of causing a shooting while simultaneously adjusting your halo is just fine, apparently. I'm just sayin'.

I can't help being saintly, Steve.

OMG
First it's Canada and now it's the UK
...but we were told only the US uses such violent language!?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1146925.stm
Torries take aim at Campbell
From just yesterday! How insensitive!?

I would take this as a call for all Torries to assassinate Campbell, surely it can mean nothing else?


Torrie Wilson taking aim!

Tom. Where is the gun in the Tories* taking aim at Campbell story?

Why is the idea of 'context' so hard for you to understand?

* If you are going to quote something, cut-n-paste reduces new spelling errors. Oh, and it's not from 'yesterday' it's from almost 9 years ago!

And the obtuseness just keeps on coming...

danivon wrote:Ok. Here's the question. Do you believe that it is fine for politicians to use such rhetoric?

Forget which 'side' they are on for a moment, and consider the question. If your answer is yes, I invite you to please take a good hard look at your own self for a moment.

This is classic Danivon. Without saying so explicitly you imply that anyone who won't put a limit on rhetoric should do some soul-searching.

And here's your quote from this page,

danivon wrote:My point was that those who think it is OK could perhaps take a look at themselves.

Take a look at themselves how exactly? You don't want to be called on for what you imply? Fine. How about you explicitly tell us what lesson we should take away after our mirror-gaze?

danivon wrote:Maybe you do oppose what she did, but are not prepared to say so?

Hadn't I made that clear? I 100% do not oppose. What does that say about me explicitly?

Here's my explicit take on your argument for this whole thread: You subscribe to the Mary Mapes school of intellectual rigor. Not surprising since it gives you the moral superiority you so desperately stake out for yourself without the pesky labor of fact-finding or logical expression.

Argument ala Mapes

Behold the Facts:
1- Congresswoman appeared on shooting themed campaign ad
2- Other politicians in area used gun based rhetoric and gimmickry in their campaigns
3- Crazy man shoots Democratic Congresswoman

But...curses! I can't show that one follows the other. There's no direct link between any of these things. But there should be one. Therefore there is one. Just because I can't find it myself doesn't prove its non-existence. Therefore it exists. And if it doesn't...it doesn't matter. My goals are honorable (a return to more calm and reasoned debate) therefore my heart is pure therefore naysayers are beneath me. So I'll allude to the non-existent connection, I'll hint at it, I'll wink ever-so-suavely...but I won't actually say that 1 caused 3. Those who are pure of heart will draw the right conclusion.

Dan, you seem to think that you should get a pass for what you imply but don't state in so many words. Well...just as you have the right to impugn...so too do I have the right to call foul.

The freaking headline!
"Tories take aim at Campbell"
oh excuse me, I added an R so the entire meaning is gone? Brits would never use violent terms? And it is in fact the "Context" that is what this is all about. Palin used gunsights "In Context" of targeting a political district. The problem is when people such as yourself take it OUT of context to mean something different.
and yes, You are correct, I mis-read the date, does that change anything at all? You guys don't use that sort of language any longer???

No, seems like the Brits still use the same "violent language"
dated the 11th of this month:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/inde ... full/99650
Miliband takes aim at Tory 'betrayal'

They still seem to aiming at all sorts of people, how dreadfully violent and ...American

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, for the 300th time, what link was there EVER established between Kelly's rhetoric, Palin's rhetoric, and the shooter?

No direct one. Doesn't mean that no indirect one cannot exist, or that the correlation itself is not worthy of comment.(bold added)

What tripe!

1. There is no direct connection.
2. An indirect connection may/may not exist.
3. Thus, I (Danivon) have reason to comment about a correlation that may/may not exist.

Utter rubbish.

Then, why can't you admit your initial post was misleading--at best?

Only to those who spend more time reading between lines than reading the lines themselves.

As for holding people accountable for what they don't say, which you object to with regard to yourself, why would you hold Kelly responsible for what he didn't say? Did he explicitly link shooting an M-16 with removing Giffords from office? Hint: the ad was a fundraiser with a not-so-clever pitch. However, the wording was different than you suggest.

What was the actual wording of his Tweet, then Dr Fate? Oh, you've handily quoted it and tried to take each sentence out of context as if that makes much difference:

"Get on Target for Victory . . ." meaning "We're holding a target-shooting fundraiser."

Where was the mention of funds or fundraising? I see none. Was it between the lines, perhaps?

Um, well, why don't you tell us--why was an M-16 going to get fired? Did they put up pictures of Giffords to shoot at? Or, was the whole thing a fundraiser?

"Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly" meaning "Contribute and get full access to the candidate."

No mention of contributions. Right after the preceding sentence

Oy. What part of a fundraiser raising money do you not understand? Your arguments are utterly vacuous.

'Take Aim' alone is ambiguous. 'Take Aim' with a gunsight is less ambiguous. "remove from office" with an M-16 is less ambiguous. Is it totally explicit? No. But it does create contextual connections

.

To Loughner? If not, then connections to what? The negative vibe ether? How does any of what Kelly tweeted connect to Loughner? Are you actually suggesting Kelly was promoting the shooting of a Congresswoman? If so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department going after him?