rickyp wrote:Those who've been victims of escalating rhetoric that turns violent , recognize when its happening. Words and imagery matter.

Are you "just sayin'" or do you have a best case scenario you'd like to share? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't want the criminalization of (to you) unpalatable speech and imagery. I suspect your ideal scenario will add up to the marginalization of your most hated political icons.

I'm in full agreement with the rabbis that dehumanization of a people can lead to atrocious results. I suspect we're in disagreement over who, precisely, is being dehumanized as a result of this horror.

rickyp wrote:Those of you who read the Wall Street Journal may have noticed today that 400 Rabis signed an open letter to Rupert Murdoch decrying the use of extreme and antisemetic language by Roger Ailes and especially Glenn Beck....(lots of use of Nazi, and holocaust) also see Daily Show recently on Fox personalities regularly using the term to describe their opponents. (Well, I assume opponents. One doesn't use the term for friends does one?)
Are the Rabbis protesting because they've learned that if you tolerate the use of such, that it only encourages an escalation? I think so....
Those who've been victims of escalating rhetoric that turns violent , recognize when its happening. Words and imagery matter.

No links? I'll presume the WSJ article is for subscribers-only, but what about the Daily Show? I'm sure that Stewart went after Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz (also known as "Fair," "Balanced" and "Middle-of-the-Road")?

Meanwhile, Ricky's alter ego, Jim Moran, brought some light to the politics of hate by exposing the Republicans with an articulation of the facts:

Speaking to Arab television network Alhurra, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) said Republicans made big gains in November in part because “a lot of people in this country … don’t want to be governed by an African-American.”

Even more objectionable to some Americans, he said, is that Obama is a black president “who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society — that’s a basic philosophical clash.”

Moran’s remarks came Tuesday in an interview conducted after Obama delivered his State of the Union speech. Democrats, Moran said, lost for “the same reason the Civil War Happened in the United States … the Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.” Virginia, of course, is one of those Southern, formerly slaveholding states.

So good to know it's only conservatives who engage in hate-speech.

Btw, how about the nice, calm, non-violent rhetoric of Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Look at her eye contact. I asked her when we had her on election night if she's under hypnosis. She doesn't answer the question. She looks straight ahead in that kind of zombie-like manner, like she's waiting for somebody to flash a card, like in "Manchurian Candidate." I mean, I don't know what her state is. She apparently just got blown away running for leadership, so the members of the House on the Republican side --

TOWNSEND: Well, they know.

MATTHEWS: -- know who she is.

TOWNSEND: They know that she`s a problem.

MATTHEWS: But this kind of bizarro behavior, where you come on, Moonie-like, if you will, and just stare into the camera and recite this -- the question was, Do you think the president`s anti-American?

I'm sure you--and Danivon--just don't have access to these examples of rhetoric or you'd post them right away!

In fact, according to newsbusters, Matthews went after Bachman three nights in a row--and Palin on the third night:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight: Dueling banjos.Look who’s challenging Sarah Palin as media darling and chief attention grabber on the Republican right, Michele Bachmann. Palin may have matched Bachmann last night, however, with her own full moon attack on President Obama’s State of the Union. This isn’t about SAT scores, ladies and gentlemen. . ..

MATTHEWS: But how can you tell your kid, if you’re a conservative -- a reasonable conservative -- a lot of them out there -- would say, My kids have to study in school because then you may get to be president some day with these people with manifest ignorance, balloonhead, in this case a Bachmann, who knows nothing, running for president. And like, when Katie Couric says, What do you read, they make that into an insult. What are you talking about, what I read? I don’t have to read anything. I know. I read the Old Testament. I read the Founding Fathers. And it turns out they even don’t read the Bible -- well, they certainly don’t read the Constitution.

Where was the implied violence in those, Steve? Where did he imply that the use of guns and removing Bachmann from office be combined as part of his campaign?

danivon wrote:Where was the implied violence in those, Steve? Where did he imply that the use of guns and removing Bachmann from office be combined as part of his campaign?

"Blown away"--violence.

"Zombie . . . Moonie . . . full moon attack . . . (low) SAT scores . . . balloonhead"

In other words, Bachmann is a moron, deserving of no respect. What happens to people who are not respected? How is Matthews doing anything but ratcheting up the political rhetoric and insisting those with whom he disagrees be demeaned?

I realize only 6 people watch his show, but still.

And targeting districts is implied violence?
Yeah, crosshairs are violent and imply a hit should be made

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Where was the implied violence in those, Steve? Where did he imply that the use of guns and removing Bachmann from office be combined as part of his campaign?

"Blown away"--violence.

Context! In context, that phrase is used to say what he thinks has happened not what should happen. What's more it seems to be about her not getting far within the Party, rather than being a target for explosions or shooting.

"Zombie . . . Moonie . . . full moon attack . . . (low) SAT scores . . . balloonhead"

In other words, Bachmann is a moron, deserving of no respect. What happens to people who are not respected?

They are ignored?

How is Matthews doing anything but ratcheting up the political rhetoric and insisting those with whom he disagrees be demeaned?

Well, he's not demanding much, but yes, he's indulging in low rhetoric. It's not violent though, so while it's bad (yes, it is bad), it's not as bad as it could be.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Where was the implied violence in those, Steve? Where did he imply that the use of guns and removing Bachmann from office be combined as part of his campaign?

"Blown away"--violence.

Context! In context, that phrase is used to say what he thinks has happened not what should happen. What's more it seems to be about her not getting far within the Party, rather than being a target for explosions or shooting.

Hypocrite.

You began this thread decrying the alleged violent rhetoric used by Palin. In context, did she advocate violence as "what should happen?"

The answer is clear. That didn't stop you from echoing the mainstream media choir.

"Zombie . . . Moonie . . . full moon attack . . . (low) SAT scores . . . balloonhead"

In other words, Bachmann is a moron, deserving of no respect. What happens to people who are not respected?

They are ignored?

Fine. I'm sure you won't mind me just referring over and over to Obama as a liar and an idiot, both of which are demonstrable. Sure, he has impressive academic credentials, but his real world practice displays a notable lack of intellectual heft.

How is Matthews doing anything but ratcheting up the political rhetoric and insisting those with whom he disagrees be demeaned?

Well, he's not demanding much, but yes, he's indulging in low rhetoric. It's not violent though, so while it's bad (yes, it is bad), it's not as bad as it could be.

That's quite a standard you're holding him too . . .

Stee you asked for a link.

http://www.jewishjustice.org/rabbiletter

The above link takes you to coverage of the wall street advretorial by the 400 rabbis. The WSJ I saw was on paper...
Here's a relevant quote:
Among those signing the letter, Rabbi Steven Wernick, executive vice president and CEO of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said, “The ease at which Fox News routinely tramples upon the memory of the Holocaust and likens policies with which they disagree with to those of the Nazis is disturbing. After years in the news business, we hope Mr. Murdoch’s will not let his legacy be his complacency to Glenn Beck and Roger Ailes.”

Now, are you seriously juxtaposing Chris Matthews bashing of Michelle Bachman with this? Really?

The rabbis are specifically refering to the extreme kanguage used on Fox news Channel. Matthews is attempting to describe the paucity of Bachmans intellect. Admittedly his words fail him...but then perhaps the depth of her ignorance is indescribable. (For a member of congress)
By the way, you earn respect. Bachmans is respected by a small wedge of the US electorate... The vast majority agree with Matthews, although they aren't probably listening to the guy. I'm surprised you do, or was this on an e-mail alert from your local te party?.

rickyp wrote:Stee you asked for a link.

http://www.jewishjustice.org/rabbiletter

The above link takes you to coverage of the wall street advretorial by the 400 rabbis. The WSJ I saw was on paper...
Here's a relevant quote:
Among those signing the letter, Rabbi Steven Wernick, executive vice president and CEO of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said, “The ease at which Fox News routinely tramples upon the memory of the Holocaust and likens policies with which they disagree with to those of the Nazis is disturbing. After years in the news business, we hope Mr. Murdoch’s will not let his legacy be his complacency to Glenn Beck and Roger Ailes.”

Now, are you seriously juxtaposing Chris Matthews bashing of Michelle Bachman with this? Really?

You used the word "juxtapose." I think you should look up its meaning.

All I did was point to overheated, demeaning rhetoric on the Left AFTER the President's "plea" to tone it down.

The rabbis are specifically refering to the extreme kanguage used on Fox news Channel.

Now, THAT is some propaganda. Did you read your own link? The thrust of their complaint is that Beck said Soros collaborated with the Nazis.

Mr. Beck’s three-day series defaming Holocaust survivor George Soros sparked the letter from rabbis. At that time, Mr. Beck claimed Mr. Soros survived the Holocaust as 14-year-old boy by collaborating with the Nazis to send other Jews to the death camps. Mr. Beck said, that Mr. Soros “used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here’s a Jewish boy helping send Jews to the death camps.”

Mr. Beck’s three-day attack on Mr. Soros was hardly the first time he has misused the Holocaust to incite viewers. The rabbis’ note Mr. Beck has made “literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom [Beck] disagree[s].” Beck routinely compares American leaders to Nazis, has likened his crusade against progressives to that of “Israeli Nazi Hunters,” and has said that putting the “common good” first leads to “death camps.”

In the face of mounting criticism by Jewish groups, Fox News chief Roger Ailes dismissed criticism of Mr. Beck in an interview with the Daily Beast as nothing more than “left-wing rabbis who basically don’t think that anybody can ever use the word ‘Holocaust’ on the air.”

First clue: defending Soros. Who defends him? The guy's actions are indefensible unless you are very liberal.

Second clue: "literally hundreds" of references to Nazis and the Holocaust? Okay, that should be easy to document and if they're inappropriate get Beck off the air. So, either that's an exaggeration, he is generally correct in his use of the language, or Ailes is an anti-Semite supporter of an anti-Semite. If the latter, I think you've got to make a stronger factual case.

Matthews is attempting to describe the paucity of Bachmans intellect. Admittedly his words fail him...but then perhaps the depth of her ignorance is indescribable. (For a member of congress)

Really? The intellectual tower that is Chris Matthews? The "tingle" down his leg Matthews?

Frankly, I think it's a bit personal--she embarrassed him on his own show so now he attacks her. Look, I can name a dozen Democrats in Congress who are absolute morons by any standard. No, strike that, 25. I guarantee you Michelle Bachman is a lot smarter than you think. But, it's okay. You can live with your hate--it's going to be tough watching your side get rolled for the next two years.

By the way, you earn respect. Bachmans is respected by a small wedge of the US electorate...

Lame.

It's a "small wedge of the electorate" who even know their own congressman's name.

Speaking of earning respect, what were Pelosi's personal approval ratings right before the election? 11%? 9%? This is the woman who once said:

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas – an energy source she favors – is not a fossil fuel.

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

So, clearly, you are prepared to say Pelosi is dumb, right?

The vast majority agree with Matthews, although they aren't probably listening to the guy. I'm surprised you do, or was this on an e-mail alert from your local te party?.

Actually, I don't belong to a TEA Party. The truth is virtually no one watches Matthews--he's on MSNBC, the official network of the White House.

Palin's use of crosshairs should indeed be taken in context and when taken in context it is no worse than the penny shopper ad or the medical cream ad or any of the other uses of crosshairs posted earlier. When taken in context (as we are urged to do) there is nothing wrong in the least now is their? Not unless you wish to take this out of context and fabricate a whole new meaning that was never even implied....context indeed my friend!

Tom, the context is that 'my opponent is my enemy - and yours'. Not 'buy some cheap stuff here'.

Different contexts, different implications. Why this stuff is so hard to understand, I don't know.

And when I do say that what Matthews said was bad, somehow this is still worth attacking me for, Steve?

danivon wrote:Tom, the context is that 'my opponent is my enemy - and yours'. Not 'buy some cheap stuff here'.

Well then, the President should resign--he called Republicans "enemies" during the fall campaign. I'm sure you'll join me in calling for his immediate resignation. Why, just look at the violence inherent in the system:

In a radio interview that aired on Univision yesterday, Obama assured Hispanics that immigration overhaul was next on the agenda, despite the lack of Republican support:

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

Punish. Enemies. Upsurge.

Andy Stern, the President's buddy, in the same article:

During an interview with Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, on February 20, 2007, Stern stated: "We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live."

Remember union members picketing a lawyer's HOUSE last fall? I read they recently did the same to a developer in DC who has the temerity to try and build a Wal-Mart.

Different contexts, different implications. Why this stuff is so hard to understand, I don't know.

What is difficult to understand is why someone who is ostensibly intelligent (you) would continue the same failed line of, ah, attack. Palin didn't say what you paraphrase her saying--or even close. You simply cannot concede that you started a jihad against Palin and subsequently discovered the facts are not in your favor.

And when I do say that what Matthews said was bad, somehow this is still worth attacking me for, Steve?

Yes, because you are still trying to draw imaginary distinctions. It's something I would expect from a partisan hack.

If the rhetoric had nothing to do with this person, then how can it not have helped the situation unless it was simply fabricated? If it had something to do with his sick reasoning, I would still say she had done nothing wrong but yes, it did at least play some part. But it had nothing to do with the situation, nada, zip, so where does this thinking come into play that "it doesn't help the situation" this is like saying the Cardinals not making the playoffs didn't help the situation either. The "situation" regarding Palin is simply fabricated into something it is not. It could POSSIBLY affect something in the future, fine. But it has nothing to do with the current situation and blaming Pailn's ad is just stupid partisan politics only.

The whole "context" situation Danivons suggests is a joke. The cross hairs simply target a seat they want to win. In that regard, yes they are indeed enemies, so the cross hairs fit even better, there is nothing wrong with comparing your opponent in any situation as the enemy. As pointed out Obama did so (and that was fine) we do it in sport, we do it here while playing a game, your opponents are indeed the enemy, that is simple basic human emotion. To try and paint Palin as in any way different here is frankly a bad idea, it's looking more and more petty and partisan politics as usual.

danivon wrote:Tom, the context is that 'my opponent is my enemy - and yours'. Not 'buy some cheap stuff here'.

Different contexts, different implications. Why this stuff is so hard to understand, I don't know.?

Well, I would disagree with your context there. I would say the context is we are bringing special attention to this district because we have a good chance of defeating the incumbent.