It's easy and probably natural for us to look for the quickest solution or cause to events that don't make sense. But a deranged person is not going to be thwarted by simplistic reactions. There are always ways of creating mayhem. Let's be fair for a bit: Both Republicans and Democrats have used "gun" symbols in their speech and writing. So do we in our daily lives. In business, we look for our deadlines to be "on target". We talk about outspoken people who "shoot from the hip". A reckless or lucky person might be called a "son of a gun" or "a pistol". And as Doctor Fate (love that handle) wittily noted, we may "jump the gun" from time to time. Why should politicians be different in this regard?

Whether political speech has become too "incendiary" (as some commentators ironically state, oblivious to their own words), the action of a homicidal paranoiac should not be used as a convenient excuse for dealing with a completely unrelated issue. From what I have seen, the writings of this murderer show no influence whatsoever of the political climate insofar as stating his specific encouragement from current political speech.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you can convince somebody to commit an illegal act by mere words, unless that person was already convinced of the need for that illegal action and needed an excuse or scapegoat. That is not sufficient grounds for legislating speech any more than a derogatory word in a book is grounds for revising its content.

So, should the career politicians we keep sending to Congress tone down their rhetoric? They will, of course, at least for awhile. Frankly, I'm more worried when politicians of different parties start getting too friendly and cooperative with each other.

Free speech in action...

(The militias had a lot in common with the tea party, including a misunderstanding of the constitution.)

Ricky does not like the tea party so he links them to the militias. We could just as easily claim Democrats do not understand the constitution. He can point to a nutjob member or two who do not understand just as I can point to a nutjob Democrat or two who does not understand, but such rhetoric sounds so much better when stated as factual as is Ricky's penchant.

do a quick Google search on Obama and target, you find all sorts of speeches that were "aimed" at certain "Target" markets. Nothing wrong with that but how is that different from Palin targeting certain districts? Simple idiocy trying to link Palin to this, insulting political crap out of tragedy!

Doctor Fate wrote:

Judging from his Youtube and other internet stuff at least. Though violent imagery in the political discussion probably didn't help the situation either.

Oh well. I could hope. Let's remember, it was the President who referred to the GOP as "enemies," etc. This country has a history of heated political rhetoric. It is not rhetoric that has caused political assassinations. It has been people deranged enough to think their actions would change the political equation in their favor. If rhetoric alone sufficed, we would have had massive political violence during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

That's why i said political discussion and not republican strategy, I'm sure there's plenty of bile going around and it's neither helpful nor necessary to use in debates.

GMTom wrote:do a quick Google search on Obama and target, you find all sorts of speeches that were "aimed" at certain "Target" markets. Nothing wrong with that but how is that different from Palin targeting certain districts? Simple idiocy trying to link Palin to this, insulting political crap out of tragedy!

Did they use gunsights? Where the target markets something they wanted to remove, or attract? Were individuals actually named as targets? Who used the word, Obama or one of his team, or the media?

Answer these questions, and you may get a clue as to what the difference is.

Doctor Fail wrote:You probably posted endlessly about political rhetoric when the Left was going after Bush, right?

I certainly did post about both sides being asses years ago.

You can now say it's "both sides," but is that how you started the thread?

Is it possible you jumped to a conclusion without all the facts and just have too much pride to admit you erred?

I submit the first part is possible, the second (too much pride) is likely, and the third (admission of error) is just not within you. You thought this was something it turned out not to be.

Pride I will admit to. You seem to think that because I only mentioned at first one 'side', that I believe there's only one 'side' to blame. That is not the case. I steered away from saying that it's only one side, it's just that in this case there were examples where the victim of an attack had been referred to by her opponents using metaphors for shooting her.

Dress that up all you like, but there's something deeply disturbing about that. It would be just as wrong if she'd still been a Republican and it had been Democrats who used that imagery. OK?

Please forgive the rhetoric.

I forgive you, in your ignorance, yes. You think you can read my mind. You cannot.

scarlatti wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you can convince somebody to commit an illegal act by mere words, unless that person was already convinced of the need for that illegal action and needed an excuse or scapegoat. That is not sufficient grounds for legislating speech any more than a derogatory word in a book is grounds for revising its content.

Well, the science behind advertising and propaganda suggests you can get people to act differently if they are given the right inputs. If that were not true, then advertising would be pointless. So can it be pushed to the point of illegality? An extreme example was in Rwanda, where the radio stations were pumping out bile to encourage massacres.

But let's be clear, I am not talking about legislating so much as calling for more self-restraint. I'm also hoping that people will stop supporting those who use such rhetoric.

So, should the career politicians we keep sending to Congress tone down their rhetoric? They will, of course, at least for awhile. Frankly, I'm more worried when politicians of different parties start getting too friendly and cooperative with each other.

You can be opposed to each other without making out that you would be happy to see each other dead. Perhaps there's some 'middle ground', such as having civilised and robust debate?

Nahhh, this is Yankland we are talking about.

Doctor Fate wrote:My point is that both sides do it. You say neither side "should." Rubbish. Both sides have always used vitriol. Who would stop it? The government? Responsible politicians?

Read that last phrase a few times and let it sink in. Politics is what it is. This shooting had nothing to do with political argumentation, campaigning, or any single issue. One psycho is not going to change American politics.

No, and it seems that least of all will people like you.

The Oklahoma bombing was what, if not massive political violence.

Fascinating. After the Ft. Hood shooting, liberals were quick to say the attack was not terrorism, was not related to Islam

And we now know that it was. I accept that he was motivated by Islam. But he also appears to have had personal issues as well.

In the Oklahoma bombing, there was no wider, associated movement.

Wrong. There was, it was the 'militia movement', of which he was a member.

We didn't see McVeigh's ideology spread or more such incidents. Yet, somehow, the OKC bombing is the Left's answer for everything--"Well, yeah, but what about McVeigh?" What about him? He was put to death--and rightfully so. Bad people do bad things. Crazy people do crazy things.

And he was politically motivated, taking cues from his colleagues in a political militia. It was also not out of a vacuum. What day did he do it on? The 2nd anniversary of Waco. What else influenced him? Ruby Ridge. It was not isolated, but it was the last major incident.

It's also unlikely he acted alone.

Palin, the Tea Party, and conservatives are not supporters of McVeigh. We don't defend him. We don't laud him. We don't stand for his crazy ideas.

Never said that you were supporters of him. I never said he was a Republican. But he was an example of massive violence during the Clinton years, which you denied happened. I wasn't trying to associate him with you, just remind you of an event you appear to have forgotten about.

Danivon, you are being disingenuous at best. You began this forum with an article that mentioned Palin as in some way her rhetoric or map were motivating this. YOU mentioned her by name.

Now, you've backed off to "everyone" does it. Fine, then why bring up Palin in the first place? All you've done since then is try and muddy the water by bringing in unrelated issues--like McVeigh. I've not forgotten about McVeigh. It has nothing to do with this incident. Zero.

Why is any of this incident politically motivated--as opposed to the actions of a madman? It seems your assessment is about as brilliant as the Sheriff. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/culture ... nsibility/

The most recent before Giffords:
source: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-19/b ... ams-mother

I don't know how many of you remember that twp cops were injured by a right wing nut inspired by Glen Beck to shoot members of the Tide Foundation back in July?
Its a little sad that the soul searching on the political vitriol is taking place now. Congress woman Giffords her self expressed her concern over the level of vitriol only a few months ago and specifically noted the Palin crosshairs. She seemed to think it was dangerous...
Whether or not this shooter was specifically motivated by the vitriol or not, does it really matter? If you go back through history political vitriol is inevitably followed by a violent act. McKinley assassination was said to be motivated by death threats actually published by the Hearst newspapers, and the fact it probably wasn't ended up meaning nothing, as the act made the original threats more clearly abhorrent. I think that Giffords shooting has the same effect. It clearly illustrates how dangerous and ugly the previous language, rhetoric, imagery and coded messages can be, and as a result nullifies their use for the next while. And probably disqualifies many of their adherents from "leadership" of more than just their over committed base of accolytes.
The point behind the soul searching has to be that unbalanced public discourse, created by the politicized media silos on cable news, talk radio and the internet are corrosive and add nothing to the advancement of ideas.
Further, this politicization and isolation has virtually destroyed the media's ability to comprehensively challenge dangerous notions and misconceptions about the Constitution, law and ideas in a productive fashion. I'm not sure, based upon reading about the Hearst newspapers campaigns against McKinley that this is in any way a new situation. Ratehr a recurring theme. And based upon the history, this shooting will cause a dampening of rhetoric, a little more courage to voices of moderation and a little more honesty within the media for a while.
Roger Ailes has apparently ordered Fox News to "Tone down the rhetoric". Seems to be an admission in that act doesn't it?

Green: Censorship is an absolute limit on "free Speech". There exist limits to the right to free speech that fall well short of censorship but are deemed necessary for a healthy democracy and a safe society.

The worship of the 2nd amendment, and the historical myths on gun ownership in the US, has lead to virtually unrestricted ownership and use of guns in many places in the US. It seems to me that restrictions are placed on all kinds of things: the kinds of cars allowed on the road, who can drive them, how you can drive them being an apt example. These restrictions make the same sense that certain limited restrictions on free speech make...
There should be the same kinds of restrictions placed on gun ownership that exist for cars. Indeed, even in the Wild West, where ownership and use of fire arms was necessary in the rural settings, urban settings like Tombstone Arizona were "gun free" and enforced as such.
It may indeed be that the second amendment needs to be revised to do so. But, as the reading of the Constitution in the House recently reminded many, the Constitution has undergone many changes to make it more perfect. Indeed the Constitution itself was written in reaction to "citizens insurrections" (Shays Rebellion, Whiskey rebellion), a kind of insurrection that many on the right now claim is part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment. A fundamental fallacy never confronted by politicians or the media...
But a fallacy that many in the Tea Party (And yes Tom, the Militias) hold in common.

By the way: on Fox I've read that one of the men (Zamudia) who finally subdued the shooter was actually armed. yet he didn't use his firearm. I don't know if this is true, but if so .... makes a mockery of the "If only someone had had a gun ,this wouldn't have happened rebuttal."





.

Because Palin used gun sights on targeted districts she is guilty of murder? The districts were targeted, targets have gunsights on them...big deal. I was watching football a few weeks ago and they went over the weather for each city hosting games, the map came up and a gunsight hovered over each city and then zoomed in, was this some sort of call to arms by NBC to blow up Buffalo?
Big deal, gunsights were used on targets!

Gunsights were never used over a persons image, big difference between their district and their person!

Taking the actions of a mad man and making a political statement out of them is pure rubbish and does nothing for your position but make you look foolish, guilty of a cheap shot (pun intended by the way)

RickyP:
You are saying that you find it ok to limit possession of firearms, but only curb speech a little bit? I am for punishing actions. If you scream fire in a theater, that is an action that should be punished. If you take a pistol and shoot a store clerk, that is an action that should be punished. If you take away guns because they can be used for criminal actions, are you willing to cut the larynx of everyone to ensure their voice is not used for criminal actions also? Should every man's penis be cut off because men can use them as a raping weapon? Certainly the difference can be seen between action and ability. Everybody has the propensity for evil. Only some employ that evil through action.

Or perhaps you think that the actions are the problem that should be addressed?

I am curious... Do you find Olbermann incendiary? How about Maddow or Dionne? Should their speech be limited as you seem to think Beck and O Reilly should be?

rickyp wrote:The most recent before Giffords:
source: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-19/b ... ams-mother

I don't know how many of you remember that twp cops were injured by a right wing nut inspired by Glen Beck to shoot members of the Tide Foundation back in July?

What does that have to do with this situation?

Second, has Glenn Beck promoted violence against the Tides Foundation?

Third, does the article you cite mention Glenn Beck? (answer: "no")

Fourth, did you happen to notice the shooter was an ex-con? From the article:

"Something snapped," she said. "His life is over. He will go back to prison for the rest of his life. Our lives are over."

Some things don't change. Your style of providing "proof" sure hasn't.

Its a little sad that the soul searching on the political vitriol is taking place now. Congress woman Giffords her self expressed her concern over the level of vitriol only a few months ago and specifically noted the Palin crosshairs. She seemed to think it was dangerous...

Did you notice that the Democratic Party did the same thing in 2004? It's called "political strategy," not "incitement to violence." You "target" certain areas with money because you think you can win

http://american-conservativevalues.com/ ... e-map.html

Who is trying to make this a political issue? Democrats. So far, Clyburn has proposed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (limits on talk radio) as a response. Sheriff Dupnik is blaming Rush Limbaugh. How is it possible that Jon Stewart is more rational about this than some of the posters here? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart- ... g-tragedy/

Whether or not this shooter was specifically motivated by the vitriol or not, does it really matter?

Yes. Look at the topic.

If you go back through history political vitriol is inevitably followed by a violent act.

Rubbish. Was there political vitriol during the Bush administration? Was there political vitriol during the Clinton administration? (And, no, none of the things said about Clinton led to OKC).

I think that Giffords shooting has the same effect. It clearly illustrates how dangerous and ugly the previous language, rhetoric, imagery and coded messages can be, and as a result nullifies their use for the next while. And probably disqualifies many of their adherents from "leadership" of more than just their over committed base of accolytes.

What evidence do you have, direct or indirect, to link the suspect with any particular faction or figure? Did he watch Beck? Listen to Limbaugh? Visit Palin's site?

Or, was he psychotic?

By the way: on Fox I've read that one of the men (Zamudia) who finally subdued the shooter was actually armed. yet he didn't use his firearm. I don't know if this is true, but if so .... makes a mockery of the "If only someone had had a gun ,this wouldn't have happened rebuttal."

It does nothing of the sort. There are many reasons he may have chosen to not use his firearm (others in the background, obstructed view, not mentally prepared, momentarily frozen, forgot he had it). We don't know.

That you are willing to engage in so much speculation is your issue. You have no evidence linking this shooter to rhetoric. That doesn't stop you. You don't know why he didn't shoot. That doesn't stop you from alleging the presence of guns accomplishes nothing, etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7 ... eedfetcher

Majority of Americans find no political rhetoric
and while the majority finds no blame, Democrats think so the most ...shows exactly the same here, only the most rabid liberals among us refuse to look at the facts of the situation and instead leap to conclusions (conclusions drawn for them I am sure)

Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon, you are being disingenuous at best. You began this forum with an article that mentioned Palin as in some way her rhetoric or map were motivating this. YOU mentioned her by name.

That may well be your inference. My intention was to point out that before she was shot, people who opposed her (it matters not much who or why) had publicly sent out messages that use shooting-related imagery and included Giffords' name. I'll come back to why at the end of this post.

Now, you've backed off to "everyone" does it. Fine, then why bring up Palin in the first place?

Actually, I don't say that "everyone" does it. There are many people in the US, people who are involved in politics, who do not use violent gun-related imagery which sets individual opponents up as a target. But Palin is mentioned because she did. Is this getting through?

If you want to spend all day hunting down similar references from the left, and then we'll see someone else finding others from the right, what does this show? Not that one side is better or worse. And certainly not that there is not a problem. What it shows is that along with Palin and Kelly, there are load of other irresponsible @#$! putting stuff out about their political opponents. I condemn them all, but not those moderates who refuse. Indeed, I commend those moderates and people even clearly on one side or the other who have also criticised this. Last autumn we had the "Rally to Restore Sanity" from Jon Stewart, a 'liberal'. This week we have had articles expressing what Palin did wrong from David Frum and Andrew Sullivan, 'conservatives'.

Good for Frum and Sullivan. Boo to those who appease or attempt to justify this crap.

All you've done since then is try and muddy the water by bringing in unrelated issues--like McVeigh. I've not forgotten about McVeigh. It has nothing to do with this incident. Zero.

Well, either McVeigh was a one-off madman who had not been influenced by wider political discourse, in which case he would be similar to what you are claiming Loughlen is. Or McVeigh was not a one-off, was influenced by wider events and was part of a movement which itself was hallmarked my militancy, in which case he may not be related to Loughlen, but he is related to the point that you were making. I didn't bring him in in relation to this incident, I mentioned him because you claimed no massive political violence had occurred during the Clinton Years. You opened the door, Doctor Fail.

Why is any of this incident politically motivated--as opposed to the actions of a madman?

Well, even madmen can be politically motivated. But that is not actually what I'm saying. I'll make it simple for you, ok?

1) It is bad that a man shot Giffords and the people with her because he wanted to kill her

2) It would be bad for people to incite someone to shoot Giffords

3) It is also bad to hint at shooting Giffords as part of a normal political campaign

Politicians like Palin and Kelly do not appear to have intended (2), but they certainly did not avoid (3). Is it it less bad than incitement? Yes. Does that comparison make it good? No

Does the fact that someone did shoot her alter the morality or sense of (3)? No, but it has served to highlight it. Sure, (2) would be much worse. But that doesn't make (3) OK.

Now, I do not see here many on the right saying that it is actually wrong for Palin and Kelly to do what they did. A lot of 'whataboutery'. A lot of moral indignation. A regular burning up of the straw man that I've claimed a direct link.

And from you, Dr Fail an actual expression of the belief that this is just the way that politics happens, and that there's no point trying to change it. I seriously started humming Bruce Hornsby and the Range when I saw that post (that great song about people who took on the "that's just the way it is" attitude and won, the spirit of the America I admire and respect, and is sadly lacking in the likes of you).

I've seen whining about how criticising the way that people have used violent imagery is the same as a clamour to censor them. Actually, you don't need to do that, and I didn't call for it. A far more effective remedy would be for those who may otherwise support them to stand up and say "No, I reject that irresponsible behaviour", to refuse to give them donations or vote, and to exercise some restraint yourselves.

In other words, America, man up!

GMTom wrote:Majority of Americans find no political rhetoric
and while the majority finds no blame, Democrats think so the most ...shows exactly the same here, only the most rabid liberals among us refuse to look at the facts of the situation and instead leap to conclusions (conclusions drawn for them I am sure)

So, let me get this straight, Tom.

32% of Americans, and 19% of Republicans, did feel there was some blame, in that poll. Are 19% of Republicans "rabid liberals" now?

Again, for the benefit of the hard of understanding:

Whether or not there is direct 'blame' on Palin and Kelly for the shooting is not the issue, as far as I am concerned. My concern is that the USA is sliding towards an increasingly polarised debate, one in which the increasing use of imagery of violence is likely to contribute to the increase in actual violence.